Talk:Carbon 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

What makes this weapon notable? I added a notability tag, but it was deleted without comment.[1] The article has few sources. The weapon appears to be yet another AR-15, distinguished only by the use of different materials in some components. I'm going to restore the tag until there's a consensus that the article is about a notable topic, or more sources are added, or an AFD resolves the matter. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured in multiple relevant sources. I'm sorry nobody's shot anyone with it so you can find it interesting. :( Herr Gruber (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find that last comment offensive.
Two of the four citations are to the manufacturer, which doesn't count towards notability. One of the sources, Rifles of the World, has a very brief mention of the weapon. The fourth appears to be a self-published blog. These don't seem to establish the notability of what is basically just a generic weapon. We don't have articles on every refridgerator and stove ever made. Felsic2 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, dear. You might want to look up what a blog is; an online magazine which lists eighteen writers including published experts (check out the credentials of William Bell, R. K. Campbell, Mike Cumpston, Jesse L. Hardin, Frank Kelly, Terry Murbach, Joe Riekers, Jim Taylor, Matthew Wellington and Leroy Thompson) isn't quite the same thing as someone's tumblr. The Carbon 15 series is notable for having a composite lower (which is rare), completely lacking a front iron sight or any ability to mount one (which is stupid} and for, um, shitty quality control (in the latter case Bushmaster eventually gave up and started issuing aluminium uppers).
Frankly, the fact that you believe there even is such a thing as a "generic weapon" proves you have no business editing these articles.
We do have articles on just about every videogame, car, aircraft, helicopter, zeppelin, ship (in some cases an article for each ship as well as the class, such as articles for all 175 Fletcher-Class destroyers), submarine (including well over a thousand articles on individual German U-Boats, including those with such illustrious careers as being scuttled four days after they were commissioned), locomotive, etc. We have a ridiculous number of articles on completely unremarkable asteroids and random stars, and I imagine the only reason we don't have that for kitchen appliances is that nobody cares enough about them to create those articles. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's reliable then that onus is on you.
You've said elsewhere that gun articles shouldn't include "reception" sections, and here you provide a bunch of reviews to show it's notable. I'm not sure how reviews help if they shouldn't be included.
The destroyers, etc, which you mention almost all include their use in combat and so on. Elsewhere, you've rejected any mention of how guns are used in attacks. If were going to use those as examples let's follow through and include operation histories of firearms too. Felsic2 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the onus is on me, but you might at least have clicked the "about" tab to see who wrote the thing before proclaiming it to be someone's personal blog when it's actually got a guy on staff as VP of business development and a bunch of expert contributors. Same with world.guns.ru's about page which notes the author has had articles published in domestic and foreign gun magazines and has written two books on guns and co-written another.
You source reviews from reliable sources for facts, not for soundbites. The fact that Ted the Reliable Reviewer says a gun exists and has particular qualities and dimensions is useful to describing the weapon, the fact that he thinks it's "the most awesome tacticool black gun since the Deagle Arms Deagle Pistol" not so much. As I said, we're not trying to sell people guns with snappy one-line quotes here, we're just trying to describe what they are.
And the latter is because the pages are about the actions of one ship, not all ships of that class. The main Fletcher-class destroyer page only includes details regarding things that are true of a large number of ships, not anything that happened to just one. If there were a page not just for every firearm type but for each individual gun by serial number it would be relevant to mention in Marteen's gun's page that it was used in that way, but there isn't. This is another false equivalence: the actual equivalent is including things that are true of a large number of firearms of that type, such as state purchases and use in major conflicts, which is what existing pages on firearms already have where relevant. When it comes to individual uses we only usually go for people about whom entire books have been written by experts, such as Al Capone's use of a Thompson SMG, Lee Harvey Oswald's use of a Carcano which is the subject of dozens of books and a lot of very silly conspiracy theories, Carlos Hathcock using a Browning M2 heavy machine gun as a sniper rifle which led to the development of the modern .50BMG anti-materiel rifle, or the use of a Mosin-Nagant by Simo Häyhä, Vasily Zaytsev and Ivan Sidorenko. What you're doing is more like quoting, say, this to add killing Bin Laden to the page on the HK416, which has been rejected even though it is featured on the page about the death of Bin Laden itself. It's not just "bad" individual uses that get left out, it's ones that aren't cited to scholarly sources on firearms. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
M1 Abrams includes lengthy discussion of the battles in which that weapon was used.
