Talk:Heckler & Koch HK416

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "reducing intricate detail & WP:CATALOG in infobox -- ranges are sufficient". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Additions on similar grounds: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Users Table

The users table has no headers. What should they be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weslima (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Colt vs Armalite as a Reference

References regarding the basis for rifles like this should really credit the Colt AR-15 rather than the Armalite AR-15 for a couple of reasons. First, the design Colt purchased from Armalite was significantly different in several ways when compared to the Colt AR-15 that virtually all modern AR-pattern rifles are copying. Realistically, the Armalite AR wasn't a finished design when Colt purchased it, and the Colt AR we have now represents the finished product. For example the redesigned charging handle, modified lower, and the forward Assist Colt added to the design that would become the semi-auto AR-15 as we know it are found on virtually all modern AR-pattern rifles, including those made by the new, and unrelated to the original, Armalite. The only companies that I know of which source their design from the unfinished Armalite rifle Colt purchased are an out of production weapon built in the Philippines and a handful of retro Armalite models built in small numbers as collector pieces. We don't typically credit the Colt Model 1910 when we reference where the vast majority of modern semi-automatic pistols borrowed sourced their Browning tilting-barrel design from, we reference the finished 1911 design, and for the same reasons. Syr74 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it now: diff. I believe I had incorrectly disambiguated it to ArmaLite AR-15; it's now pointing to generic AR-15. Please feel free to adjust further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 Based or M-16 based?

It seems to me that using the "AR-15 style" is a misnomer, since this was designed for military, based on military rifles and not civilian rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.15 (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "list of war is non-informative; excessive WP:CATALOG in infobox - ranges are sufficient". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding diff: "Excessive intricate detail; uncited". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned with the loss of information. If you can provide a dimensional table instead of using the provision for that in the infobox I would be happy.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding diff; my rationale was: "reduce promotional self-citations to manufacturer's website; excessive specifications in infobox".

Re: comment about the loss of information, the material in WP needs to be supported by RS. In addition, Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, so advertorial self-citations such as "The HK416A5 offers several additional features compared to the preceding HK416 models and has become the standard military and law enforcement model line" are not suitable for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How is someone reading the article to know the difference between the A5 and proceeding models? And if a firearm has been officially adopted by Mil & LE, is that not a simple fact that can be included in an encyclopaedia article? The point is, I don't see any language such as: "This firearm is superior to Rifle X from Acme Gun Co., so get yours now while supplies last! Just add "wiki" as a coupon code for a 10% discount!". To me, that is "advertorial". The content you are constantly removing from all these pages ... not so much. - ^theWOLFchild 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed one editors views are not shared by all. -72bikers (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, unless there is a consensus supporting the removal of this content, it should be restored. - ^theWOLFchild 02:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. -72bikers (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sample material in question

Here are samples of what was removed:

• It also reduces operator cleaning time and stress on critical components. According to H&K, "experience that Heckler & Koch gained during its highly successful 'midlife improvement programme' for the British Army SA80 assault rifle, have now borne fruit in the HK416."
• The HK416A5 offers several additional features compared to the preceding HK416 models and has become the standard military and law enforcement model line.
• The firearm's precision is specified as ≈ 4 MOA (12 cm at 100 m) by Heckler & Koch. The HK416C has a high degree of component commonality with the HK416 family, but uses a shortened buffer tube and a collapsible butt-stock similar to variants of H&K's MP5 sub-machine gun and the HK53 carbine.

References

This does not meet WP:WEIGHT & WP:PROMO which are policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate web site. I would not have any objections if this material can be sourced to independent, reliable coverage. With the current sourcing, it would not be an improvement to add this content back in. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There is still useful, encyclopaedia content there. Why not just make some modifications to help it sound more neutral and informative, instead of just this constant mass-guttting? This isn't the only article you've removed significant content from. I'm sure many of those pages, and the project as a whole, would benefit from more rewrites and less removals. You can't build by just taking away... - ^theWOLFchild 05:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is a sourcing issue, this should not be included unless independent RS coverage can be found. –dlthewave ☎ 12:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That reasoning is not valid, manufacture content is allowed. They are also accepted as a reliable source in wiki articles. This reasoning also seems to be opinionated or interpretation of Wiki policy not shared by many others. He could have left a template.

