Talk:Glock: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: Technology / Weaponry B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Austria Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:Maintained

Archives

Archive 1: July 2008

Per an earlier discussion, I noticed that Koalorka had added a picture that was a functional equivelant of another picture. Two pictures of compacts. The best reading I had of the concensus was that we would have one high-quality pic that was representative. Externally, there is no difference in the Glock 19 and 23. The pictures were supposed to be high quality with a neutral background and of the side of the firearm. Should we delete the Glock 19 picture now? What had been happening was that everybody and their brother was taking their camera-phone and snapping pictures of their personal Glocks posed with knives, dogs, etc. This cluttered the article. Is this still the concensus? Any dissent in the ranks on this one? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that discussion. I threw in the Glock 23 image as there was a relatively large void in the page and the G23 photo seemed good (neutral background). If that violated somekind of earlier format decision, go ahead, reverse it. Koalorka (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Actually, we could tweak it some so the pictures are better spaced. Also could use one of the Glock 21 (Wow, I've got one... maybe I'll accomodate). --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead picture is squished side-to-side. It looks like whoever took it did a resize without keeping the original proportions. Can we get a better picture? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean my image? What's wrong with it? The aspect ratio was preserved. Koalorka (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta admit I'm confused too. It looks fine to me. Perhaps your monitor settings? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Perhaps it was temporarily skewed, sometimes newly added images do that. By the way, can you add your field-stripped picture too Koalorka? Cheers, Hayden120 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lost it somehow. I'll make a new one. Koalorka (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can make a new one myself too, but I've got the "C" model. It's a newer one as well. When you take the picture, take it with a longer focal length too so it doesn't distort the picture as much. Maybe I'll hook one up this evening of that and the 21 as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it distorted? Koalorka (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think it's fine, and I'd much rather a standard Glock 17 for the lead picture. If you are just nitpicking about distortion (which I can't notice), download PTLens and tweak with it. Edit: okay, I just fixed it myself. It might take a few minutes to update. Some people are incredibly fussy these days... Hayden120 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not picky, but I do have minimum standards. I know, most people don't care, but I do. There are three types of distortion present in the original picture. Barrel distortion (already corrected), prespective distortion from being too close to the subject and tilting as the camera was below the centerline of the firearm. This picture has little of that (though it's not my best work. I compared them and, yep, I'm declaring mine better... but it's not good enough for the infobox being that it's a Glock 17C. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's my turn to nitpick, the background looks better white! ;) Hayden120 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but White also makes the exposure read wrong and under-expose the gun. Actually, I'd probably shoot with an 18% gray background and ambient light if I were shooting for publication. White looks okay, but you've got to be careful not to screw up everything else. This picture took me one minute to set up and one minute to process, I coulda done better with ten minutes to set up, I'm sure. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the lead image, I managed to find a very nice picture of the early model 17 which I believe would make for a fantastic introduction for the article, which goes into the changes made to the design as it matured over the years. My photo (or the one provided by Nukes) can then be placed closer to the bottom of the "Design details" section. A decent image of the so-called gen 2 version would also be very welcome. Koalorka (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a gen 2 G17 several years ago, and I think I still have some pictures of it somewhere on a flash drive or something. If I find them I'll get them up here. I'm not sure if you can tell the difference between it and a 1st gen with a side view though, which I'm pretty sure is all I have. — DanMP5 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing some listed Magazine sizes that don't match my experience with Glock pistols. For starters, where is this 17 round magazine comming from for the Glock22? I have a Glock22 and I've only ever encountered 15 round magazines. Now the 15s aren't even listed on the page. Did Glock recently revise their designs with larger magazines in the last year or two? Alyeska (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17 round magazine for Glock 22 is a 15-round magazine with a factory +2 floorplate. The source for these capacities was the Glock Web Site. The 15 is indeed listed on the page as the standard capacity. And, no, Glock did not revise their magazines with larger capacity, they were already at maximum capacity as designed. Smith & Wesson at one time had 14-round magazines for their model 59 and these were increased to 15. Springfield recently increased the capacity on their XD IIRC. But Glock hasn't done a thing... can't. There's no room left. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra magazine plate, that makes sense. So a little added bulk for more capacity. Thanks for the information. Alyeska (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glock 18 uses a 32-round magazine, not 33-rounds as stated on the main page, unless it's referring to 32+1, but if that's the case, then it should say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.160.63 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Official Magazine Chart. --Winged Brick (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are all the differences between the standard and compact pistols? I know that the compact has a 4" barrel instead of 4.5". I also know the compacts come with smaller magazines. Does that mean the pistol grip is shorter on the compacts? Meaning the compact isn't quite as tall a pistol as the full sized standards? Alyeska (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the specs, but I believe the only changes are shorter barrel/slide/recoil spring and recoil spring guide as well as shorter grip/magazine. Subcompacts have more differences due to the nested recoil springs. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Glock regarding two sections of that article and what should be done with them. One options is to merge them into this article. Please comment on the other tslk page to keep it in one place. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

