User talk:Montourage

I read the concerns you expressed in the Montourage article. Since Wikipedia is a fully editable encyclopedia, fixing this problem is something you can do by yourself without any intervention or even permission from Wikipedia administration. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the following

Wikipedia:No original research. What you are doing currently violates the subsection on "Synthesis of published material that advances a position." Not only are the additions on magazine clip / clip magazine unsourced, you are also claiming to know why these terms are used to push the claim that it's some sort of industry-approved term. The fact that they exist does not offer any proof of why they exist; I've seen people speculating that it's either search engine optimisation or to avoid making people feel bad for using the wrong term, so the claim that it makes it the right term comes entirely from you.

The two citations used in the magazine article's header serve to show that the term exists but is regarded as contentious. The dictionary citation proves nothing because a general-audience dictionary is not an authoritive source of technical information, that's why you have separate dictionaries of technical terminology for such things. According to Merriam-Webster's definition of magazine, any weapon's bolt which in any way grips a cartridge is a magazine, as are a heavy machine gun's feed pawls and belt box. Hell, Merriam-Webster's definition of "gasoline" also describes kerosene, aviation fuel and diesel, you going to argue those are the same thing too? Herr Gruber (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review your comments and reply shortly. It's too easy to add the citations I assume you saw in the talk section. Or a simple search would prove they are true but you know this as I'm sure you looked into it. It's not so much about "advancing a position" as it is keeping wiki up to date. More to follow when I have time....Montourage (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Montourage (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What citations? The link to a manufacturer page that doesn't say anything about why the term is used? That's OR, like I said. The dictionary citation is useless because, as I said, according to the dictionary "gasoline" can be used to describe most hydrocarbon-based fuels. Nothing you've linked is suitable for proving anything. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're on dictionaries, how about Oxford English?

Clip (...) "a metal holder containing cartridges for an automatic firearm"

Magazine (...) "a container or detachable receptacle for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun"

Huh, that's weird. That doesn't agree with you at all. Could it be you cherry-picked the one dictionary that gave you a definition you approved of? Herr Gruber (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable guy and I'm more than willing to talk this out with you. I'm sure we'd both appreciate coming to an agreement rather than constant reverts. So that I meet your level of evidence that the two words are synonyms please inform me what it would take? I gave both the highest selling dictionary and oldest largest gun manufacture as examples and clearly that wasn't enough. Thus rather then further entrench just be frank with me about what you would need to see to be convinced. Fair enough?Montourage (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: standards of proof we have SAAMI (an industry supervisory body), Gunzone (written by a guy who has over 600 published articles in gun magazines) and the like. You'd need something on that level to argue that among experts this isn't the term of choice. Nobody's arguing there isn't widespread misuse, but as long as technical experts are clear on the terminology it's the same as people calling molecules atoms or venus a star.

Remember, the body of these articles has to treat clips and magazines as different things by simple virtue of the fact that they are two different articles. Clip and magazine are not directly interchangeable because nobody ever calls a charger or moon clip a magazine. It only ever happens in the other direction. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with putting the controversy to rest. You know and I know that many people call "magazines" "clips". Undeniable in both our views. Therefore I propose that the wording that suggests it is controversial be removed. It is only controversial to people that don't like mags being called clips. Most people don't care. But if you insist that this is still highly controversial why not show the other side rather than just allowing references that back up your beliefs? If people hold up a coin, they expect to see both sides, not just yours. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not repressing what you don't agree with. Montourage (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is controversial. People argue about it constantly, that's what controversial means.

Here's a section on what "neutral" means, from the talk page on evolution: This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage.

So it goes here. You might say laymen use the term in a certain way, but among firearms experts and industry bodies it is used in a specific way to describe a specific thing. Noting that common usage differs from the technical definition is worthy of only a passing mention since the articles are about the things themselves. The same is done on bullet and cartridge, a mistake which is if anything even more prevalent among laymen than clip / magazine. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see you've been busy citing more sources to "strengthen" your argument. Thus I take it you really aren't interested in providing a balanced view of the situation. Regardless I'll share what I've found looking over the page after your edits. Neutral means the source doesn't really offer an opinion on the topic that leans one way or the other. Against means that the source is strongly against clips being called magazines. There should be a category called "For" but clearly you object to giving people the full picture. I added a few neutral sources to help balance it but again I don't see you being interested in balance as you'd rather firmly tip the scale towards your opinion. Correct?

Magazine page by sources.

Magazine controversially called a Clip.

1 Neutral

2 Against

3 Against

Magazine was settled on by military and firearm experts.

17 Not reviewable

18 Not reviewable

19 Not reviewable

Regarding Clips being called Magazines

2 Against

20 Against

21 Against

22 Neutral

23 Neutral

Clip page by sources.

