Talk:AK-47 variants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 stub 2 What's the purpose 3 Neutrality 4 NPOV 5 Conversion 6 Original Research 7 Requested move

[edit] stub

It is good that someone already marked this article as a stub and as one needing improvement and standardization. This article was created to cover a topic that recieves scant attention in its own right. The creator of this article did not have time to create a proper article given time constraints but since the article is created under conditions of anonymity it seemed appropriate to lay a foundation for a good article that the originator and others could improve upon at will.

Generally civilian cousins of the AK-47 are treated in passing as part of a larger article on military assault rifles or are seen as primarily a subset of the gun control debate. While the military heritage of these weapons is integral to their nature and while the political dimensions of their possession and use are of the utmost importance proper attention must be paid to the weapons themselves in their technical and even aesthetic aspects.

In any case modifications to this article are welcome.

It is only asked that anyone wishing to contribute to this article refrain from the plagiarism which is endemic in the Wikipedia and has done such grave injury to the credibility of this institution.

At a bare minimum it is only appropriate to place the words of other autors in quotation marks and to give them credit for both their use of language and their ideas.

Even where extensive paraphrasing is undertaken the source of specific ideas should be given credit where at all possible. Carambola 21:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this article is getting somewhat better though I have been forced to rely upon my general knowledge of the subject rather than specific sources to avoid the pitfalls of plagiarism. Thus if the article seems a bit vague and non specific it is in large part due to the surprising breadth of the topic and the considerations of copyright, citation, and plagiarism. If anyone has any relevant civilian AK imagines that they legally have the right to use they should try and add them. I will attempt to make an image or two of my own but given the sheer variety of civilian AK cousins out there my few pictures would hardly be representative. Carambola 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also felt constrained to add a marker noting that this article currently lacks a global perspective since it is looks at the issue of Civilian AK-47 cousins from a decidedly American perspective. In saying this I do not refer to issues of ideology since both affinity and hostility to Civilian AK-47 cousins is well represented in the American political landscape.

Rather, the article assumes that civilian variants of the AK-47 exist only in the United States and it embraces the view that only semi-automatic versions of the AK-47 can be properly regarded as civilian weapons. While more comprehensive (or if one prefers, draconian) gun control measures have made legal civilian ownership of Kalashnikov rifles virtually non-existent in most of the world it is still inappropriate to assume that only American civilians possess these weapons in their capacity of law abiding citizens of their country.

It may be undesirable even to change the perspective of this article to one that is completely global especially since a truly global rather than American view and the virtue of maintaing a neutral POV might conflict. However if a nod is at least given to these issues within the text of the article I can then in good conscience remove the cleanup marker that I have placed. The reason for doing this would be that some might construe the marker as meaning that the information presented is unreliable and that would unduly injure the credibility of the the article in comparison to many others which are also written from an American rather than global perspective.

[edit] What's the purpose

This 'article' does not have any sense of purpose. It seeks to identify and encompass 100 different modifications of military AK-47 type weapons. Most of this information is supposition, marketing ploys, and lacks any degree of quality. There is a bit of vanity involved as many edits of this article are sure to come from owners who provide their own anectdotal input or something 'they heard.' Asams10 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has a number of purposes. One would be to alleviate the burden imposed upon the regular AK-47 article which devolved into a laundry list of information about Kalashnikov variants. Now, all information pertaining to civilian variants can be moved here.

Furthermore this article is intended to provide general information about civilian Kalashnikovs. If information gets too model specific then it should be moved to an article about that particular variant.

As far as problems with anecdotal input, you are right, this is a danger to guard against. But your comments rightly suggest that this problem is one of the future. The charge of vanity is fair enough since experts of all stripes love to participate in the discourse on their topic. I am actually not an expert on this topic but merely someone generally aware of its general contours.

You are right about the lack of quality in the sense that I have not been able to adaquately tie the information to the types of sources typically relied upon for say a history of Roman weaponry.

It is my intention over the long term to find good secondary sources (preferably printed ones) to cite but I am confident that what has been placed here at least by me is generally accurate.

If I have included misinformation then please be specific as I am always open to constructive critcism.

As the suggestion of "marketing ploys" I have no financial interest in this topic and I take a bit of umbrage at the implication that I do. I will respond to any other concerns later but right now I have to leave to run some errands. Carambola 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't acuse you of that. This is an untidy and meaningless article. You don't list the thousands of manufacturers who have produced 'Bowie' knives. You list the category and stop there. The hundreds of minor variances here is tedious and confusing.--Asams10 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A lil of topic but i think the named should be changed, though i don't represent a group of people any way i thought the artical was just a list of civilian ak47's not about them mayby the title could be chaged to clear up confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

"For most civilians worldwide the AK-47 and its derivatives are weapons of war which do not belong in the hands of private citizens" And where did the editor get this imformation? Is he omniscient all of the sudden? I think that statement and the entire section needs to be deleted.--Riconoen 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