I've gone ahead and raised this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Kosovo in lists of countries. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(this is in reference to this diff: [[1]]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[2]] [[3]][[4]] handgun: [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] submachine gun: [[8]] [[9]]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. — DanMP5 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[10]], whereas cybershooters.org is cited on wikipedia 2 times. [[11]]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since you're hounding me, I'll turn and fight. Over 7,500 agencies use the Glock.[12] That includes 70% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States.[13][14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Once more, I'm saying that over 7,500 agencies use the Glock.[15] That includes 70% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States.[16][17] 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)[reply]

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#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, the term "For Security Reasons" is ambiguous and not properly established in the source. Further, it is unnecessary. You'd have to have a crystal ball to know why they did it and, as I said earlier, Janes is not perfect. The reason that all the other MG manufacturers alter their parts so they don't interchange is because the US BATFE makes them do it. Suddenly, Glock is different? Yeah, I guess that's just like Glock compensated pistols not acting like any other compensated pistol. I wonder if they actually shoot bullets? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we shouldn't pick and choose which half of a sentence we are going to believe in a reliable source that we have established as reliable. 'for security reasons' is one half of the sentence on the janes.com source, and its interchangeability is the other half. it's unjustifiable to edit war over removing 'for security reasons' in light of this. if you have outside info about the US BATFE, provide a source for it, and add it to the article so it's not ambiguous. per wikipedia policy, your outside knowledge does not trump or justify removing half of anything considered reliable unless you provide another, more reliable source as evidence. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on another note, http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels is not a reliable source and should be removed. it's a blog. are you going to fight it if i remove it? Theserialcomma (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're dodging the bottom line. The term, "For secruity reasons" is not a supportable statement. It implies that they knew what Glock was THINKING when they brought it out. I don't either, but my conjecture is just as good as Janes'. Now, that makes the statement unsupportable and calls the source into question.

Second, are you SERIOUSLY calling one of five sources provided into question when it agreed with the other four? I believe that this is a case for you to bring up with the WP community board, not here. If the other four are reliable, and this single source agrees with them, it's reliable also, eh? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your second point: No. an unreliable source that agrees with other sources does not become reliable. never. never ever. sorry. to respond to your first point: "for security reasons" is supportable because it's exactly what the reliable source says. end of story. if you have a source that can expand on what 'for security reasons' implies, please provide it. until then, rejecting one half a sentence and accepting the other half of a source is just ridiculous. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is a bit much. Insisting that Janes' exact wording must be used in the article, when it's in fact confusing wording for normal people, is abusive policy legalism here. Serialcomma, there is a significant difference between "A reliable source said this and we must quote it verbatim" (what you're asserting) and "A reliable source indicated this, so we're going to assume it's correct but paraphrase it in the most unambiguous for non-experts manner that we can" which is what Wikipedia RS and V are all about, really.