Clip use is controversial

1 Neutral

2 Against

3 Against

Defining difference.

2 Against

4 Against

5 Against

Montourage (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, neutral means it reflects the consensus among experts. Reliable sources do not say a magazine is called a clip. You will notice that the page on evolution does not take a "neutral" position on it either, or include a large amount of opinions from uneducated laymen to make them feel better when they get the facts wrong. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The most reliable source even mentioned was neutral on the issue. The NRA said despite the semantics war, "For 80 years, however, it(clip) has been so used by manufacturers and the military.(as a synonym for detachable magazine)" This to me is neutral. All the less reliable sources such as what you added are more likely opinions as you don't see any of them reference any higher source such as a "gun glossary conference" where these experts got together and decided. Fact is unlike the science community that publishes peer reviewed papers the firearms industry terminology is determined by the manufactures selling the weapons. Clearly the sources I mentioned back up the NRA's statement, their is no "concensus among experts" on this, only semantic opinions. I believe it is reasonable to show why this is so but I'm getting the impression you'd rather operate under the "confirmation bias" and only include data that fits your model. Montourage (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, not its technical branch, and the NRA-ILA is a political advocacy group; that's like saying a group of people campaigning for motorists' rights are experts on automobile terminology. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, the problem I see with the current article/s is that it brings up the fact that this is controversial but doesn't properly address why. When it mentions it all the sources "you've allowed" are either neutral or against. Thus a person looking into this would be left to wonder why there is any controversy if all these "experts" seem to agree. It fails to show the other side of the coin, such as current manufactures use of the word clip. The sources I've included help paint a full picture as to why the use of clip as a synonym for detachable magazine is prevalent despite obvious objections. It makes no sense to me to bring up a controversy but only allow one side of the story to be told about it, that's why I suggested removing that wording. I already knew you'd say no and I agree but the corollary is that the controversy should be fully explained, currently as you can see it's one sided. Montourage (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't address why, the article is about the things themselves. There are no such long digressions on why laymen think other terms are the same; bullet and cartridge, atom and molecule, weight and mass, evolution and metamorphosis and so on do not bother to speculate on whether the incorrect usage has been made correct by abuse. Merely mentioning that many people get the definition incorrect would be sufficient if it weren't for clip and magazine attracting a large number of people who'd rather ignore the facts than admit the two are not the same. Even among the public it is clear they are regarded as two separate objects since clip is only treated as a word for magazine and never the other way around, and only for detachable box magazines, never for fixed, integral or tube magazines. Since fixed, integral and tube magazines are still magazines it is necessary to explain the misconception and what the terms are held to mean when used technically.

Also your sources do not paint a picture of anything, you are confusing the sources with your own interpretation of them. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Undeniable the best source listed on any side of this debate is SAAMI and you mentioned them above. They state, "It is not intended to provide legal definition of the terms included, and, in light of further experience, the definitions of these terms may change." The last part is what I find rather common sense as the sources I've mentioned that are not subject to much interpretation indicate this is so. Further, it'a rather presumptuous to say people are incorrect when referring to a magazine as a clip given the definitions do change and have.

Just because "clip" adds a new definition to its repertoire doesn't mean "magazine" has to as well for them to be synonyms. This is what I think you are getting at when you mention the public also regards them as two separate objects. We do agree that it is only one way in that the term magazine is not used to describe a cartridge clip and yet SAAMI "CARTRIDGE CLIP: A separate cartridge container to hold cartridges or shells in proper sequence for feeding into a specific firearm. It is a magazine charger, and unlike a magazine does not contain a feeding spring. Sometimes improperly called a Magazine." Clearly our most trusted resource is wrong, we do agree here.

You my friend are being difficult if you don't think the sources I added help "paint a picture". Clearly they do which is why you object so much to them as they show that your precious definitions are crumbling down. Look you can keep defending your ideology that the terms must be kept separate/sacred or acknowledge that they are synonyms in the "real world". NRA president doesn't see it as a big deal when he's interviewed on TV and the media says clip, he knows what they mean. John Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" used the term clip a few times on TV. The highest selling dictionary...the oldest largest US firearm manufacture sales "Magazine clips". The president of the United States has used the term "Magazine clips"...but as you would say....they are all incorrect. I disagree, they are using a new generally accepted definition of the word and you sir are picking nits. You've already lost the semantics war you just refuse to admit it. Montourage (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's incredibly common to see people using the word 'evolve' to refer to something an organism can do within its own lifetime, go tell the people over there that Pokemon has changed the proper definition of the term and we should merge evolution and metamorphosis to reflect the "real definition."