Editor Wolf is also right about editor K.e.coffman and his constant gutting of firearm articles. This would appear to be seen as tearing these articles down, instead of helping to build better Wiki articles. -72bikers (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This makes approx 30 firearm articles that this editor has arbitrarily removed significant content from (allegedly per "catalog") since the Stoneman shooting. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed this behavior as well. It seems to run contrary to help building a better Wikipedia. -72bikers (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• The promotional concern is valid but wp:fixit rather than remove it. The factual information is not controversial and much like the tech specs of a car there is no reason we can't cite the mfr's web site for such information. I think this would apply to many of the instances where factual material, couched in marketting language is removed as promotional video and self cited. We should strip the promotional language and leave the non-controversial factual details. Springee (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That seem to be a very logical suggestion. -13:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)72bikers (talk)

Being factual is not enough. We would need coverage in independent reliable sources to establish due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 14:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that is just your opinion, simple basic facts do not need to have independent support, it is not a issue of stating points of view. -72bikers (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Being factual is not enough. We would need coverage in independent reliable sources to establish due weight" - First, in the context of what's being discussed here, that doesn't even make sense. Second, can you cite a specific Wiki-policy that states exactly that? And third, why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles? - ^theWOLFchild 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If we are dealing with the sort of specificantions that are often of interest to readers of a given topic then citing mfr specifications is fine. For example, in historic automobile articles we might cite auto brochures published by the manufacture to say what options were offered in various years. Those typically aren't controversial facts and we don't include the marketing hype ("a smooth shifting yet sporty 4 speed Hydromatic transmission" vs "4 speed automatic transmission"). I'm sure many readers don't care that the Pinto changed engines in 197x or that a new seat trim was added. But some readers do and there is no sound reason to strip away non-controversial technical facts that are likely to be of interest to some readers just because they are cited to the manufactures and contain promotional add copy. Springee (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Applicable policies

I believe that the material removed fails WP:WEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) and WP:PROMO (part of WP:NOT). It may also fail "indiscriminate amount of information". I don’t quite understand the comment why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles?. Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to all articles, not only firearms.

Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations of policies. If this is the case here, I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:NPOVN or at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into the specific content but just in general as you have removed such material from many firearms articles. I agree that as written there is a promo issue. However, in terms of weight, well do firearms articles outside of Wikipedia mention such material? Going back to my car analogy, it's probably going to be difficult to find a non-Ford source that says the Pinto got such and such a new option package in 1976. However, lists of option packages are often of interest in car articles so such material is retained (but the promotional language is not). We aren't always dealing with subjects that get lots of press coverage. That doesn't mean that non-contentious material should be removed just because it's self cited. If for example the twist rate of the barrel was listed, then we should keep that information even if we don't have a particular review of the firearm that mentions it. Why, because twist rate of the rifling is often something technical readers of firearms articles are interested in. Remember that some of your readers are interested in tech details. This is an excellent time to remember wp:IAR. Removing similar material from many articles looks like a solution looking for a problem.

Currently there is not consensus for removal. I would suggest that those who want to keep the factual portion of the material should restore it without including promotional language. Springee (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, local consensus does not override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ...such and such a new option package in 1976, unless covered by independent reliable sources, is the definition of indiscriminate amount of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration, if you want to tweak it so you feel better about the promo concern that is find. Primary sources are not a problem here with the non-contentious information. Finally WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not really apply since it is not a excessive list of unexplained statistics, it is covered in the body of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman; "Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations of policies"

• I am glad that you have acknowledged that this is only your "interpretation" of policy.

why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles?