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comma said, "No. an unreliable source that agrees with other sources does not become reliable. never. never ever. sorry." Perhaps I was not explaining my point in enough detail. The source is only there to confirm what the other four sources (provided at your demand) also corroborate. Therefore, the information being used for that source is reliable even though it does not necessarily meet your litmus test for what a reliable source is. That's my point as it was in the previous reference I gave for the Glock 18 interchangeability. That point is one you conceded and I'm using the same logic to refute your argument in this case as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poping in from the RS noticeboard... If you have four good sources, there is no need to back them up or confirm them with one that is unreliable... Just take out the glockstore.com ref and rely on the others. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Serialcomma apparently thinks that four sources aren't enough. — DanMP5 14:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is, serialcomma thinks four sources are too many Theserialcomma (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be Serialcomma nitpicking after having his/her wiki-ego shattered, bogging editors down in a petty competition of wit instead of actually improving the article. Serialcomma should seriously re-evaluate his/her priorities. Koalorka (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's your opinion. my opinion is that some people who edit this article are too emotionally involved in gun culture and advocacy, so much to the point where even questioning a blog as a source becomes an edit war, because it's somehow perceived as an attack on guns. i have no vested interest or emotional attachment to this article or its content. i'm just trying to remove bad sources and make sure the current sources that are good are actually relevant to what is said. nothing to do with ego or wit, just trying to follow wikipedia policies, regardless of whether the status quo is affected. a good encyclopedia is more important to me than an individual editor's fear of their guns being taken away because i removed a link to a blog. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this edit war started because we thought you were "attacking guns" and "taking our guns away", then you have some serious problems minor issues. This edit war started because you were reverting referenced common knowledge material, and IMHO, abusing policy's and guidelines. — DanMP5 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking Serialcomma. This is not useful or constructive. Serialcomma, I believe you're in the wrong on the merits on this one, but you don't deserve those attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a real problem here is that we are all conflating 4 different, muddled issues. this is partially my fault. one issue is that the glockstore is a blog and not a reliable source, which has been resolved. another is "for security reasons" which i argued against removing, but others disagreed, so that is done with. i'm not arguing that anymore. another is whether a compensated barrel reduces "perceived" recoil with one reference about 'perceived' recoil, vs my argument that it's just recoil, and perceived recoil is ORish. that's multiple issues all muddled into one. sorry that it's gotten so confusing. in the future, i am going to make totally new topics about each new point of contention so that this doesn't happen again Theserialcomma (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good read of WP:Wikilawyering, WP:AGF, and WP:SOAP might yield some insights. Just tossing it out there. AGF means that you should assume that there is no cabal of gun-article editors who are all cowering in the corner of their cabin in Pennsylvania clinging to their guns. You should also not nit-pick the rules to the point where you are demanding the exact wording in the references YOU provide yet not allowing references that don't meet your standards. Finally, if you have some anti-gun or "neutral" attitudes towards your presumed philosophy about those who edit firearms articles, it could mean that you are editing to prove points, therefore the "Soapbox" that I speak of. You are editing a single firearms article and, frankly, I'm not sure how much good you are accomplishing - right, wrong, or indifferent - with your tactics in the matter. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anyone want to rewrite "The firing pin safety is only pushed upward to release the firing pin for firing when the trigger is actuated and the safety is pushed up through the backward movement of the trigger bar, the second, drop safety guides the trigger bar in a precision safety ramp that is only released when a shot is triggered by pulling the trigger right back." the "second, drop safety guides the trigger" part, more specifically, which needs at least a semicolon to separate the independent clauses. but maybe they should be two sentences Theserialcomma (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to grammar school, they taught me how to use commas. A comma is appropriate after the and as it was written and as I've reverted here: [18]. Your edit has been reverted, Serialcomma, please discuss it to a consensus here. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. the sentence you are edit warring over is "The ILS is a manually activated lock that is located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design and, according to Glock, each key is unique. " but according to [[19]], and the english language, commas after and should only be used if it precedes a conditional or subjunctive clause (in this case, it doesn't). an example of correct usage in the case you're arguing would be "john would go to the restaurant and, if it were possible, he'd also go to the bar" because and precedes a clause that is in the imperfect subjunctive "if it were." please don't edit war over this further. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring. You made the edit, I challenged it and started a healthy, productive discussion on the talk page. It is incumbant upon you to engage in this discussion so we can reach a consensus on the comma. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjunctive clause. The sentence reads fine without that portion separated by commas. Please reconsult your MLA. Then again, I didn't have to. Maybe I should ask for an outside opinion since we disagree. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while any outside opinion on the grammar is welcome, i am still reporting you for edit warring. i don't have to tolerate your attempted retribution for reporting you for sockpuppetry. enough is enough. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my edit history and the history of this article, I have been editing this article a long time. Frankly, if you're going to report me for everything I do, I don't see any reason to change my editing style under threat of reports. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