Clip is used as a term for certain types of magazine but not others. Magazine is never used as a term for clip. This means that the terms are not interchangeable and that saying they are (which was your original claim when you added the dictionary definitions) is misleading. The term "magazine" is used to describe any part of a firearm which feeds ammunition and has a mechanical follower; this includes detachable magazines. "Clip" is used to describe a fastener for holding groups of rounds together only. You will not find a single piece of technical literature on firearms which describes these items without using different terms for them.

None of the things you list are good sources. A guy who's got bored of correcting people and has more important things to say in interviews, an author "using the term a few times on TV" without saying it's correct, a general-audience dictionary that also gives a definition of gasoline which would make it a word for diesel, a sales term the reasoning for which is not given, and a politician who is not required by his job to understand technical terms. Whoop-dee-do. Claiming that these demonstrate some kind of pattern qualifies as original research and does not belong in articles, as your ideas of the significance of these things is an unpublished synthesis of existing sources.

I don't care who you think is winning or losing, people read an encyclopedia to find out what is held to be correct by experts, not what equally ignorant people think of something. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Really a straw man argument is your best reply? You can do better than that as your replies have generally been pretty well thought out and logical.  :) I've looked into more thoroughly what a encyclopedia is according to wiki since your suggestions and it seems when there is a "controversy" they don't mind it being explained from both sides. I agree that having looked at what OR is some of what I sourced could be considered that and for those reasons I'll make sure what I add does meet those guidelines. The dictionary is however a reliable source that should be included, you may disagree that it is correct but it does meet your standards regardless.Montourage (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But there ISN'T a controversy among anyone who knows what they're talking about, any more than there's a controversy about whether evolution actually happens. "The dictionary" isn't a reliable source for technical definitions since, as I have noted, the truncated definitions are not designed to give a proper overview of a subject; I'm sure Merriam-Webster would be horrified if anyone took their description of "gasoline" to mean the editors believe that you can call diesel and aviation fuel gasoline.

M-W's description of clip is flawed for the following reasons:

• First meaning doesn't quite fit an en-bloc clip (since that is used for more than just charging), says clips are used for "some rifles" which excludes the moon clips used with revolvers and that even large weapons like the Bofors 40 mm feed from clips.

• Second definition fails to make a distinction between detachable magazines (which are called clips by laymen) and integral magazines (which are not). According to it, the tube magazine of a shotgun can be called a clip. Even you admit nobody actually does this.

Also I don't know why you keep calling it "the dictionary," at most it is a dictionary and others do not agree with it. It also affects other non-controversial terminology; for example, nobody ever argues that "clip guide" can be used as a term for "magazine well" even though given the misuse of clip they should also be synonyms. This means that in terms of those two terms it is recognised they are not the same thing, too. Nobody ever calls the magazine release on a weapon the 'clip release' either as far as I'm aware. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversy: Your point here is well taken but for the fact a person can be well aware of possible distinctions in terminology and still call a magazine a clip. In actuality, it is the "firearm experts" that insist on a controversy by way of insisting on their terminology. In other words, because they have taken issue with the layman's wording they have indeed made it controversial and not the other way around. So while the distinction in wording may not be controversial within their circle of buddies they are in fact responsible for the controversy.

M-W Dictionary: When I say "the dictionary" clearly I'm referring to "the dictionary" I cited before in this case M-W. I am a "cognitive miser" like anyone that takes short cuts when I can, just as you shortened it to M-W. Rather than grasp at straws in dissecting ones arguments let us focus on the big picture when we know what each other means. I agree the dictionary isn't for giving an exhaustive description, that's what encyclopedias are for. However in this instance it does shed some light on "the controversy" as it does indeed define a clip as also a magazine. The reason for including it is not to give people a better understanding of the differences between types of clips or the different types of magazines. The purpose of including it is to show the other side of the controversy and according to my research within Wikipedia this is entirely acceptable.

Agreement: Clearly some people don't agree with M-W just as you and I don't agree with SAAMI's statement that people sometimes refer to "cartridge clips" as "magazines". The "experts" on weapon's have this fact somewhat backwards and are incorrect as they should state that people refer to "magazines" as "clips". Just because you and I disagree with SAAMI's statement doesn't mean it should be taken out as a reference and I'd never suggest that.

What I suggest is a compromise. I agree with you about the references regarding Remington and Marlin as that does seem to fall under OR. M-W however doesn't fall under OR as it is a published source and being a leader in its industry it could be argued is the authority on word use. Do you have any suggestions on how it could be incorporated so as to show how this controversy is perpetuated? Without saying it's wrong because it clearly isn't according to common usage. I'm thinking something like this....Clip technically defined.....use to describe magazine is controversial....however M-W defines it as such.

This allows readers to see their is a difference in terms, there is a controversy, and why it potentially exists or is perpetuated. I think this is fair. Note well that I never attempted to remove any sources that backed up what you're saying here. I'm not interested in destroying your view, only presenting both sides fairly.Montourage (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)