Talk:Smith & Wesson

Latest edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New material

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard for armed forces/police around the world.

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

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

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

This whole page should not exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fansite" and "peacock"...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re the above two headings.

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

Just a point of clarification - the bbc article [4] is dated Dec 2015 a year before the company renamed itself American Outdoor. You may have a valid point about the WP:COMMONNAME but that article does not support it. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Edaham - "Yes I think the tags belong. Lots of the article is stuff which would only matter to a corporation and their potential clients, is primary sourced and dubiously notable." - Oh FFS... like what?? You and couple others saying there's "stuff" in no way supports those tags or a need for any kind of change to the page. People with concerns about this content need to start supplying actual examples, or the tags will be removed.

"...I think the idea of a civilian owning a gun is completely moronic..." - I'm hoping that when you wrote that, you hadn't considered that numerous contributors here are also firearms enthusiasts; civilians who own firearms for hunting, target shooting, competitions, collecting, or any legal reason they damn well please, with no intention of "blowing anyone's head off", and you just insulted every one of them. Is a farmer that owns a varmint rifle for pest control a "moron"? Is the logger who works deep in wooded areas and owns pack rifle for protection a "moron"? Are all the Native and Inuit peoples of North America that have firearms to hunt and feed their families "morons"? If a long-time contributer who has spent countless hours working to help build and maintain this project, were to tell you here that they own a firearm for target shooting as a hobby, would you call them a "moron" (figuratively) to their face? I think you should strike that remark and rethink the wording of your personal "thoughts" before you post them. And lastly, don't come here preaching to others about using this page as a forum, then start spouting off with your opinions on things that aren't even the article's subject. - ^theWOLFchild 06:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thewolfchild please remember Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive228#Thewolfchild in which you were warned by User:NeilN "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language" Editors are trying to explain basic wiki policy but there is a lot of "I don't understand" going on. Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thewolfchild ... wow, erm ok. Legacypac, I wasn't using the article to support the idea that the subject deserves its own article per common name. Simply that the subject has and does frequently merit independent mention. Our readers may well come here looking for info on SW, and would be confused if redirected to the parent company's page. The parent company's page may also restrict some of the scope allowed to talk in depth on this particular article. What I'll do if you'll agree is start listing some sources I think are conspicuously absent from the article and we can hold off moving/renaming requests until we see what we can do with them.

Re the above criticism, I'm not sure that calling every civilian gun owner a moron to their face is within my travel budget, but I'll do my best. wp:humor Edaham (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac, actually, I was asking another editor to not "personalize this" by posting blatantly insulting comments, and also asking that we stay on topic, instead posting off-topic opinions. All of my previous posts above conform to the AE/DS. Now, which editors are "trying to explain basic wiki policy" here and who is it that keeps saying "I don't understand"...?

@Edaham, was I unclear about something? Despite multiple editors asking repeatedly, not one of the users here complaining about the neutrality of this article has yet cited a single example. You say you support the tags, I ask you for an example and you reply with "wow, erm ok". Aside from that, I don't see the "humor" in calling gun owners and fellow editors "moronic", or claiming they will "blow people's head's off, or the purpose of such personal commentary just after admonishing everyone about treating this page like forum. But, you say your were comments were only in jest, so I will agf and accept your word on that and drop the matter. I would actually like to steer back on topic, and that is, for this section at least, the reasons for these tags on the article. Can you, or Lp, point out any particular examples that make this page appear to be a "fansite" with "peacock" language? If so, that would be appreciated. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 07:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Several editors have been very specific about how the page needs to be edited. Continuing to badger us is another thing you were warned not to do. You might look at the deletions and additions I and other editors you can't understand have been making for specific examples. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I can't believe I have to ask this, (and at the risk of "badgering" you); can you provide an example of someone providing an example? (yeah, I know how that sounds). But where on this talk page has someone, anyone, provided "very specific" information to support these tags? And no, I'm not going to go hunting through the page history to try and find edits to support your complaints. If the entire article is just as top-to-bottom bad as you say, with sooo much promotional and non-neutral content, then it shouldn't be all that difficult to post a quote or two, or something simple like "the first sentence of section y or the last paragraph in section z". That's all we're asking for... so we know what needs to be fixed. - ^theWOLFchild 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• So I went back and re-read, and the comments above are valid: it's not that individual statements are fannish or peacockish, it's just that overall the whole thing comes across as too close to PR. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Guy, I'm actually not as concerned with the pea' issue as I am with the fact that so much of the cultural impact content of the article has been unduly left out. I think if primary sourcing were removed, the remaining verbiage was simply reduced to decrease verbosity and then about nine paragraphs were written about a cultural section based on documentaries, movies, cultural impact, fashion etc, it would be about where it needs to be. I'm not entirely disinterested in the pea issue, but to me the omissions stand out more than the TMD inclusions. Edaham (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm onboard with Edaham's plan. It's what's missing. To the extent it is on Wikipedia, that material is buried in product specific article like how Dirty Harry carried a S&W. The company's financial and ownership history could be beefed up too. Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