It still looks to me like "Gunblast" is written and published by the same guy, making it a self-published source. The fact that he publishes work by other people doesn't mean that it meets the general standards for reliability, though the writer himself may be enough of an expert to pass the threshold. Even so, this gun is still basically a generic AR-15 that's built with some different materials. Know that we have an article on the company's line of AR-15 pattern weapons, the Bushmaster XM-15, maybe the logical thing would be to merge this stub into that page. Felsic2 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed, because books about tanks written by experts include such information, as it's often highly relevant to continued development and modification of the vehicle in question. For example, you can't make sense of Russia's decisions regarding the T-80 without knowing what happened to them in Chechnya, and you can't make sense of the T-80 design itself without understanding its context in light of the Cold War. I have a good few books on armoured vehicles, so I can tell you that easily.
On the other hand, despite it being an extremely famous incident you could back up with dozens of reliable sources, this guy stealing an M60 Patton tank from a depot in San Diego and going on a rampage on public highways in it is considered of so little relevance to understanding of the M60 itself that it's relegated to the "see also" section.
Civilian shootings very rarely have any meaningful effect on the design of a firearm since civilian firearm designs tend to be static; they don't effect what a gun is and so it's much more debatable that understanding what a particular gun is requires them to be included. This is what the GUN project page is getting at: for a shooting to be relevant it has to have effected the firearm itself in some way, in order to become an inseparable part of it: ie, a specific action resulting in a ban or major legal action regarding the gun itself (as with the Sandy Hook XM15-E2S lawsuit, but not the Beltway one which was aimed at a dodgy gun store) or resulting in major modifications (as with the various modifications to the TEC series as a result first of easy fullauto conversion of the open-bolt KG-9 version and then bans stemming from the Cleveland School massacre (leading to the TEC-DC9) and after that the Clinton Federal AWB (leading to the AB-10) (as well as the Olympic Arms OA-98, whose attempt to duck the 50oz weight limit resulted in one of the most comically ugly guns ever created)). Being truthful here, did you even know an XM15-E2S Dissipator was used in the North Hollywood shootout? It's not exactly famous for being there, is it?
Self-published source doesn't mean any system where the writer and owner are the same person: it's supposed to forbid personal blogs, not sites with a list of contributors. This is more the equivalent of, say, Rupert Murdoch writing a column for one of his own newspapers; sure, he's the owner and the writer, but there's an entire staff there too.
I would continue to dispute your assertion that there is such a thing as a "generic AR-15" to someone interested in firearms, any more than there is such a thing as a "generic star" or "generic asteroid" to an astronomer. To give a personal counterpoint: what I know about cars could fit on the back of a stamp with room for the entire rest of the universe. I can't tell "average" cars apart and have no idea why anyone cares about the supposed differences; they seem miniscule and unimportant. But this is my perspective, not the truth. I certainly wouldn't use that as a pretext to go around removing articles on boring-looking cars, even if they're poorly sourced, not without at least trying to look up what the "other side" thinks about this.
(That said, there is such a thing as a "generic AR" in a different sense to such people, that being one that isn't made as a whole weapon by a brand-name manufacturer but assembled from parts by either the end-user themselves (they can even make the parts) or a gun store, but that doesn't apply to any of these since they're named variants produced and sold as complete weapons).