While there is a major pro AK-47 bias in the article ("Politics aside, the Kalashnikov is best known to all gun owners including its detractors, as very nearly the most reliable semi-automatic rifle one can buy." being the most obvious example), I disagree with deleting the whole section, as it has the possibility of useful information about semi-automatic AK-47 clones (such as the different types of clones, such as the SAR and WASR series) that wouldn't fit the main AK-47 article. As it stands now, it's nothing more than a pro AK-47 propaganda article disguised as a Wikipedia entry about semi-automatic AK-47 clones.--Ziron 7:57, 24 March 2006 (EST)

I will agree that the entire section doesn't necessarily need to be deleted, as there is definitely a certain image that this rifle both regrets and boasts, given its history. However, you MUST acknowledge that this is a very big difference between an opinion on function or quality ("the Kalashnikov is...very nearly the most reliable semi-automatic rifle...") versus a straight-up political opinion ("For most civilians worldwide the AK-47 and its derivatives are weapons of war which do not belong in the hands of private citizens"). A "should" or "ought" applied to form or function is one thing. The statement in question is something else altogether. And that something is NOT neutral, as required by the Wiki standards Brew 21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Brew78 is right for removing the second statement but for the wrong reasons. The statement should have been removed until it can be sourced using a neutral academic source (perhaps impossible to find on a topic like this). I was merely stating what appeared to be a well known fact. If most citizens of countries around the world were polled using standard techniques they would oppose civilian ownership of AK-47's and their variants. I was not saying that global public opinion on this point is right or wrong. I was not saying why they have that perception. Given that even media in the United States, let alone worldwide tends to be biased against civilian gun ownership it would be a wonder if the public thought any differently.

I included what I considered to be a stipulated fact. I personally do not regard world opinion as of any value whatsoever in forming the domestic and in most cases, foreign policy of the United States of America. I merely wanted to illuminate the social and political context of the ownership of these weapons and in part explain why ownership of these civilian variants is comparatively rare outside of the United States of America.

Instead, I created the appearance of political bias. I should have remembered that some other readers find international standards and opinion to be very relevant to domestic law. Thus the second statement could be perceived as making a political argument in favor of prohibiting these weapons.

What I should have done is simply note that most countries around the world prohibit or heavily restict ownership of these kinds of weapons but that they are legal in most states in the United States which means that the ownership of civilian Kalashnikov variants is largely restricted to the United States. That would have provided the correct political and social background, could have easily been sourced and would have avoided making an unsupported statement easily misinterpreted as politically favoring one side or the other through no fault of the reader. Carambola (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

18 May 2006 - Made significant changes to cleanup and provide NPOV

[edit] Conversion

Though it is illegal in many jurisdictions, conversions of semi-automatic AK-47s to fully automatic is a common practice. Perhaps there should be a section discussing this, i.e.; legalities of such, methods of such, safety isues, etc.

You're not talking a 'conversion,' you're taking causing a malfunction that occasionally results in slam-fire. A 'conversion' involves drilling a hole through the receiver and installing an auto sear. --Asams10 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Conversion would mean changing the weapon in any way from semi-automatic to automatic. Just look at the defintion of the word convert. So, it doesn't matter how it's done it is still a conversion, understand? And also, anyone who talks about "pro-AK propaganda" seems to be just trying to spread their own "anti-AK propaganda" in my eyes. Please keep your own personal anti- or pro-gun feelings away from this article and it's discussion. --MagicJigPipe 07:51, 31 May 2006 (CST)

[edit] Original Research

This article seems to be exploring the topic, rather than encyclopedic. Searching for AK-47 cousin on Google returns this article et specula, people talking about (usually selling/advertising) AK-47-like guns, and people whose cousin has an AK-47. —Dmbrown00 05:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns, though I think it's possibly a question of a bad name as much as anything else. Something like "civilian" versions of the AK 47 might work better. FrozenPurpleCube 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The name was lousy and using the word version has worked better. I suppose I used the term cousin in the title because I wanted a term that would recognize the considerable differances between civilian and military versions of the AK-47. Journalists in particular often fail to make that distinction out of ignorance or because of a political agenda. Actually I could have achieved something though not all of the desired effect by having the title Civilian Kalashnikov Variants.

I am glad that this article has been thoroughly worked over by my peers and made better. It is also nice to see that most of it has not been discarded but I am painfully aware that I have not sourced the material properly. Then again, some authors I've seen simply plagarize other internet sources and I would rather have unsourced original authorship by someone trying to be truthful than I have access to library databases but they don't tend to full text gun magazines or other sources. I am dubious of internet sources even though they can sometimes be amongst the most current and comprehensive on a topic such as this. Carambola (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I think this article should be retitled to AK-47 Variants. The reason is because AK-47 Variant is a better title and the current title is to broad.Poison the Well 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Variants should not be capitalized. 132.205.44.5 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move to AK-47 variants for civilian use in the United States - as it's about the US. 132.205.44.5 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)