JzG - Well, that's... vague. But first, just to be clear, the comments you say are "valid", would those be the ones asking for specifics? Or the one claiming they've already been provided? Beyond that, how do you propose improving the article? Too make it not "too close to PR", something would need to go, and/or something else would need to come in. What? I've read it amd some other editors who've read don't see the problem(s), so... help us help you. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

♠"Lots of the article is stuff which would only matter to a corporation and their potential clients" Huh? The last couple of sections are business-heavy, but they describe the current state of affairs of the company. I might not be fascinated by it, but that doesn't justify deleting.

♠As for the page generally, I don't see anything in the tone or content that in any way justifies "fansite". It's not saying S&Ws are the greatest. It's not saying S&Ws are in any way better, just for being S&Ws. (It's not saying S&Ws are simpler, & thus cheaper, than competitors because they use fewer springs, which maybe it should--if I could recall where I saw it.)

♠And calling gun ownership (&, by extension, owners) "moronic" does no favors for the argument about content. It also suggests anyone in sympathy with them is also stupid, so it's even more offensive than it might look. (For the record, not a gun owner--but offended.)

♠Should there be a "cultural impact" section? Maybe. It could include "Dirty Harry", but also 38 Special (& .38 Special), .357 Magnum, maybe a link to police firearms--& not the crimes committed by nutjobs with Smiths. I suspect that's not quite what advocates for it have in mind. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And calling gun ownership (&, by extension, owners) I'm not the one who "extended" anything. Perhaps gun owners are more into extending things. In any case, by way of apology, I've created a small purple input box on the top left of my user page where people who were offended can leave comments. Have fun looking for it. It's very small. You might need a scope. Anyway laughs aside, Here's some of the stuff I found.

Links from IMDB

• Documentary about SW guns Link not useful in its self, but the actual documentary if anyone has access to it would qualify as a secondary source.
• A competition organised by SW Again, unfortunately an IMDB link to user generated content, but the actual show probably received press.
• an interview with the CEO
• info on another competition
• a spoof movie named after the brand

Books

• Smith and Wesson 1857-1945, Robert Neal and Roy Jjinks (Barnes)
• Smith and Wesson Firearms and Values S.P. Fjestad
• Smith and Wesson Sixguns of the Old West David R Chicoine - I'm stopping here because there's literally hundreds

BBC sources (excluding stories which aren't about the product and merely mention the name with reference to the thing which made a hole in something/one) - this is probably going to cause a stir because there's a LOT of bad press about SW products slaying people who got in their way.

• oct 2017 Shares in SW AODBC rose 3% after vegas shooting
• march 2018 Black rock inc. shareholder in SW offers investors chance to opt out of gun investments
• after sale by tomkins

Sites

• www.nramuseum.org has loads of info on where and when SW products appeares
• stopping here because it ought to be obvious what point I'm trying to make, which is that SW has influence outside its own company and pertaining information. Per due, we should revise the article as currently, the article's main focus is (almost) solely on the status of the subject and talks very little about its wider influence. I'm not replying to or collaborating with any editors who demand that I nit pick the page to point out specific issues because a) I didn't say there were any specific issues and b) I think they're being mean to me. Edaham (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You said you supported the tags. I asked for a reason. Any reason. That's "nitpicking"...?
But, you're right about me being mean to you, and I should apologize for that. I shouldn't have called you "moronic".
Oh, wait...
- ^theWOLFchild 11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that those comment were highly inappropriate and instead of apologizing he just went on to make more inappropriate comments. Those comments could be construed as a personal attack. They would also speak to a editor not having neutrality and probably should not be editing here. Please keep the conversation on topic. -72bikers (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

yet for some reason I’m the one picking through sources and thinking of ways to improve - even to the point of defending the page, while you are the one being sanctioned and restricted from editing it for being disruptive. The topic is smith and Wessson and I didn’t offend anyone who didn’t choose to be offended. Please do feel free to review the proposal I made and let me know if it can be developed any further. Edaham (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"by way of apology" If that's your definition of an apology, maybe you should stop before you piss off somebody else. You may think you're funny; I find myself disagreeing.

As for "constructive", lists of sources, while not unhelpful, don't exactly clarify your position on what you believe might (or should) be added from said sources. I might as well mention the NRA website, or G&A's; I'm fairly sure there are mentions of S&W there, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So every civilian gun owner here "chose" to be called "moronic" and a likely murderer by you? That's not apologizing or even withdrawing the insult, that's repeatng it and reinforcing it. Placing some links here does not excuse that. If you can't post a comment without attaching some kind of insult to a significant number of editors here, I'm sure many of them would just as soon that you didn't post at all. If you want to contribute, that's all well and good, but please just stick to content and stop the personal attacks. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 18:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

@Thewolfchild: I suggest you remove this incendiary comment: [5]. It's one thing to call an idea "moronic" and quite another to make a leap as you've done here.

