Talk:Glock 19/Archive 1

message: Discussion on this topic here.  As of late there isn't much in the way of variety where the discussion participants are concernd, so I'm posting this as an FYI to those who maybe aren't watching the Glock article.  Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLOCK vs. Glock 

message: Please calm the discussion down and lay off the hostility, everyone.  Georgewilliamherbert 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down

message: Asams10's latest edit summary asked: "So, then are you saying that Cho really didn't use a Glock 19?"  Certainly not!  What I am saying is that consensus has established that that detail is not appropriate for the Glock 19 article.  No one would dispute that Cho used a hat, or a vest, or the United States Postal Service (to mail his manifesto), but I'm sure we could agree that inserting him into those articles would be inappropriate as well.  In his most recent edit summary before the one quoted above, Asams10 asked: "Would everybody PLEASE take this to the discussion and stop playing the revert war?"  People took it to discussion, and consensus on the discussion page is contrary to the most recent revert.  Does this advice no longer apply just because it didn't result in the desired outcome? PubliusFL 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this subject would even qualify for mention to begin with.  It's not the worst massacre in the the U.S. and it's not the worst shooting in the world.  It's the worst shooting in the U.S., sure, but every country in the world has had a worst shooting event and some point.  Even were we to include a massacre in an article about a weapon, this particular event would appear as a random inclusion of a crime of this type. Not that it qualifies as relevant to begin with. Gamer Junkie 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page for the Walther P22 shows about an even split on inclusion.  There is absolutely no concensus on removing it and, reading through the talk here, no concensus here either. Are you ignoring the debate or just ignoring those posts that you disagree with.  As with the precedents set in dozens of other firearms articles, notable infamous usage of a firearm is perfectly appropriate and, I think, proper.  Take a look at that discussion, I give a handful of examples.  I'm not sure what agenda you're pushing, Gamer Junkie, or GameJunkieJim, whatever your name is, but there is no concensus.  Removing content when half the people who responded wanted it to stay flies in the face of logic.--Asams10 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GameJunkieJim? I've only ever gone by Gamer Junkie on Wikipedia due to my most prominent inclusions being in the computer and video game project section.  And I'm not pushing any agenda of any kind, I'm simply attempting to enforce Wikipedia's rules which include articles containing information of relevance.  I'd like to know why you're so interested in making this addition, actually, as you've just said that notable usage should be relevant.  I've already stated just above that this event isn't even that when compared to others.  Whilst it's certainly a horrible incident with many casualties, it is surpassed by many other massacres (including in the U.S) on scale and mortality.  So what's so notable about this particular incident? Gamer Junkie 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been careful to observe 3RR and encourage participation in discussion.  Contrary to what Asams10 concluded from reading through this talk page, I believe there IS consensus here.  Over 10 days of discussion, 24 editors have commented on whether the VT shootings should be mentioned in this article or not.  I count 15 opposing such a mention (myself, Jmeden2000, Yaf, Gloriamarie, DanMP5, MoRsE, Ari, Ennuified, JE, GamerJunkie, Illusive Formula, Rabbit994, SeanCollins, 192.237.2.66, and 151.199.192.113), and 9 supporting such a mention (MiFeinberg, Astruc, Nfitz, Alyeska, Redxiv, 65.246.43.221, 71.139.37.225, and 4.225.126.253 - the last having made unsigned comments only).  That's 13 registered editors against 6 registered editors.  Considering that abuses of this article by anon IPs were considered sufficient reason for semi-protection before now, I think it's reasonable to give less weight to the anon IPs.  And over 68% of registered users ought to be considered a reasonable consensus.  I think it's at least enough to justify removing the controversial language while discussion continues, and I therefore request that an admin make that change. PubliusFL 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add me to against including a mention (14:6 registered editors).  If anyone seriously disputes this count please speak up.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that there are several others who changed the article one way or the other w/o participating in the flame war above.  LWF is one more against; some more who were for including it are there, too, but I haven't got the time to make a list at the moment.  Someone should review the edit history back to the 17th.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I suspected LWF opposed the mention, but tried to only count comments that were fairly clear (which excluded most of the discussion about Glocks firing underwater).  I only counted people who expressed their opinion on the talk page because 1) that's what you're supposed to do, and being a good sport should be rewarded, and 2) it's a heck of a lot easier. ;-) PubliusFL 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not chiming in sooner, Georgewilliamherbert is correct, I am opposed to the mention.--LWF 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued edit warring

message: The section 1 Detail has the following passage.
:"Two notable units that use a modified Glock 19 as a standard service pistol are the New York Police Department, which has 12 pound NYPD connectors in its pistols;..."
What in the world is a 12 pound NYPD connector? I understand that "12 pounds" relate to the trigger release point measured in pound of pull. I also understand that a "connector" is the internal lockwork device(s) that connect the trigger with the sear transmitting the pulling motion to the sear and/or the hammer or striker cocking device in a double-action pistol. 12 pounds of pull sounds like a high amount of effort. I would expect about 8 pounds in a double-action mode.--TGC55 13:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be a reference to the "New York Trigger", which approximately requires 12 pounds of pressure. This link may help understanding it: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/new_york_trigger/ -- Kguirnela 14:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks for the clarification. The link that you indicated explains the "New York Trigger" which appears to be the same as a "12 pound NYPD connector".--TGC55 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 pound NYPD connectors? 

message: With 14 editors against inclusion and 5 for inclusion (unregistered editors do not count, per wikipedia policy), there is a clear consensus against inclusion. Thus, the link has been removed. Do not reinsert it again when the protection has lifted, that will qualify as disruptive editing and may lead to community sanctions. Also, the astounding lack of civility on these discussions is shameful. Further incivility will not be tolerated on this article. It's about time this edit warring stops, or some editors here are going to find themselves unable to edit real soon. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact: The GLOCK 19 did not leap from it's hiding place and kill people, and until it does, the VT shootings have no business in an article about an inanimate object. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact: the Glock 19 was used in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. That bears mention in this article. Griot 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. It bears mentioning in the Virginia Tech article, where it already is. Fact: More people are shot every month with a Glock 19 than in the Virginia Tech incident due to its adoption by police and military forces throughout the world. The VT incident has nothing to do with the history of the gun. It earns mention in the VT article, it does not follow that it works the other way around. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The decision here has already been made. Gamer Junkie 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can change. —AldeBaer 09:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it can, but it has not yet done so, and at this point is not likely to do so. For the record, the result of the P22 article was no consensus: defaults to exclude, ending up with the same result (though by different means) as this article.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add me to the "against" side.  I'm against inclusion in the article unless more attention is focused on the Glock 19 in particular, possibly with attempts made to ban it.  --Gloriamarie 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't seem to find this consensus that you say has been reached. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus does not mean a majority vote. Thus "14 editors against inclusion and 5 for inclusion" (assuming that's an accurate count) does not necessarily mean consensus has bee reached. Redxiv 07:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus has been reached 

message: Under magazine capacity, it lists 15/17/19/33 which all technically true but to get 17 you would have to use Glock 19 magazine with +2 extensions OR Glock 17 mag. To get 19, it would have to be Glock 17 with +2 extensions. Should we list all possible capacities or stick to capacity using factory provided magazines? I'm personally in favor of only listing magazine sizes that are provided by factory that will work with gun unmodified. If we use factory provided magazines, it would 10/15/17/33. 10 round magazines are still in production for people living in Assault weapon states and 33 round magazines are available from Glock. Rabbit994 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine Capacity