Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2008/June

Clips can be Considered Magazines
In modern parlance, the terms 'clip' and 'magazine' have generally become synonymous. This has occured through both linquistic and technological evolution, insofar as that even Merriam-Webster states one definition of 'clip' as meaning a 'magazine.' Linguistic evolution from the original meaning of words is common -- for instance, the word 'gun' now commonly refers to all firearms in modern usage; such is not exact to the original definition but is correct in modern linguistics and terminology. Even 'purists' often associate the term 'clip' with 'stripper clip,' a device to load a firearm magazine. However, historically the term 'clip' did not just apply to stripper clips and could refer to any piece of metal that secured ammo either inside or outside of a magazine. Thus, modern removable 'magazines' have been argued to have integral 'clips' in some 'purist' views of the term. And, those who are not as familiar with this definition of clip (but are clear about stripper clips) sometimes think that removable magazines don't have clips at all. Throughout the years, terminology arguments have been made such as "this is like calling a car a truck" and/or similar things... But, the fundamental problem with these arguments is that, as terms and technology evolve, we actually do find ourselvs asking questions like: are those mini-SUVs car's or a trucks? And moreover, when we look at the overall definitions of automobiles for instance, different DMVs have defined cars, trucks, SUVs, etc., in different ways (weight, designation, engine, etc.) and people even refer to the exact same vehicle as cars while others refer to them as trucks, and still others as SUVs. The thing to note here is that all of these terms are actually correct because no definition is linguistically perfect nor absolute; language is a contrivance and both language and technology evolve. Thus, we must understand the widespread evolution of the terms in language; after all, language is a tool of communication. When we have done this with the terms 'clip' and 'magazine' as they relate to firearms, even dictionaries have defined a meaning of 'clip' as a 'magazine.' We may try to argue with dictionary definitions and all that, but ultimately dictionaries are just expresing the modern evolution of the terms and what they mean today -- and their own definitions will vary from year to year and from dictionary to dictionary.CrimsonSage (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * True, Hollywood calls them clips, but they are the only ones. This isn't an evolution, it's a mistake made by the ignorant and perpetuated by the ignorant. The distinction is not only important, it is clearly defined and unambiguous.  Don't call a wrench a screwdriver even if Hollywood doesn't know the difference.  Websters?  How many definitions does Websters have for "clip"? The mistaken use of the word 'clip' is clearly addressed in the article as it is.  That is, actually, too much explanation. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading through your edit thoroughly, you seem to feel that both 'clip' and 'magazine' are either equal or that arguments for or against using the term 'clip,' when applied improperly to mean magazine should be voiced proportionately. This is a logical fallacy.  The same logic applies if you would give the same weight to the arguments baby rapists as you would to the parents of the child. One is clearly wrong and can be dismissed out of hand.  'Clip' is clearly wrong and always has been. It is to be dismissed without prejudice. The only place that term is used is outside of the firearms world. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hollywood isn't the only one who calls them 'clips.' The dictionary also calls them clips.  Your position is predicated on your particular belief in the definition, not the currently accepted definition.  However, you as an individual cannot dictate the definition.  It is not a mistake perpetuated by the ignorant, it is linguistic and technological evolution.  I do not think that you read my contribution to the artical completely before reverting it.  It did not thow out the original meaning, but it did clarify that not everyone holds the same definition (including the dictionary which agrees with me).  By doing this, you are perpetuating something that is 'not' clearly defined and unambiguous.
 * What your saying here makes zero logical sense; your analogy is (with all due respect) completely non applicable and fallacious. You are arguing with the dictionary and with decades of linguistic evolution, and the very basis of language itself, because of your particular 'definition' of clip which does not agree with the dictionary as it relates to firearms. In actuality, using the term 'clip' is not incorrect at all in the sense that from a linquistic and moden point of view, it is factually accurate.  The term 'clip' cannot be dismissed any more than you can tell someone that an SUV isn't a truck or car.  The term 'clip' has been used both inside and outside of the firearms world in reference to a 'magazine' and now it is an accepted dictionary definition.
 * You seem to feel that you can 'force' your own definition here, but this isn't your own personal publication. I would strongly urge you to take another look at what I wrote earlier. I did not eliminate the fact that some people (such as yourself) think that the terms are not interchangable (even though the modern Merriam-Webster'dictionary plainly says they are).  I think I have gone above and beyond what is required by the reference guidelines set forth by Wikipedia in giving your personal view extra credence. Additionally, your repeated deleting of my factual (and neutral) contributions is against the Wikipedia terms of use, of which you are subject to if you want to continue to contribute. Certainly, I will continue to update the page with the correct information.  Hopefully, you will reread my earlier contribution and appreciate the tone and content of my earlier edits.CrimsonSage (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a cool YouTube video on Logical Fallacies you'd enjoy as I see that you don't understand the particular fallacy you're speaking of. At any rate, clips are not magazines no matter what you say and what the particular dictionary you're quoting says.  Your entries are NOT factual and you refuse to accept volumes of, shall I say libraries of information that counters your one dictionary reference.  You also refuse to accept an analogy.  You, yourself, are violating about a dozen of these but the greatest of these is the Golden Mean.  It suggests that in every argument, there is a happy middle ground.  This is what my rapist analogy is, you are saying that somewhere inbetween your desire to mainstream the mistake (born of ignorance and perpetuated by ignorance) because the dictionary and Hollywood say so.  If you want to hear both sides, the arguments for and against child rape might say that child fondling and child pornography are okay, so long as you don't commit sodomy or rape, eh?  That's the mean position.  This is an absolute fact.  The definition of a clip is that it feeds a magazine.  The definition of a magazine is that it feeds the firing chamber.  These are facts, there is no Golden Mean. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is you who doesn't understand what is being said, or your own particular fallacy. In any case, I've also read through some of your other 'aguments' with contributors on Wikipedia.  Your arguments are often similarly flawed as they are here; they are not based in logic and fact but rather in your own personal beliefs. You cannot 'browbeat' this topic to consensus, period.  Clips are magazines not becuase 'I' say it, but becuase that is the currently accepted definition (straight from the dictionary and completely factual).  I am not disputing origins of the words or the archaic usages; indeed I have been clear in my edits that there is historical basis for why some people (such as yourself) have failed to see the evolution of the terms (in contrast to groups such as Merriam-Webster).  Consider the term 'gun' that is now used to describe virtually all 'firearms.'  In addition, note that it is you who did not accept my very reasonable analogy regarding SUVs vs cars vs trucks.  Instead, your wacky moralistic analogies don't even fit the structure of this debate.  And, this has nothing to do with your so-called 'Golden Mean,' it has to do with consensus (which, by the way is reflected in dictionary definitions).  You decided to delete my factual contributions becuase of your own ridged, personal dogmatic views without checking the facts first.  Also, your usage of "so-called" analogies is so off-base from a proper understanding of the powerful tool analogies provide that you don't really grasp the use of the concept.  In your 'analogies,' you are interjecting the bias of 'morality' and 'moral' viewpoints towards a 'technical' or 'linguistic' viewpoint regarding the evolution of a definition (in contrast what my proper analogy regarding SUVs, cars, and trucks does).  You're posturing an analogy of cultural, moral 'rights' and 'wrongs' towards a technical/linguistic 'definition' and equating the 'rights' and 'wrongs' -- and that's completely absurd.  It's like adding two fractions with different denominators.  The definition of a clip, according to both the dictionary and modern usage, can indeed mean a 'magazine' and that's just a pure and simple fact, even if you don't want to believe it.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, cool, whatever, TLDR. I just read your definition.  YOUR definition is a sidenote to my definition.  That's the only place I've ever seen it.  Funny you chose websters, why not OED or American Heritage or Wiktionary?  All I have to do is provide one counter-definition.  The problem is, ALL other definitions agree with me. Talk about browbeating, now you're using another fallacy that since YOU say that all of my other arguments suck, this one does to.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a fallacy to point out that you have used similarly flawed arguments in other debates. Please note that I did not draw a conclusion on this argument based on those other arguments at all. Rather, I investigated your other arguments to see if you had a pattern of approching a discussion/debate in a similarly agressive/negative fashion (i.e., sticking dogmatically to your own personal beliefs and simply deleting good, factual contributions rather than trying to reach a higher level of understanding).  