Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Russia: Technology & engineering / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Firearms 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 100 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Assault rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622011454/http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm to http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107045353/http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf to http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/arc/021205.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/arc/021205.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to delete a reference that is frequently cited. The ref in question is a masters thesis. Our guideline for identifying reliable sources discusses works of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and that section includes a restriction that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." In the article version linked in this sentence, the masters thesis in question is reference 63. To quote our text this reference is

"A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE, Military History. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2006"

It was not for a PhD, but a masters. It isn't clear just what sort of "publication" this thesis has enjoyed. At present we have not been shown evidence that the thesis received any notice in subsequent scholarly works. Unless I'm missing something it does not pass our content guideline test as an RS and should therefore be deleted. I thought I'd start here to invite comment, before asking for outside opinion at the RSN. Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Input from anyone welcome, and specific ping to @RAF910: NewsAndEventsGuy ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy-- 01:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We don't care if it was published, we care if it was reviewed. As a review of the organizational culture and the M16 procurement within the US military, written by a student at their own staff college, I consider it highly relevant.

Also, if we're going to start being s--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)niffy about sources, then I'd look at the coffee table books and the NRA gung ho before this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should look at all the sources. This one was recently in play. You might consider it "highly relevant", but our content guideline does not mention your name or opinion. Rather a masters thesis must be "shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Instead of arguing opinions whether an exception should be made, lets instead rely on the more objective measure already required by the content guideline... has this thesis been cited anywhere else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but it does not necessarily fulfill the sourcing requirement for any challenged material Wp:RS describes a requirement for a source to fulfill wp:ver for material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. I don't see anywhere that it is a requirement for the presence of per se of the source in Wikipedia. So, when not being depended on for fulfilling wp:ver on challenged material, IMHO presence of the source becomes a matter of editorial discretion. IMO a good guide for the latter is expertise and objectivity with regard to the subject, and at first glance this looks good in that respect. North8000 (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The Influence of Organizational Culture on the Acquisition of the M16 Rifle is not just a masters thesis sitting in some college library collecting dust. It is a book, no different than every other book that is commonly used as references on Wiki, you can even buy it on Amazon if you want. https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Organizational-Culture-Acquisition-Rifle/dp/1249368650 Also, it is used as a source in many other books. Therefore, it more than meets the reliable source standards.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Battle rifles" does not clearly state what a battle rifle is; that should be fixed. Also, isn't the AK-47 a battle rifle, because of its .30 caliber round? AA Quantum (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The primary subject of this article is Assault rifles. Assault Weapons is at best a subordinate subject matter. We probably shouldn't even mention Assault Weapons in this article (with the exception of the hat-note and a see also link). I recommend that we remove the section altogether in order to remove any possible confusion or ambiguity. Please comment below...

• Support per my statement above --RAF910 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The "possible confusion or ambiguity" already exists, regardless of what WP does. If we don't explain it, we can actually make it worse, besides simply being less informative. There's zero benefit to remove it, and some harm. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that clarification (Assault Rifle#Etymology) belongs near the top, so readers don't spend extra time reading through the wrong article. Per WP:BRD, we should probably revert it being moved to the end pending discussion here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to put Etymology back to top, per normal for WP articles, per above. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section wasn't titled etymology before, and it's the etymology of a totally different term. Putting it at the top would require combining it with the "Characteristics" section since that actually defines the term "assault rifle" rather than the term "assault weapon." Otherwise it's starting the article out talking about something else entirely for four paragraphs: it'd be like starting an article on dogs by defining at length what a cat is. Bones Jones (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]