already reported. check http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_would_you_use_a_comma_after_a_conjunction for more evidence you are wrong. stop frustrating the editing process, stop edit warring, and fix the grammatical error please. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you for removing valid albeit unsourced information. It's pretty obvious that when a design undergoes military trials, the outcome is determined by its performance during these trials. Glock, having won, can be assumed to have passed the endurance and reliability tests. If you'd like to help improve the article, perhaps you could find a source to confirm this very plausible information? Koalorka (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your time in reporting this, Theserialcomma, but your report has been resolved: [20]. The decision was that it stays the status quo. You promptly appealed that decision. This comma is quite important to you, I realize, and its placement is quite the quandry. I'm awaiting your appeal of this decision. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, uh, I might be wrong, but the wikianswers answer you posted seems to support my position. Then again, I'm thinking of reporting your reference to the reliable sources board... don't know why though because it agrees with me. Now, what would be the point of reporting a source that is right and agrees with reliable sources somewhere? The question is, of course, very important. Nah, I won't report it. As important as this comma is to me, I understand that in the spirit of consensus, I'll agree with the reference, the status quo, and the result of your report. It's enough to know that I generally know how to use a comma. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not one to rest on your losses, you again reported this situation to... oh I give up. If anybody cares, go here: [21]. To sum it up, it also says that the status quo was just fine. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, now your edit warring over the placement of a comma, serialcomma? I was thinking your next one would be about the Glock not being a pistol or something despite fifty references, but seriously, a comma? It is becoming clear that all you are doing here is starting edit wars and trying to get the editors that disagree with you blocked. I mean look, the last 5 sections on this talk page are from you starting edit wars, how many more must we go through? This is not productive and is wasting the time of editors that could actually be improving articles if not for being mired down in this mess.