Understand it is not correct that all you have to do is provide one counter-definition to make 'your' definition correct -- rather, if there are clear, strong counter definitions to these terms (i.e., from other dictionaries or authoritative references) then becuase of the dictionary counter definition there is simply no modern consensus.  And, this was one point I was trying to make in my original edit.CrimsonSage (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdented) I agree with CrimsonSage - this is a serious problem. The term in common usage conflates clips (en-bloc clips, stripper clips) with magazines proper. The engineering terms are distinct, but the usage in practice is unified. As a general rule Wikipedia does not adopt precise technical terminology to the confusion of those familiar with common usage - we use the common usage, and then explain the precise technical meanings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you asked for a counter definition, the Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines a clip as "a spring-loaded or flexible device used to hold an object or objects together or in place." While a magazine (in the context of firearms) is "a chamber holding cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun". Now, as we can clearly see, magazines do not fit the definition of clip as set forth here, because a magazine is not designed to hold them together or in place, but to feed them consistently and automatically into the chamber or breech. I suppose the best wording to express both sides would be to say that magazines are frequently misidentified as clips, but in proper firearms terminology a clip is something else. Perhaps we could go as far as to say that magazines are frequently called clips colloquially, but in proper terms a clip is used to load a magazine, while a magazine feeds cartridges into the chamber.--LWF (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a lengthy disambiguation statement in the introduction to the article. "Clip is an incorrect term that is often used in place of magazine. Clips are used to feed magazines while magazines load cartridges into a firearm chamber. The cartridges in the magazine are loaded into the firearm either automatically or manually depending on the type of gun. Most often, the cartridge is brought into loading position by spring pressure. Some magazines are in turn loaded by a clip." This statement can certainly be reworded, but CS is not asking for that, he is suggesting that Clip means Magazine, and it most certainly does not. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not factual, though. First, you must look up the 'clip' dictionary definition as it commonly pertains to firearms (as was done in Merriam-Websters, etc. similary as was done with 'magazine'). These definitions are clearly virtually synonymous in modern firearms technology and in common parlance.  In addition, I also checked American Heritage which gives a similar definition that is general enough to be synonymous.  Note that the basic debate about linguistical evolution remains; we cannot disregard the evolution of terms and none of these definitions can be construted as exclusive.  Unfortunately, as much as we may want to, we cannot say there is a misidentification when the terms are generally used interchangeably and backed up by generally held linguistic consensus and authority.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, there are two major categories of clip. Stripper clip is used to hold "loose" ammunition together for eventual loading into a magazine, and may be part of a magazine loading system with some additional hardware (for detachable magazines) or as part of the gun (for stripper clips and internal magazines, for some guns like the SKS).  The en-bloc clip a la Garand rifle goes beyond that - it becomes part of the magazine system inside the gun.  You don't strip the cartridges out of an en bloc clip - you load it into the internal magazine, and it functions as the feed structure and lips for the internal magazine.  So the proposed engineering definition here isn't even entirely right...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. As I had mentioned earlier, even the technical term 'clip' has had a several meanings, and even many of those who consider themselves 'purists' or 'knowledgable' aren't well versed in them. You will get a dozen different arguments about why this is the 'real' clip definition, etc.  But, the functional integration of a clip and the magazine (in certain systems) was one of technical evolution, which also complicates the definitions.  It has been argued that most of the detachable systems today are magazines with the 'clip,' per se, really becoming an integral part of the the mechanism that insures the ammo is held properly within the magazine; in essense, merging the mechanisms.CrimsonSage (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, could you please take a quick look at the earlier contributions I had made to this article (those contributions which were repeatedly deleted) and let me know your opinions? The particular user who insisted on constantly deleting them referred to them as disruptive (but I'm not sure he/she even read them).  In fact, I think they were quite constructive and expressed the dictionary consensus fairly well (while still giving note to the concept that some people hold strong viewpoints towards specific definitions -- definitions, which actually may not even be technically correct let alone linguistically absolute).CrimsonSage (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * George, you're confusing yourself on this one. The en-bloc clip is not a magazine and not part of the magazine even when inserted into the firearm. The definition still holds, and is sound, when you throw en-block clips (used on only two production rifles IIRC) into the fray.  The clip still feeds the magazine and the magazine still feeds the firing chamber.  That is not what CS is talking about, though, and even the en-bloc clip is CLEARLY defined under the M1 Garand and stripper clip articles. This is the magazine article and not the clip article.  Magazines are NOT clips as CS has stated (and yes, CS, I kept stupidly reading your posts to see if any made sense, though your talk page posts proved too tedious. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, George is not confusing anything. He most certainly gets the concept at the root of this discussion.  Unfortunately, I don't think you are grasping the concept of the discussion. Before I dealve into that, I must comment that it is not "stupid" to read contributions, and deleting factual contributions is a violation of the Wikipedia policy. I do plan to re-correct the article with my earlier edits, probably after I build a consensus but possibly before.  You need to understand that if you continue to abuse the Wikipedia system, then you will not be allowed to contribute -- it's that simple.  Second, this discussion goes far beyond the en-bloc clip. You are now simply "arguing with Webster," and, while it is your right to do so, such has no place in an encyclopedic entry where referenced dictionary definitions are a critical component.  Understand that this is not your 'pet' publication; just because you 'believe' what you are saying is correct doesn't make it so, especially regarding linguistic definitions which are subject to evolution and interpretation.  I suggest that you go back and actually READ the contributions to the talk page posts and my earlier edits again.  It seems like you are adverse to learning - this rigidly closed view will prevent you from actually reaching a higher level of understanding.  My contributions make sense, and they are factually accurate.  It would be much more productive (and far less disruptive) if you would concentrate your attention on trying to understand the concepts rather than dogmatically sticking to a particualr belief.  You have yet to demonstrate even a kernel of reasonability in your position whatsoever.CrimsonSage (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TLDR. You're placing disputed content on the page without a concensus... knowing it's disputed.  Before you quote Wikipedia 'guidelines' and call them policy, you should ensure you're following that policy yourself. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The recent content placed in the page is factual, derived from a verifiable reference. I did not delete the existing definitions and included the actual, dictionary definitions as reasonable during a consensus discussion -- all content was neutral tone and included all the content of the prior definition, PLUS the dictionary definitions.  We must have these netural factual definitions which are readily verifiable while we develop topic consensus.  You are in violation of the Wikipedia guidlines as you are forcing your particular belief and definitions when these are not part of the factual definiitions in common usage.  Moreover, if you refuse to read the 'Talk' page in consensus discussions, so you cannot be part of the consensus (i.e., your constant TLDR comments).  You have now deleted my contributions numerous times, again violating the Wikipedia guidelines. You feel that somehow you are 'entitled' to force your opinion onto the page, when this is not your publication.  I have been very patient in this matter, but you insist on repeatedly violating the Wikipedia terms of use.CrimsonSage (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One question CS, if you wanted to know the formal, legal definition of "Discovery", would you go to any old dictionary, or would you consult a legal dictionary? It's the same way with firearms, some of the terms have a certain proper meaning, and most run-of-the-mill dictionaries aren't going to get it right, but a firearms dictionary (if such a thing exists) would have a different definition that would actually be more accurate in terms of proper use.--LWF (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Clips be good for grubing my gat wit bullets," might be common and understood; that doesn't mean it's right. Because ignorant people and Hollywood use the term, more ignorant people who write dictionaries will repeat the mistake; again it doesn't make it right.  How many times to you hear the word, "bullet" used when "cartridge" is what is meant?


