Talk:Defense Distributed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defense Distributed article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Freedom of speech Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arkansas / Military history / Texas / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Care to explain what is going on?[edit]

I have never seen Wikipedia censored as it just was. What is the most harmful thing that could've been added with 75 characters? Links to surviving copies of the Liberator blueprints? The article more or less tells you how to find them as it is. Connor Behan (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, what just happened? I'm confused, can you explain and elaborate? — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of the article on May 11. Three revisions were made unviewable without anyone involved having the decency to tell us why. Connor Behan (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Revision deletion, more info at public logs, lots of reasons that could be that might have nothing to do with the article's topic itself. Best to focus on further research on the article in additional WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only additional info given by the logs is that this had something to do with the removal of a link. The criteria at WP:CRD say that an admin should "give a clear reason for the removal." It seems that either User:Fred Bauder or User:The Anome is in violation of this. Connor Behan (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to hazard a guess, if a link was removed then it was most likely a link to a location to download the liberator 3d-printed gun. They deleted the log entry to avoid the possibility of them coming under ITAR regulations as well.68.62.102.48 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These actions were not based on any firm policy. A provisional deletion was made and the matter passed on to legal. But, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/09/3d-printed-guns-plans-state-department I would say, broadly, that this falls within Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We are not cutting-edge, read bleeding-edge, activists on the front line. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/14/diy-firearms-makers-already-replicating-and-remixing-the-3d-printed-gun-photos/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should stick to what is documented in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I agree that posting a link to the blueprints (if that's what User:Nowheremano did on May 11) is inappropriate because it is a primary source and not neutral. When such an edit is made, it should be reverted or even redacted which is what happened. I have no interest in owning a gun and I am not looking for the blueprints. However, my issue is with transparency. A user reading the history can still only see that revisions were deleted and that the edit summary explaining why was also deleted. Am I to understand that an explanation will be put back into the edit summary once the legal team has responded? Connor Behan (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that some sort of explanatory edit summary would've been appropriate. However, best to focus further discussion and energies on improving the quality of this article with secondary sources. That would be most encyclopedic, and educational, for all readers and editors alike, but it would most help to serve the readers. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional articles[edit]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/31/gun-control-just-got-even-more-difficult/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/

(Probably can find non-fox refs for the second one) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of the legal cases[edit]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3680235 Terrorist96 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issues[edit]

A lot of the information in this article is cited more like a term paper than an encyclopedia article. There are several instances of citation overkill (WP:OVERKILL) and needless repetition. This is not only unnecessary, but it also makes the article nearly impossible to read in edit mode, thus making it difficult to add to or edit.

Many of the sources used for citations are good, but this by itself does not mean it should be included. Wikipedia articles should not be link farms. Cite when necessary for verifiability, but consider that if information is not likely to be challenged (i.e. straight, factual information), you don't need multiple citations to prove a point.

Additionally, do not cite terms in a sentence with a source, and then add the same source to site the sentence. This is an example of needless repetition (WP:REPCITE). There is also no need to cite each sentence in a paragraph with the same source - just provide the source one time at the end. I've removed some of both of these types of instances.

If someone does want to bring back some of the additional references and is not overciting, try to use a style that avoids inline citation clutter (WP:INLINECITECLUTTER).

Butlerblog (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]