But since it seems fairly unlikely this is going to get much content any time soon, a merge might be good if you can find a decent source saying the Carbon 15 is an actual derivative (I can't access the one you used in the article online as far as I can tell), which I find a slightly odd statement since it wasn't developed by the same company. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very long response. Can we break it down to individual points or something? Felsic2 (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're going to go with any part of it, go with the last two paragraphs, first is important to defining what we mean when we say "generic AR15" and the second is my suggestion for proceeding. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another term for "generic" appears to be "mil-spec".
Because of the modular nature of AR-15 pattern firearms, descriptions of individual models often come down to lists of parts. From another article: "The PLR-16 combines the multi-lug rotating bolt design and breech-locking system of the AR-15 with a gas piston system. ... The PLR-16's frame is constructed of reinforced polymer, making the pistol both durable and light-weight. The frame incorporates an M-1913-style Picatinny rail molded to the top of the receiver to accept various optical sights." Or another, "The rifle includes a number of other manufacturer's parts such as a Troy Industries railed handguard and Samson folding iron sights, a Hogue rubberized pistol grip, and three Magpul PMAG 30-round magazines." Is a gun that's just an assemblage of commercially available parts notable? Anything is notable is enough people write about it. OTOH, if they don't write about it, then it's probably not notable.
No, it's not a derivative of the XM-15 line. But it is part of that line, apparently. All we've found to say about it in this article boils down to this:
  • It was developed by defunct United States weapons manufacturer Professional Ordnance, with the design picked up after some time by current manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms. They are distinguished by their carbon fiber construction, which provides an extremely lightweight frame, which is also extremely durable; chemical, water, and heat resistant. It is made in 5.56 caliber as well as 9mm versions of the pistol and carbine.
I don't see why that requires an entire article. It could easily be merged to the XM-15 article or the Bushmaster article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mil-spec usually refers to something that's manufactured to a certain set of requirements used by a national armed force; for example, a mil-spec barrel is one made to (*cough* at least one of *cough*) the tolerance specifications stipulated for parts for service rifles. You also get this with computer parts, my motherboard has "mil-spec" components which I believe means they're tested to US Army requirements for things like power cycling and static discharge.
In general to not be "generic" it has to be a model offered by a major manufacturer that has a name and is the subject of mass production. It's actually fairly like cars which tend to also use recycled parts from other manufacturers (eg the same engine in multiple types, a different company's tyres, electronics made by someone completely different, etc); we do have pages for every major type of car, but not for every chop-job someone makes in their garage.
I think given the reviews a lot more could be found to go here, in particular I'm interested in finding out just what happened to Professional Ordnance and how Bushmaster ended up making them. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If reviews are good sources, then that means that "reception" is a valid sub-topic for an article on a commercial product. In any case, if you think this firearm is notable then prove it by finding more sources and adding more content. That'd be more productive than this discussion, interesting though it is. Felsic2 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't mean a reception section per se, what I'm thinking is that since they're saying this rifle is a byword for an unreliable AR, that probably had something to do with why Professional Ordnance had to shut up shop. If you can't understand the weapon's history without knowing what it was like (for example, it's hard to get a handle on how the M85 machine gun was replaced by the Browning M2, the weapon it was supposed to replace, without knowing it was a piece of junk) then it's certainly necessary to include it. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we source reviews if not to report what the reviewers say?
Anyway, the bottom line is still that there isn't much to say about this topic. If you can find more sources and more info then go ahead and add it. I'll won't restore the notability tag. Later, if the article still looks anemic I'll either merge it or start an AFD. Felsic2 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm talking about the reviews in the context of the discussion we're having here, not in terms of quoting them directly. I can't really cite a series of reviews as a pattern showing a lot of people think the same thing without it being OR, I'd need a better source that asserts that a lot of people think that. For example, with media when we say reactions to something are "generally positive" or "generally negative" we cite an aggregator like Metacritic rather than a dozen reviews that are positive or negative. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carbon 15. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False statements in the article[edit]

The article seems to contain a couple of false statements, mainly the material used and extreme durability. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqRC6JyfB1U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.27.55 (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_15&oldid=1200633169"