Talk:Remington Arms

message: I do not if this is the proper method to question any facts, but why is this listed as the oldest company, when Ames has been making shovels since 1774. (WStemple)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.180.45 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked and you're right. Unless they're lying, they beat Remington by several decades. This company has plenty to brag about with us adding incorrect material. I removed it. Rezin (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning Facts 

message: :Image:Remingtonlogo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Remingtonlogo.svg

message: The list of firearms made by Remington is both extremely long and probably incomplete. I think it ought to be split off into its own list article, and then in this article we can have a section called "Notable Firearms Made by Remington", which would probably have a "Main Article:" link at the beginning. Maybe just create an Article series on Remington? Any thoughts? Mendaliv (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be merit. But there's now Template:Remington firearms  and :Category:Remington Arms Company firearms, plus every notable firearms has an article. A separate list would allow us to describe each firearms briefly, but I don't see a real need for that. Rezin (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off the list 

message: hello, I would like to bring attention to the fact that the remington 1875 and 1890 models are not listed under revolvers,let alone do they have their own articles. These are notable, historical revolvers, and information is pretty available on them on the web if you were to google them. I don't trust myself to create and reference articles that will be satisfactory to wikipedia, but a wikipedian who has more experience/skill than me could take the oppertunity. Keserman (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  revolvers 

message: "In 1962 Remington introduced the Model 700 bolt-action sniper rifle. The rifle became one of Remington's most successful firearms...."  I think this should have read 'sporter' instead of "sniper".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sniper Rifle - Hunting, Sporting or Sporter model? 

message: It seems that Remington Arms was bought by Midvale Steel in 1918 (per a reference, Westing 1966, cited at Eddystone, Pennsylvania#Industrial history), and since all of Midvale except its HQ plant was bought by Bethlehem Steel in 1923 (per refs cited at Midvale Steel#Formal company names), it follows that Remington Arms was probably owned by Bethlehem Steel for some time in the 1920s and maybe 1930s before being bought by DuPont at some time in the 1930s (per this article's history section). The other company deeply involved in this storyline is the Baldwin Locomotive Works. This all makes sense when you look at the war production activities for World War I that were carried out in and adjacent to Eddystone—shoulder rifles (Remington's forte) and artillery shells (no doubt "made with genuine DuPont® powder") to be fired out of Midvale-made artillery. It's quite clear that an extremely cozy social network existed among the executives and investors of these firms, a Philadelphia-to-Wilmington axis that no doubt involved the du Pont family, the Sellers family, and others. One of the ironies of this social network and its industrial pursuits is that many of these people were Quakers (kinda hard to be a pacifist and a "Merchant of Death" simultaneously, but these were some rather clever engineers, so give them some credit ;). I thought it was interesting to connect these dots tonight, but of course I'm about 75 years too late, as it's probably all covered in Engelbrecht & Hanighen 1934 and no sense reinventing the wheel. Maybe I'll find time to read that book sometime. If I do, I'll augment the history info here, and provide inline citations. I'd just like to add that it really provides some setup for the punchline said by Eugene Grace in 1939 to a group of golf-course buddies that probably well represented this very social network. On learning of the outbreak of World War II, he said, "Gentlemen, we're going to make a lot of money." — ¾-10 00:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: On possibly adding to the history section—Midvale, Bethlehem, DuPont—1918 to 1930s

message: While it makes sense that they'd leave New York and Connecticut because of the Safe Act, etc, they've repeatedly stated that the move was for economic reasons. Devoting so much space to this also smacks of recentism and brings in politics. Some of this material might make more sense in articles on the laws themselves. Rezin (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section could or should be twice as long, and I hope to get around to making that improvement. Even then the 2014 politics stuff would still be a minor issue. Rezin (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAFE NY 

message: Aha! The reason why the history section in this article is thin is that the original company has an article of its own, at E. Remington and Sons. To avoid having some facts repeated and others left out, I suggest omitting the E. Remington material and starting this article with the 1888 creation of "Remington Arms", with a brief summary of the previous history and pointer to the other article. Or is there a better way of handling these two? Merging? Rezin (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[E. Remington and Sons]] vs [[Remington Arms]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Remington Arms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100829193636/http://www.remington.com:80/Pages/Our-Company/Company-History.aspx to http://www.remington.com/pages/our-company/Company-History.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012194340/http://www.aacblog.com:80/?p=5041 to http://www.aacblog.com/?p=5041
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120624094006/http://militarytimes.com:80/blogs/gearscout/2012/04/20/us-army-places-order-for-24000-m4-carbines-with-remington/ to http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/04/20/us-army-places-order-for-24000-m4-carbines-with-remington/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717143913/http://www.remington.com:80/product-categories.aspx to http://www.remington.com/product-categories.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Reduce uncited intricate detail; reduce red-linked entries; image overcrowding ". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Why are smaller than normal images appropriate for this article? This made sense when we had seven images, to keep them from piling up, but now that there are only four I think we should go with the standard size. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think four images are plenty. There were originally ~5 in the first section, which was clearly excessive. If there are suitable images for the second section, Remington_Arms#20th_century, they could be added. Although this section needs to be cut down as well as much of it is uncited intricate detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is it about this particular article that requires overriding the standard image size? Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing - K.e.coffman needs to read MOS:IMGSIZE. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: The Remington Arms of the lede no longer exists. The lede should be placed in the past tense. The footnote (2) is dead wrong. The remington dot com link IS NOT a link to the now defunct arms maker. Same for the link in the info box. The links are to Remington ammunition, the name, trademarks and assets of which were sold off to Vista Outdoor, Inc. out of the bankruptcy proceeding. Remington ammunition and Federal ammunition now have the same parent company. This really needs to be fixed, the Remington arms and ammunition company of this article no longer exists. The misinformation in this article really needs revision. Is there an editor/bankruptcy lawyer who could correct this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede is wrong! 

message: AP articl says Remington headquarters to move to LaGrange, GA and also Ilion plant to re-open, rehiring 200, pls add 
And at Ga, new plant with erhaps 800 workers ... see art  
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/gunmaker-remington-moves-headquarters-to-georgia-in-100-million-deal-adding-856-jobs/ar-AAQvlOd?ocid=msedgntp ... 69.121.189.159 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A source needs to be provided that demonstrates that the company is now referred to as Remington. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Headqquarters to move to LaGrange, Ga