 * LWF, the formal, legal definition of the term 'Discovery' will evolve with use and context; it means something today and might mean something different tomorrow. In fact, in law we often examine such terms as were used at the time writing to determine the 'actual' meaning for that time (often, the terms mean something quite different). For instance, the term 'well regulated' in the Second Amendment clearly (and unambiguoulsy) means 'well trained', 'well prepared', 'in proper working order'; the framers often used that term 'regulated' (and within that particular context) to indicate what we would commonly (today) mean 'well trained,' or akin to 'well prepared' or 'in proper working order' today. Of course, today it is not 'incorrect' to use the term 'well trained' and/or 'well prepared' in regards to militia, simply because the term 'well regulated' was originally used. Realize that the argument being made against including the modern usage of 'clip' is analogous to saying that it would be 'incorrect' to call a militia as 'well trained' simply because militia can only be 'well regulated' as that is how they were referred to in one historical context. And that's utter nonsense, we understand the linquistic evolution of the terms. Similarly, the term 'regulated' today can mean a variety of things that were simply not part of the language at the time of the framers (such as being confused with the modern term 'regulation,' of which there is no connection in this context). Thus, if one uses that term 'well regulated' today, then even if such a use is historically and technically correct, it could be wrongly conveyed without providing proper historical context. Therefore, when we talk about magazines and clips, we must look at the modern terminology. And, we do this by finding the concensus view (which is a dictionary). When we do this, it states that clips and magazines are synonymous; or rather that calling a 'magazine' a 'clip' is not incorrect; it is a linguistic evolution of the terms. I am aware of several historically different definitions of clips. If we were to look in a firearms dictionary, we would need to look at the historical context of the terms and the era in which it was written. Note that none of these terms are 'absolute'; they evolve with use. If someone were to compile a firearms dictionary today it would only be their view/opinion of the term -unless- they developed a concensus and addressed the historical perspective (which any good dictionary would do).CrimsonSage (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, to further respond to the comment -- "Clips be good for grubing my gat wit bullets,..." -- First of all, its not just 'ignorant people and Hollywood' that use such modern termionology. People are not ignorant if they don't agree with 'your' particular definition.  The phrase you use "clips be good for grubing my gat wit bullets" does not constitute modern, common terminology.  Regarding the term 'bullet' as referring to the entire 'cartridge' today, mostly the term 'cartridge,' is used, but the term 'bullet' may one day replace the term 'cartridge,' with 'cartridge' becoming archaic and 'bullet' taking this meaning, depending on the technological and linguistic evolution.  Indeed, the term 'bullet' has already evolved from the original meaning (and not becuase of ignorace or Hollywood).  Here's another example:  What about the term 'chip'? When we talk about integrated circuits, we often call them 'chips.' Some people feel that technically, a 'chip' is only the lead-less form; others say it really is just part of a silicon wafer. Still others will call a single transistor a 'chip.'  It is not 'incorrect' to use any of these terms becuase of the modern common usage. If we stuck with all archaic definitions there would be zero lanaguage evolution; that's not the way linguistics work.  Calling a 'magazine' a 'clip' is akin to calling a 'packaged integrated circuit' a 'chip.' It's the evolution of applied language; referring to a 'magazine' as a 'clip' is not incorrect, as the dictionary concensus holds.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference being I'm not an expert computers expert but I am a firearms expert. Nobody has ever corrected me.  Speak with any firearms expert and use the term clip wrongly and you will be quickly corrected.  If you're going to suggest that I should acquiesce based on the fact that ignorance will prevail, I'm going to suggest to you that that merely strengthens my resolve that much more.  Also, you dismiss my ghetto phrasology, but understand that is the way your logic is leading us.  Terms like "gat" and "grub" are being used s I've used them much more commonly than you might know.  This may not be true in the circles you or I run in, but people that work for me speak in terms much more colloquial than that.  These are the people you suggest should drive the english language?  Not on my watch.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Asams10, it does not matter 'what kind' of an expert you may (or may not) be. This is not about ignorance and/or not knowing 'supposed' terminology. I have had this discussion with others in the field and many have agreed with me (sometimes it's taken a lot of debate).  My 'chip' example was just to illustrate that these tpyes of arguments (i.e., definition-based) happen because people cling to a particular view which becomes generally archaic.  I used that 'chip' example becuase it is outside this discussion and thus you might understand it from a different viewpoint.  As I've said, it's not about ignorance and it's actually exactly the opposite -- it's about grasping the concept of definitions and linguistic communication.  I've been descriptive in my numerous examples when illustrating my position.  But, this so-called 'discussion' can't progress untill you fully read my posts and/or grasp the concepts I'm relating.  My feeling is that you are not really trying to understand it.  It seems as if you have no intention to reach any higher ground during this discussion.  Note, my logic is not leading us to the ghetto.  If you would read my entire Talk comments, you might actually understand that.  Just because one or another term is used does not create a 'ghetto' vocabulary -- indeed, the 'ghetto' vocabulary is such becuase it is NOT considered proper modern English.  And, if it ever did become 'proper' modern English, then people in that society would argue 'that' language was so-called 'proper.' Do you understand this?  Modernizing terms and dealing with common usage and linquistic evolution does not make the language 'ghetto,' if it is understood to be proper within the context of modern communication. The term 'chip' didn't make engineers 'ghetto.'  Think 'record player'='phonograph', 'casette player'='tape player', 'television'='TV', 'coat'='jacket', 'stereo=radio' etc., etc.  Do you know the 'best' way for the English language to evolve? And do you think it means keeping what we would call current, proper, modern English completely static?  Are you going to control and dictate the language of people based on your particular current understanding and views?  