Talk:Smith & Wesson

message: *, thanks for moving this down in the article [].  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wow you are narrowly focused on reasons to exclude a good source where the headline names S&W. Here is another http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/03/march_for_our_lives_springfiel.html but I'm sure there is something wrong with this source too. Also the WaPo article run in another paper  Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: New material

message: 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)
replies: text: Just more of the massive advertising brochure this page is. It's WP:G11 material currently. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard for armed forces/police around the world.  

message: I suggest you remove this incendiary comment: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit break

message: No answer for a week, so the edit break is over and let's get back on topic;  - 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;
 Per your last edit summary where you swapped tags, you stated; "". 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)
thread_title: Back on topic

message: 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)
thread_title:  Model 1900 jailhouse leg irons 

message: 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_%26_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)
thread_title:  Addition to Smith_%26_Wesson#Rifles_and_carbines from potential COI