• You're correct, I should have been more clearer when I posed that question. At a glance, I had noticed you had removed a great deal of content, per "wp:catalog" from almost three dozen firearm articles, just since the Stoneman shooting. But I took a second look, and since 14 February this year, you've removed significant content, per "wp;catalog", from 38 articles, 33 of which were firearm articles. Of the remaining five, one was about a company, another one was about a book, and the other three (1, 2 & 3) were about porn-related articles (eg; redirecting the bio of a gay porn actor to the gay porn awards, and two more articles about porn awards). So, instead of asking why this "only" seems to apply to firearms articles, I should have asked why this seems to "predominantly" apply to firearms articles. I shouldn't have implied that you were only targeting firearms articles when clearly you were editing other areas of interest as well. Sorry about that.

"Sorry, local consensus does not override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"

• But as you just admitted, this is only your interpretation of these policies. As for local consensus, we just had an RfA that determined content should be determined on a case by case basis. So, instead of you just arbitrarily removing whatever content you don't agree with, perhaps you should first post a proposal on the article talk page, indicating what content you feel should be removed, how you feel policy supports such removal, them give the community the opportunity to discuss it and come a consensus on the matter. We've seen that several editors don't agree with your choices here, or your interpretation of policy, so perhaps all these removals should be reviewed? We can then, as a community and by way of consensus, determine what was properly removed as promotional and/or improperly sourced content and was should have remained in the article. - ^theWOLFchild 03:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion. -72bikers (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest restoration of the following

Having looked over the removed material I do agree that much was promotional without encyclopedic value. I think the following material should be restored:

From the 5 May edit [[1]]

The firearm's precision is specified as ≈ 4 MOA (12 cm at 100 m) by Heckler & Koch. The HK416C has a high degree of component commonality with the HK416 family, but uses a shortened buffer tube and a collapsible butt-stock similar to variants of H&K's MP5 sub-machine gun and the HK53 carbine.

The precision spec is something that would be of interest to many firearms readers. The material is presented in a neutral fashion. The component commonality may be of interest but currently reads like ad copy. I would suggest reducing it to the shortened buffer tube.

This is useful as a backup ref as the primary ref is in French.

From the 14 April edit [[2]]

List of wars. This is something featured on many service rifle pages (remember this rifle has been adopted for military service so this is relevant information)

From the 14 April edit [[3]]

Differences from M4 has some good information but does read as promotional. Should be cut down but some information such as the short stroke gas system vs the M4's direct impingement is a significant difference. Springee (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll go you one further; I think that all the firearm articles that K.e.coffman has arbitrarily removed significant amounts of content from (33 and counting!) should be listed at WT:GUNS, along with the diffs showing what was removed as why. We should have as many editors as possible be made aware of this activity, have it reviewed en masse, hold any discussions about the content, the removals and K.e's actions as deemed necessary, determine what content should be restored to what articles, and what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required. This is topic re-engineering on a massive scale, all done quietly under the radar by a single editor. To what end? This should be examined, this should all be examined, and thoroughly. But this talk is not the place for it. Clearly the WikiProject:Firearms talk page would be the appropriate venue for this review. - ^theWOLFchild 01:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that, having reviewed the edits to this article and glanced at a few others, I think most of @K.e.coffman:'s edits make sense and all were done in good faith. I do think it would be reasonable to setup a list at TW:Firearms so other editors can weigh in. I would suggest the subject and related text MUST be neutral and not imply any problematic editing. I agreed with the majority of the edits I reviewed. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a few other opinions. I would setup the list as something like Article name, link to K.e.coffman's talk page edit link. Those edit links include a full list of the material removed and general rational. I would also suggest asking for K.e's input/collaboration.

As an aside, remember that we don't all have the same opinions about what is/isn't important on these subjects. It's best if we always assume the others are acting in good faith. In ten years here (but without a huge edit history) I've found very few editors who aren't obvious trolls and aren't editing in good faith. Springee (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the main goal here is to review the edits, not the editor. I'll start working on a list of affected articles and the relevant diffs, then post it to a new section on WT:GUNS. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 02:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sound like a good rational idea. I also like Springee's thoughts that not all needs to be restored, in a effort of neutrality. But certainly with more eyes on and a bigger consensus formed, would ultimately be what is best for the articles and readers.-72bikers (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A5 minimal barrel length

I'm pretty sure the redesigned gas block increased the minimum barrel length to 11.5". It's the shortest length HK shows on their website. Spartan198 (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)