Do you understand this?CrimsonSage (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Asamuel - I am going to repeat myself here, but... It's a matter of Wikipedia policy that the common, standard names for things be used preferentially for Wikipedia articles. Clip and Magazine are in common standard usage interchangable. Wrong from the engineering point of view or not, that's reality. It's not just hollywood - Firearms magazines and writers sometimes interchange them, people at shooting ranges, military types, etc. The usage has blurred throughout essentially the whole user community other than the very narrow technical engineering profession associated with firearms. The line you're asking to draw in the sand here on this point is contrary to Wikipedia policy and reality. Language evolves over time. You have to accept what Wikipedia policy is on this point and the reality of the usage of the word. Please don't paint yourself into a corner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the premise that clip and magazine are in common standard usage interchangeably outside of Hollywood and the ignorant. I also disagree that firearms magazines and writers use these terms with any measurable regularity.  Those that do can fall into the realm of poor editing and items requiring a correction printed in the next issue.  Language evolves over time, yes, but this isn't the "urban dictionary".  You don't call women "bitches" and "whores" in an article on Women though these are common terms used by an ignorant few, why would you let an ignorant few co-opt this term as well?  Apathy? As much time as you spend on Wikipedia, I doubt it.  This is why Rome fell, if you'll pardon my tangent.  Not enough people caring about such things.  When you let the lunatics run the asylum, nothing good can come from it. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to dial it down about three notches. The argument you're using here is ludicrous.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Asamuel -- I have given you the courtesy of reading your comments. I would appreciate if you would read my comments in their entirety (and also give them thought), becuase I can tell by reading your posts you did not read my last comments. Realize that using the term 'record-player' instead of 'phonograph,' or 'chip' rather than 'IC' does not make one ignorant. There are alot of people that know firearms, and use these terms interchangably. Also, it doesn't seem like you've understood my earlier post about 'moralistic' analogies versus 'linguistic' ones.  'Women' can be called 'females', or 'ladies' (as in 'Women's Room,' or 'Ladies Room'). The term 'lady,' for instance, has changed over time (and, it's generally not used as much currently).  But, the terms you chose involve meanings commonly considered moralistically derrogatory terms; a 'clip' (as related to firearms) is not commonly considered a moralistically derrogatory term, it's a linguistic definition without such a moral connotation. Now, you say things like: 'This is why Rome fell?' and '...let the lunatics run the asylum..." and such, because of evolutions in a linguistic definition? I mean, with all due respect, do you know how that sounds?CrimsonSage (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In my book a clip has no springs and is used to load an (internal) magazine. A magazine can be detachable and has springs to feed the cartridges. Sometimes misused but not that difficult to understand it I think. Hollywood has gotten it wrong a couple of times though. --Boris Barowski (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Boris -- Yes, that's one view. And some may argue that view. Some may even argue that a 'clip' must become an integral part of the firearm mechanism to be considered a 'clip.'  But, the point here is that this information should be available to the researcher so that they may understand the historical, linguistic, and technical definitions (and debates) surrounding the terms 'magazine' and 'clip.' In this case, such information is being purposfully censored out of the article because 'one person' is trying to push a particular viewpoint; and, this is completely wrong.  We cannot ignore the linguistical evolution of the terms and modern terminology. These terms have become synonymous for a slew of reasons, just like the term 'stereo' is commonly used for 'radio,' or 'chip' for 'integrated circuit.'  To include contributions which clarify and describe such usages, along with the technical and historical perspectives is hugely important.  This is a cornerstone of the entire Wikipedia process, and very contrary to Wikipedia policy and terms-of-use to egotistically and dictatorially censor contributions and force one particular individual viewpoint (which may not even be generally accepted), insofar as to delete the solid, verifiable consensus references (such as Merriam-Webster's dictionary) becuase it disagrees with one's personal belief.  Such is a blatant violation of Wikipedia terms-of-use.CrimsonSage (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to formulate a neutral version on the article. It could still do with some better references for the interchangeable usage (although I do know anecdotally that people, even experts, may use the terms pretty loosely). --John (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi John, I saw your edit and it is certainly a step in the right direction. Please take a look at some of my earlier edits to get a feel for the kinds of additional detail that should be included.  Importantly, I think that the term "confused" is not really accurate.  The terms (and the people) don't get confused, they simply are used interchangably because that's where the linguistic terms have evolved along with the evolutions in technology.  My example of "cassette-player" vs. "tape-player" or any of the millions of other examples demonstrate this.  In Merriam-Webster's, for instance, the dictionary plainly states that a 'clip' can refer to a magazine; and that's an excellent, accepted reference which represents the modern concensus view of the term.  While some may continue to debate ad infinitum because of thier own personal beliefs, the fact that 'clip' is now generally synoymous with 'magazine' in both the modern dictionary definition and also in modern parlance must certainly be noted (along with the historical view, several possible technical definitions, and the concept that the current, modern, and exact technical meaning is often a subject of debate).CrimsonSage (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words, CrimsonSage. I assure you that I did read the article history and this talk page before making my edit. I see the problem has arisen between you and another editor who differ about exactly how this controversy should be handled. My suggestion is that the article should follow the sources as closely as possible. My wording is not intended to reflect any particular allegiance to one side or the other of the disagreement; rather, per WP:NPOV, it is intended to report the controversy without taking sides. If you feel the wording should be tweaked further, please make a specific proposal here with a reference (and a dictionary is not a good reference) and we can decide where we want to go. This is a rehash of the ancient debate between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics; as such there is no "right" answer and the solution for this article will be found in a compromise.--John (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks John. Actually, I am only on the side of the would-be researcher and feel that BOTH definitions and any information that is pertinent should be included so that anyone reseaching this article knows the past, present, historical, modern, and technical definitions in as concise form as possible.  All of this information is important.  I would have to completely -disagree-, however, that a dictionary is not a good reference with respect to modern lingiustic definitions; dictionaries have long been held as the 'principle' reference for modern linguistic definition.  