Now that I'm done with that rant... There is nothing wrong with the current grammer, per the two threads you started on WP:AN3 and WP:RD/L. — DanMP5 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has become quite clear that the Serialcomma is here to disrupt the article and bicker endlessly over punctuation. I've decided to go ahead and report TheSerialComma to the Arbitration Commitee for a lack of chocloate sprinkles and poor cosmic harmony, if my request is succesful, the controversial editor shall be barred from the internet. Koalorka (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i will always report abusive editors who blatantly violate policy. so don't be abusive, and i won't report it. cheers. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I replaced a serial comma (not THE Serial Comma) that was removed by Theserialcomma. Gosh, I really enjoyed writing that sentence. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commend in you in your efforts in removing that serial comma. Teehee. Koalorka (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to wikipedia's manual of style, a serial comma isn't required; however, if an article uses serial commas, then the rest of the article should match the style. and vice versa. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped counting at 10 serial commas. Ran out of fingers. Your comma was removed against wikipedia policy. Your edit has been noted and will be forwarded to the CS (chocolate sprinkles) committee as evidence of your disruptive editing behavior. Wait, are you for or against serial commas? You know, if you'd provide a reference for each and every edit you make in your edit comment, that would help. So, where's the ANI report on me? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry if you can't figure out whether i'm for or against serial commas. but let's now try to keep this discussion about improving the article, and not about the specific editors. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might prove somewhat difficult considering one specific editor has generated 400 kilobytes worth of text without a single improvement to the article. Koalorka (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, you're the one who got warned by admins for threatening physical violence and personal attacks. maybe we can now concentrate on editing the article and you can stop attacking other editors? terrific. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now six references that state that the Austrians actually tested their pistol before adopting it. Further, four of them state specifically the nature of the tests. Unfortunately, none of them has the exact verbage required by Theserialcomma for inclusion of any statement in this article. I challenge other editors to plagarize some combination of the provided references so it reads verbatim out of the reference but somehow doesn't violate international copyright laws. It's a a tough row to hoe and, no, before you get any ideas, I am not calling anybody any kind of names with that expression. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lest anyone think I am adding references and speaking "Tongue-in-cheek", please refer to this healthy discussion: [22] as well as this report: [23] and, oh yeah, this one too: [24]. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started to say take some of them out, that five was way too much. But after thinking about it, don't bother, there probably won't be two left by tomorrow. — DanMP5 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I erroneously marked "RVV" on my revert of the individual who stated that the .380 Glocks were banned from importation because of their size. Please explain yourself. A reference would be nice. It is dubious, to me, that the Glock .380's would not meet the "Points" requirement of the GCA of 1968 (of which "size" is only one factor). --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my quick calculations, the G25 is ~4 points short of the 75 points required for importation, even if the adjustable sights were fitted. The lack of a locked breech and its caliber costs the G25 12 points versus the G19. The G26 barely squeaks by, so the G28 has no chance. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb rests? Hehehe. Where did you find the point scale? I had a good reference but can't find it again. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are some pretty generous interpretation of features. My Google-Fu is failing me as I can't seem to find a .gov source, but there is a copy of the point factors here.[25] It pretty much agrees with what I remember from "dead tree" media predating the Web. In addition, there is a copy of Patrick Sweeney's Glock book on Google Books. He addresses the points issue around pages 80-81. He also agrees with my caculation of 71 points for the G25 if the new style extractor is counted as a loaded chamber indicator. --D.E. Watters (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source for ATF Form 4590 outlining the import "factoring criteria".[26] It appears to be an older version of the form, but for the most part, agrees with the other citation. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that puts the Glock 28 at 7 points short and the Glock 25 about 4 points short. Hmmm, tungsten guide rod, tungsten grip plug, thick stainless steel magazine... it's there. Here's a post where somebody already did the leg work: [27] --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a reference for the Glock 25 and Glock 28 being banned from importation because of size. I don't have it on hand to check personally, but it was The Complete Encyclopedia of Pistols and Revolvers; Hartink, A.E.--LWF (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind our original research policy - We should find and refer to that source, not use anyone's unpublished calculations on the ATF form (though I generally agree with the above...) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, George. I reverted the content originally not because of any reference issues though that is certainly an issue as well. The revert was due to the wording that presupposed that "Size" was the determining factor. In fact, it is one of a dozen factors the most weight, in my opinion, is given to caliber, not size. Losing 7 points for caliber vs. 1 point for each 1/4". Also forgot to mention in my OR above that without a locking mechanism, the Glock 28 actually falls short by 5 points (that it immediately makes up for with a loaded chamber indicator they are now equipped with. No wonder there's a rule against OR! I suck at this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include it? It's a variant of the basic Glock pistol. Ominae (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to other variants designed for specific geographic markets (e.g. Glock 17DK, Glock 17Pro), so it might be valuable to have a brief description. We'll need reliable sources, of course. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How rapidly can a Glock 17 handgun be fired? Will you please tell me how many rounds can be fired in a second when handled by an expert shooter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.239.96.202 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The practical rate of fire is approximately 40 rounds per minute. This is only from one source: http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/glock17.htm . As with all pistols it completely depends on the shooter. Paying no attention whatsoever to muzzle rise, the health of one's arm muscles, etc - I, personally, could probably get through a magazine (17 rounds) in 10 seconds. 1.7 rounds per second, though that would be very inaccurate. This is all just personal advice, don't have any facts to back it up. Pumpmeup 08:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a discussion forum. Koalorka (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]