In general, there's no need to respond to each and every comment, and in a combative and belittling tone. If you have concerns about a particular editor, please take it to their Talk page or to an appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify; what is the "idea" that you're referring to? And what "leap" do you think is being made? Honestly, I have no idea what you mean. Also, of all the posts in this thread, mine are the only ones that you have a concern about? To be fair, I started this thread because I was seeking answers to this tagging issue. I haven't replied to "each and every comment", but I have asked each editor that supports the tags for additional info to try and address the problems cited in the tags. Aside from that, I have asked an editor who has repeatedly posted insults to refrain from doing so, (I'm not the only one to take issue with the insults), and asked that they stay on topic. Again, it's the reason I started this thread, to address the tags, so I'd like to stick with that. Other editors have just as many replies in this thread as I have, and I can think of at least one post here that is certainly "incendiary". So, again, if you could provide a little clarity here, it would be appreciated. I'm really not looking to get into any beef with you. You have a concern, so let's see if we can resolve it. - ^theWOLFchild 20:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Back on topic

No answer for a week, so the edit break is over and let's get back on topic; @JzG: - I see you've removed the tags, then added another, but still haven't added anything substantive to the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup;

Avoid "drive-by" tagging.
Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below. Tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion.

Per your last edit summary where you swapped tags, you stated; "it's just that the overall tone comes across to me (as an interested non-US reader) as too flattering". Can you please expand on this and perhaps offer some suggestions for changes? Otherwise, the tag should be removed. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 23:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The history section deals exclusively with corporate history, mergers and sales milestones. Not a problem in its self, but it (almost, not completely) ignores a lot of things like mechanical development.
2. The products section is too bulky and looks like a sales catalogue (this is being addressed)
3. The brand as it is perceived in culture is completely absent from the article.

• In summary, I personally don't think that the article is overly flattering in any specific content, its just that it only contains things you'd expect to find in corporate publications, with lip-service paid to other notable areas. It needs to take a more extroverted look at the brand's place in history and culture. To this end I have in fact already suggested some directions to take above. Also, to expedite collaboration on this subject, I met with a gun owner the other day who clearly explained to me (an uneducated Englishman) the logical merits and rationale of being able to propel blobs of dense metal faster than one could by mechanical force alone, using chemical reactions in portable devices. He made cogent arguments and so I take back what I said earlier. Edaham (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed spinout

The Products section looks like an exhaustive company catalog of every bullet and gun they have ever made. I propose to split off 90% of the material to List of Smith & Wesson products leaving a brief summary of the major groups of products and a link to the list page. That will free up space for adding in some controversy material like the glock lawsuit over patent infringement. This move will go a long way toward solving the fansite problem and serves the reader who wants an overview on the company not a sea of letters and numbers linked to numerous product pages. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Could work. This is what the article would look like sans "Products", and this is what a "List of..." would look like. (Initially at least). btw - this would literally cut the article in half;

• sw article: 31,826
• products: 31,611

A difference of only 215. fyi - ^theWOLFchild 09:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As a list article, that would probably be accepted if you were to create it Edaham (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

We would still include some high level product info and a "Main...S&W products" link of course but half the page being a product catalog is one of the big reasons it reads promotional. I'd want to do this on my laptop not phone. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support: a spinout makes sense, while keeping summary information / section and a {{Main}} link in this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• What's the benefit vs say moving the list to the bottom of the current article? I see no issue with a separate list and will support what ever consensus decides, just wondering. Springee (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I’d say the main benefit is allowing greater coverage of different products. A second benefit would be that the list could red link if necessary to notable items which don’t have their own articles yet, without making the main article appear a mess. It’s nice to have prose articles which are actually readable as literature rather than clunky piles of markup. Edaham (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Let's try it this way; does anyone opposs the split? If not, then a week from now I'll split off the products section create a "List of... " as noted above. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Only one beef: having the cartridges first seems odd; I'd put them further down. Maybe that's a formatting issue; with a lead talking about both, first, maybe it wouldn't seem wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:02 & 05:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Model 1900 jailhouse leg irons

Does anyone know when they started making this model? My pair is over 20 yes. 98.20.134.48 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Smith_%26_Wesson#Rifles_and_carbines from potential COI

Placing this here due to COI instead of adding it directly to article:

S&W announced their very first lever-action rifle in 2024, propose this addition as the last entry under Smith_&_Wesson#Rifles_and_carbines:

During the 2024 SHOT Show, Smith & Wesson announced their first lever-action rifle, the Model 1854, chambered in .44 Magnum. LoVeloDogs (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

References