They are both reviewed and reliable, and while they may not contain every single possible definition or complete unambiguity in perfection, it is absolutely appropriate to site a dictionary reference as part of modern linquistic terminology.  That is completely consistent with Wikipedia policy.  Not to be redundant here, but including both definitions and explaining them with context is (in my opinion) the proper approach.  I feel that my earlier article contributions (i.e., my last article edit, for instance) was already a good compromise from that perspective, as it added additional factual information and did not disturb the concept that there are certain technical definitions (and, it included one particular definition that was there previously).  Even so, note that there is a technical argument which is a separate debate that will need to be adressed after this 'compromise,' because there are several subtleties to the current technical view that are also not generally accepted (both related to and unrelated to the linguistic evolution).  Also, I must stand by my assertion that the term 'confused' (as explained previously) is not an accurate description for the reasons I cited earlier.  In any case, I will work on the language some and see if we can come to a concensus overall.CrimsonSage (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be over-analyzing this one instance of linguistic evolution though. These articles are primarily about the things, not the words that describe the things. This official policy may be of interest and I think has some relevance. From the table: "Wikipedia: Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. Wiktionary: Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." I think for our purposes it is enough to note the way the words' meanings seems to be changing (and a gun-based reference for that would be vastly better than a dictionary for that purpose), and leave it at that. The bulk of the article should be about the thing and not the name. Beyond that, we can maybe come up with a better word than "confused"; what would you suggest? What do others think? --John (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could say that magazines are commonly called clips, colloquially?--LWF (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * John, I actually agree with you here, and it has been the position I've maintained throughout. But you must understand that the reason I was forced to analyze this so much is because my original contributions (which were already, for the greater part, inclusive of 'everything' we have now discussed -- and reasonable in form, language, and neutral tone in line with policy), were simply 'deleted' (repeatedly) with no attempt at compromise language whatsoever. As you know, that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy (specifically using reverts to force a particular opinion without first attempting a language compromise). In any case, in the process of trying to explain the concept, I was basically 'forced' to present this ridiculously disproportionate overkill and analysis in regards to the topic. I am doing this much more becuase of principle than the specific instance; if we allow Wikipedia to degrade becuase we turn our back toward blatant violations and disruptive users (and/or decide it's 'not worth the effort') then the whole concept gets destroyed.  With all that said, I must still say that the use of a dictionary (as an accepted reference) is well established and completely reasonable, but I also have no problems with 'additional' references so long as they are valid references (i.e., not some personal website or user's opinion). I would also maintain that there is absolutely no good reason why solid and substantial information should be excluded from articles in Wikipedia. Such is a major principle of Wikipedia, and very useful to researchers so long as it meets the content guidelines... Thus, if there are 10 or 100 or 1000 different accepted, historical, and/or debated meanings of 'clip' as specifically related to firearms, then they should be included in a section of the article (most researchers would obviously want this information)...  Getting back, I agree that the meanings seem to be changing, and as far as the word 'confused,' I think that LWF's sugesstion is pretty good.CrimsonSage (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this article should contain the statement, "The magazine is commonly referred to as a clip" as it makes it appear that the substitution of "clip" for "magazine" is appropriate or acceptable, and it is neither. It would be more correct to say that magazines are often erroneously referred to as clips. But just as cartridges are not bullets because they are commonly misnamed as such by the ignorant, magazines are not properly called clips. And just as a bullet can be an integral part of a cartridge, a clip can be an integral part of a magazine (e.g., M1 Rifle and Carcano en bloc clips). In such situation, the clip and the magazine are obviously different parts, and one cannot properly be called the other. I believe it is therefore incumbent on an encyclopedia entry to decisively differentiate the two terms and reject the idea that clip can be called magazines except in error.--Ana Nim (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments against the point you are making has been well discussed on this page. While that may be your particular belief, there is no consistent absolute definition of these terms.  Factually, the inexactness and debate that ensues does not support your conjectures.CrimsonSage (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Substitution of "clip" for "magazine", while incorrect, IS common, and that's precisely what the article says, with references to back it up (after all, if it weren't a common usage, this argument wouldn't exist). An encyclopedia, like a dictionary, is descriptive, not prescriptive; we can say that calling a magazine a clip is not technically correct, and point out why, but it is not our place to suppress the fact that it is a common usage.  By facing the fact that the term is mis-used, the article can let the reader determine if it's a case of sloppy language or evolving usage, which is exactly why I'm here, doing what I'm doing:  Our goal...is to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet.  ...empowering people everywhere to have the information they need to make good decisions. Jimmy Wales: How a ragtag band created Wikipedia 1:40, 1:57 scot (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Such is -not- 'incorrect,' per se, as both the references and modern terminology attest. Although 'you' (or some) may consider it incorrect from 'your' particular current definition/viewpoint, this argument continues in many circles and on many fronts. I think that we have already explored the fact that real world examples do not fit precisely into any of the 'expert' definitions that we referenced. Moreover, the definitions 'themselves' are inconsistent. Thus, it is clear that the terms are inexactly defined. Therefore, arguing 'incorrectness' in interchanging these terms (which are both inexactly defined 'and' already widely interchanged) is simply not accurate with regards to the body of evidence.CrimsonSage (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of "clip" and "magazine" from firearms experts
Just because I've not dug through the arguments yet, here's a topical, independent source, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute firearms glossary:

MAGAZINE

1. A building for the storage of either ammunition or its components.

2. A recepticle for a firearm that holds a plurality of cartridges or shells under spring pressure preparatory for feeding into the chamber. Magazines take many forms, such as box, drum, rotary, tubular, etc. and may be fixed or removable.

CARTRIDGE CLIP

A separate cartridge container to hold cartridges or shells in proper sequence for feeding into a specific firearm. It is a magazine charger, and unlike a magazine does not contain a feeding spring. Sometimes improperly called a Magazine.

MidwayUSA, a large retailer of firearms parts and supplies, has these definitions in its glossary:

Definition for "magazine" : A storage, transportation and feeding container for ammunition. Magazines can be fixed within the firearm, detachable, curved, storing anywhere from two rounds to upwards of a hundred. Magazines are generally spring-powered; that is, a spring pushes from the baseplate against the follower, pushing the cartridges upward to the feed guides, where a cartridge is stripped off and chambered one at a time. Modern usage interchanges 'magazine' with 'clip'. See also: cartridge clip

Definition for "cartridge clip" : Technically, a clip is any type of cartridge-holding device used to load magazines (either fixed or detachable). Common usage, though, frequently interchanges the term 'clip' with 'magazine'. The first successful cartridge clip was invented by Austrian engineer Ferdinand von Mannlicher. Also known as a 'stripper clip' in military jargon, and as a 'charger' in England. See also: magazine

Calling a magazine a clip is just like saying "nook-yu-lur bomb"; it's commonly encountered, but is technically incorrect, which I think is a point that should be made clear. Clip fed firearms are few and far between; the Garand is one of the few commonly encountered in the US, and given the wartime production, arguably the most common made. The differences between the types of magazines, and possibly cartridge clips, should also be made clear; box magazines, internal magazines, drum magazines, rotary magazines, pancake magazines; stripper clips or chargers, en-bloc clips, and maybe other types. scot (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Notice that in the definitions, they talk about the common usage being interchangable.  This does not generally imply that such a usage is held as incorrect, per se (even though in your view, you feel it is technically incorrect).  Please be sure to dig through the arguments in the above messages (in detail) to hone in on the nature of the discussion regarding both technical and linguistic evolution (and as to the nature of terminology used in Wikipedia itself). In short, the debate is not about focusing on such individual 'technical opinions' regarding the narrow technical corectness/incorrectness as defined by one held definition of 'clip' (and that is actually another debate). The discussion is on the way to include the idea that in common useage, the terms are interchangable and such is not incorrect when viewed in the context of modern parlance.  In my view, there is no problem with also including other held, narrow technical definitions (but Wikipedia generally avoids this), and I see no reason why we should not include all pertinent, referencable information so that researchers have the best and most complete information possible.  (As a side note, that's another interesting example using "nook-yu-lur", a mispronunciation that is now becoming generally accepted linguistically, however, I think an even better examples are "record player" vs "phonograph" or "integrated circuit" versus "chip" as both are specific, properly pronounced terms generally used interchangably).CrimsonSage (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that's why I suggested that we say that clip is used colloquially to describe magazines. From a strictly technical standpoint such as that expressed by SAAMI, it is not quite accurate to call a magazine a clip, but in terms of linguistics, it is an accepted colloquialism.--LWF (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it. Could we use these as reliable sources for changing the statement to something like


 * A clip is used to feed magazines while magazines load cartridges into a firearm chamber,[1] although in practice the two terms are often used interchangeably.


 * Would everyone be happy with that formula? Or else suggest amendments I suppose. --John (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, there are two discussions going on here. The one we 'were' talking about and the one we are now talking about.  The earlier one was the general idea that, in Wikipedia, we cannot limit factual, referenced information that pertains to the article topic.  I think most of us have agreed on this one (not sure about Asamuel though). With that said, I think that (at least while we continue this discussion), we cannot exclude adding ANY/ALL of these referenced definitions to the article (including the dictionary definitions) as they do not all connotate exactly the same thing and are valuable for researchers. I would also say that, in addition to including the referenced definitions, we can use the basic language suggested by LWF in the interim as we continue the next (technical) part of the discussion.  In my view, the definitions given by 'midwayusa' for instance, ackowledges the modern usage without claiming specific bias or correctness of either (interchangable) term. Note that I would -not- be in agreement with putting an information 'cap' on this article; there are a ton of additional things that can/should be said about magazines, including from the perspective of a technical definition.  For instance, one of those 'expert' definitions above claims that magazines hold cartridges or shells under spring pressure -- well, does the Lewis drum magazine fit that particular so-called 'expert' technical definition of a 'magazine'(?); I would argue it doesn't fit it precisely.  Yet, the intro definition we are using is that magazines load cartiges into a firearm chamber (and no mention of springs when both expert definitions above make at least some mention of them). My point here is that everyone thinks they have this 'perfect' technical definition but it's neither accurate nor absolute.  The terminology has evolved with the technology and continues to do so. I think there needs to be alot more information in this article, and it's the purpose of Wikipedia to insure that valuable information is not excluded because of some personal biases or beliefs.CrimsonSage (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my point above about Wiktionary versus Wikipedia. This is an article about the magazine, not about the word, and we don't really want to focus too much on its etymology or how the meaning has evolved. Having said that, in principle you are right and there is no bar against proposing well-referenced additions here in the future and adding them to the article if they attain consensus. --John (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I've read every single word of everything everyone has said; and, in general I agree with you. I'm also glad you're in agreement that we should not limit the article with regards to relevant, referenced information. There is no reason why well referenced definitions would be excluded, and if technical definitions are themselves contrary, as have been demonstrated here (or there are examples that don't fit the definitions) then such should be openly discussed and included.  These things are immensely valuable for researchers.  Note that this discussion is just as much for general principle and policy as it is for specifics.CrimsonSage (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think an even better examples are "record player" vs "phonograph" or "integrated circuit" versus "chip" as both are specific, properly pronounced terms generally used interchangably." Well, you're incorrect.  A 'record player' is a 'phonograph' and an 'integrated circuit' is a 'chip' by their definition.  These are other names for the same thing.  By your classification, you're calling a 'CD player' a 'phonograph'.  You're calling an 'IC' a 'diode'. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Asamuel -- Actually, you've just made MY point here. For example, applying some historical, technical definitions, an 'integrated circuit' is -not- a 'chip' and there are some people that believe that so strongly that they get completely incensed by that. But, most everyone now uses those terms interchangably and it's not incorrect to do so. Note, the term 'CD player' is basically NEVER used to refer to a 'phonograph' in modern terminology so the terms have stayed separate; thus, that example is not analogous to the one we are discussing.  However, this is not so with 'clip' and 'magazine' which are generally interchangeable (just like "IC" and "chip").  Now as a side note, and based on the above 'expert' definitions (i.e., a spring being part of a magazine) what is the ammunition holder/feeder in the lewis gun?  We almost always say 'drum magazine.' This conflicts with the expert definitions (and those 'expert' definitions conflict with our 'own' definition here); my point being that such is not an 'exact' definition, and we need to include those facts in the article by including ALL relevant information.CrimsonSage (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We get this all the time, with technical terms that have come into common usage with a somewhat different meaning. We don't have to argue about which is right, or best- we can just explain both usages. Why would this be a problem? Friday (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Friday - Exactly! But, that's largely what this debate is about (and the language used to do so).  There is one editor who is adamant that 'his' particular substandard ridigly held definition be used exclusively. However, there are several inconsistent technical definitions of both the terms 'clip' and 'magazine,' not to mention that they are generally used interchangeably in common usage and also quite often used interchangably by manufactures and the firearms community (see the references and discussions on this page for more information).  There is no reason why we cannot (or shoud not) include ANY/ALL of the different technical definitions and the modern linquistic usages as related to the object (i.e., not the 'word definition,' per se).  To this goal, we have developed some acceptable interim language in consensus, while we continue to debate the specific, narrow technical definitions of the terms (which are separately under debate). Wikipedia should not censor nor limit useful, verifiable information that would be valuable to researchers simply becuase one editor wants to force a particular belief.  In attempts to conducivly work with that editor, we have needed to analyze this topic to a far greater extent than what might be expected (but it is not clear that all the discussion is even being read).CrimsonSage (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization
I reorganized things, tightened some sections up, and hopefully covered the clip vs. magazine vs. Lewis gun vs. hopper feed debate in what I hope is a clear and concise manner. The big hole in the article right now is lack of sources--right now it's just got the SAAMI glossary definitions I added. Anyone care to take a stab at filling in some good references? scot (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps unsurprisingly I preferred my own version; but I agree that what we really need are better references. --John (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I'm generally OK with these revisions (good first pass actually), I don't think that we are doing enough to illustrate the 'inexact' nature of the terms and/or just how 'inexact' and loose these technical definitions actually are. I mean, we talk about strict technical differences between clip and magazine but the definitions themselves are loose. So, it seems we are trying to define a term more exactly then the examples will allow, without enough of phrases like 'in a general sense,' etc.  We don't state well enough how these terms don't strictly apply.  But, bottom line and overall, I think there is a general bias among most of us here to strongly define the terms 'clip' and 'magazine' in a somewhat stricter sense and beyond what their current definitions, modern usage, and real-world examples support.  And (although it may be going against Wikipedia policy to do so), if we can softly 'tighten the bolts' on the technical definitions and help define these terms to a greater precision, than I'm OK with that too (via concensus of course). I've written alot of prose here and I don't want to rehash it over and over, but hopefully any future contributions will be met with a much bigger dose of good faith.CrimsonSage (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing inexact about the terms. They are what they are.  That ignorant people don't know enough about what they mean to intelligently use the terms does not change their meaning. Nor does it give you license to muddy the waters further and call a magazine a clip. Haven't I already made this point?  Don't think anybody's taken my argument on directly.  Easy to debate if you ignore your opponent's key point, I suppose. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Asamuel -- Just look at (and read) this discussion page. YES, we've addressed your position -quite- directly. I've been very clear as to the inconsistencies and problems with your position, and others have taken alot of time to contribute here.  I mean, look at the page, I've almost written a book during this discussion (and you didn't even give me the courtesy of reading it). There is no 'changing of meaning' when there are already several inconsistent 'expert' definitions, inconsistent physical examples, and modern linquistic arguments. I've already explained all this but you're just not interested in hearing other's views.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, "In modern parlance, the terms 'clip' and 'magazine' have generally become synonymous." That's not changing the definition? Your weasel phrase, "in modern parlance", as well as dozens of others I've noted in READING your posts leads me to believe you don't have a legitemate expert source.  The dictionary?  You're still harping on that.  Cite one firearms article that says it's okay to use Clip where you mean Magazine.  In fact, cite one that says Clip in place of Magazine! For every source you cite, I'll cite some in the article.  Now, find authoritative counters to my references. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From the NRA's firearms glossary:


 * " CLIP A device for holding a group of cartridges. Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for "detachable magazine." For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military. There is no argument that it can also mean a separate device for holding and transferring a group of cartridges to a fixed or detachable magazine or as a device inserted with cartridges into the mechanism of a firearm becoming, in effect, part of that mechanism."


 * That should be enough proof that the issue is not being made up, but is a long-standing debate. scot (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another firearms glossary from COSCI, that simply says 'see Magazine' in reference to 'clip.'CrimsonSage (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's step aside from this issue, and work on getting the rest of the article referenced, and then we can reconsider how nit-picky to get with the common usage vs. technical definitions vs. exceptions to the rules. scot (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good strategy.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Asamuel. To state that clip and magazine are generally synonymous is so blatantly incorrect that it devalues the entire article, if not all of Wikipedia. And just where is this supposed consensus?--Ana Nim (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ana, for one, please read scot's comment regarding the term 'clip' from the NRA glossary. Next, there are inexact and conflicting technical definitions that have been referenced and discussed just on this talk page alone. Please be sure to read through this discussion for the interim language concensus, that language being used while we continue to discusses additional details of the narrow specific terms and significant inconsistencies in those terms which would illustrate inexact definitions.CrimsonSage (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Asamuel, do not change the text outside of the concensus. We should agree on the validity of references (which are probably OK so that's probably not a big deal), but more importantly, the text has already been decided on by concensus agreement.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What Concensus? I believe you are interpreting your so-called references VERY loosely to believe that what was posted was your trump card.  The language there to begin with, before you tried to force your disputed text in there without discussion, said something to the effect of, "Sometimes they're called clips, they are not clips," and then gave a definition.  What the hell is wrong with that? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You only need to read this page to find the concensus language, inconsistent references, and all the other information to answer your own questions. We've gone through all of this over and over. My edits and the language I used in my factual contributions fit the Wikipedia guidelines and were in neutral tone (including going above and beyond to preserve the very 'substandard' technical definition that was already there), but your repeated use of reverts (and in the manner you used them)is specifically forbidden by the Wikipedia policy.  Further, you completely dismissed me when I tried to discuss it with you directly in a blatantly rude and disgusting display of uncivility. The concept of collaborative concensus is one of the cornerstones of the Wikipedia philosophy; one which you seem adamantly against.CrimsonSage (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reported to ANI
I believe that there is edit warring and WP:OWN behavior in progress on this article and have filed a report on the administrator's noticeboard for incidents asking for uninvolved admin review and action. I have not acted myself as I'm involved in the debate.

I would advise all parties to hold off until we get that uninvolved review. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice, George, and I'll hold off, but that means, much like the Walther P22 argument, that we keep the old wording as it is at this moment and agree to concensus language HERE. That's what I've been trying to do the whole time. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, this is one of the most trivial things I've seen on ANI since I began reading it. Magazine and clip have "formal" definitions, and common usage is far less precise.  Everyone seems to agree on this.  Please take some extra time in civilly crafting how to make this point in the article--crafting that statement which reflects both definitional and vernacular realities should in no way require an ANI. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. However, with all due respect, your claim of 'formal' definitions and precision is not factually accurate and is explained in 'great' detail in the long discussion on this page.  Note that this began because contributions which illustrated such points were not allowed by one of the editors (via use of continual reverts).  As a point of fact, those supposed 'formal' definitions are not only ridiculously inexact (as shown by numerous examples on this discussion page alone), but are also the subject of continual debate (and have been for decades), as can again be seen by this long discussion and numerous references.  There are two issues here a) the interim lanaguage, and b) the formal definitions.  We apparently found some civility and agreement (i.e., consensus) in crafting reasonable language -- but, that was still not acceptable to that one particular editor who insisted on forcing his particular belief without compromise, thereby completely violating Wikipedia policy.  We are just now starting to address the specific 'formal' menaings and both the evolution and current 'inexactness' of the terms.  Now, you may want to trivialize it, but it's certainly not trival to those involved.  In fact, I find that comment quite disturbing considering just how much time and effot we have all put into this.  If you'll step back an realize, this goes beyond the specifics of the article and talks squarely about the basic fundamentals of Wikipedia itself.  If we allow editors to exhibit this kind of disruptive behavior (and do it time and time again), it undermines the very essense of community effort that it was designed for. And this is not trivial, it's fundamental to the core.  I urge you to read this page in detail (along with the references, etc), and you will clearly see that the 'formal' definitions you speak of are nowhere near as precise as you seem to think they are.CrimsonSage (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If everyone else agrees, then why not just take turns reverting the disruptive editor so he hits 3RR, and then report him? It appears that this thread was already archived from AN/I without action, by the way. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jclemens: That's probably what will happen (and actually already is happening), but is that really the correct remedy for this? That solution seems quite topical, and the problem is deeper. First, this is a long debate where the 3RR would need to be applied somewhat loosely. Reverts have occured already several times here, and the idea that everyone should be 'forced' to edit war for this is certainly not the best thing. Second, there is an honest and open debate with many reasonable people on both sides of the discussion.  We have made several compromises and decided on acceptable 'interim' language while we continue the rest of the debate; but, that was largely ignored by that one editor who again forced his changes after being warned against it several times (and who was subsequently reverted as you suggested). This is just plainly disruptive and damages the whole process.  Just look at the length of this discussion, much of which is trying to bring that one editor into any compromise view.  Although I hear what you're saying, the Wikipedia policies are designed to prevent that exact type of bad behavior because such ruins the integrity of Wikipedia itself. I feel that 'expanding' the edit war, and using the 3RR approch (while one possible solution), is really not a positive way of going about addressing this issue. The problem should be dealt with at the root, and not just another topical solution. Wikipedia has several other terms-of-use policies beyond 3RR that are equally valid but are not being invoked in regards to this editor. It is time that Wikipedia takes a look at his history and behavior, and puts a stop to it.CrimsonSage (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

References for debate
Here's some assorted stuff for everyone to read:


 * The name game Pt III rifles Guns Magazine, Sept, 2005  by J.B. Wood, points out that it was a "clip" until the 1911 was adopted, then the term "magazine" came into use.
 * Police reportedly are selling automatic weapons to public/ Banned Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Sep 20, 1999  by Associated Press  A good example of media idiocy, calling magazines "clips" and AR-15s "automatic rifles"
 * Model 17V rifle - New Products Guns Magazine, July, 2002  Guns Magazine calling the Marlin magazine a clip
 * Magazine loader - New Products Shooting Industry, Nov, 2002 Uses clip and magazine interchangeably (and a link to a similar product, also called a "clip loader")

scot (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Provisional Instruction on the Automatic Rifle, Model 1915 (Chauchat), translated from the French by the US Army for the AEF, uses "clip" exclusively for both the Chauchat and whatever 7.65mm pistol the French were using; a search on "magazine" gives no hits. Since the manual for the Krag-Jourgensen calls it a "magazine rifle" (Description and Rules for the Management of the U.S. Magazine Rifle and Carbine), I suspect that at this point "clip" was any detatchable feeding device, and "magazine" was for fixed feeding devices.

scot (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Current US Army field manuals (FM 3-22.9, Rifle Marksmanship M16A1, M16A2/3, M16A4 and M4 Carbine, and FM 3-23.35 Combat Training With Pistols, M9 And M11, found here), seem to be universally calling a magazine a magazine, showing the current military preference.

I think this is sufficient to explicitly trace the origins and evolution of the modern usages of "magazine" and "clip", allowing us to explain why the terms overlap in common usage, and what the currently preferred definitions are. scot (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch section on magazine vs. clip
Here's what I'm thinking to integrate into the existing section:

Early repeating firearms were fed from fixed magazines, which were in turn often loaded from clips. The tubular magazine of the Winchester lever action rifle, for example, was called a magzine. The manual for the Krag-Jorgensen rifle, described by the US Army as "the U. S. Magazine Rifle", instructs the user that to "charge the magazine, open the gate, insert the cartridges from a clip, or from the hand, then close the gate."

With the advent of magazines that would detach from the firearm, the situation was less clear. One source states that the term "magazine" began to be used for detachable magazines around the adoption of the M1911 pistol by the US Army. An annual reports by the Secretary of War describing the testing process that lead to the M1911's adoption show that "clip" was consistently used in describing the magazines, while the manual for the adopted M1911 uses "magazine" exclusively. This was by no means an immediate change, however, since the 1917 translation into English of the manual for the French Chauchat machine gun, as used by the American Expeditionary Force, used the term "clip" exclusively when referring to the Chauchat's detachable magazine. Currently US military usage appears to have settled on the term "magazine", as can be seen in the manuals for the current M16 rifle and M9 pistol.