Talk:Ruger Standard

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Firearms High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging the Ruger MK II article into this one as the MK II is simply a variant of the Ruger Standard and most of the information on that page is merely a duplication of what will be in the "Standard" article. All the cited and relevant info from the MK II article would be preserved. Wikidenizen (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nambu/Ruger cocking systems[edit]

If you put both the Ruger .22 pistol and the Nambu pistol side by side, with their cocking handles (charging handles) pulled directly back, you will notice they are the same system. And Bill Ruger invented this system? Appears not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger did not claim to have invented the bolt-in-receiver cocking system common to the Nambu pistol, the Lahti L-35 and the Mauser C96. The 31 Aug 2009 version of this article does not conceal that Bill Ruger started by replicating two pistols from a war souvenir Nambu pistol. The Ruger copies the grip angle and balance of the German Luger, is a straight blowback (as opposed to the recoil-operated locked breech Nambu), uses a grip frame stamped in two halves welded together with tubular receiver (as opposed to the forged receiver and grip frame of the Nambu); it has long been recognised that the Ruger pistol combines ideas from the Nambu and Luger with innovative manufacturing techniques from Bill Ruger. Naaman Brown (talk) (2 February 2010‎)

I believe the controversy here is the fact that Mr. Ruger built or duplicated two Nambu pistols in his garage; and not the Lahti L-35 or Mauser C96. After duplicating those two Nambu pistols he then went forward with his Standard. Another words, there was no need to mention the Lahti and Mauser; he didn't duplicate those two firearms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.96.58 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Ruger MK II, Ruger MK III, and Ruger MK IV be merged into Ruger Standard. I think that merging these articles will make all the information easier to access and edit, all information is closely related enough to warrant being in an article together, and the Ruger Standard article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the others with it will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. - Mr.1032 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's great to see such a turnout; and with such an enthusiastic response too! Because some years ago someone proposed a merger of two of the four pages proposed here and nobody objected, and nobody responded in a week's time to this proposal, I'm going to be BOLD and go ahead with the merge. - Mr.1032 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive support, ha. @Mr.1032: do you have any thoughts on moving the page to "Ruger MK Series Pistols" instead? I'd like to give the "Standard" and MK I pistols their own infobox down in their section. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Faceless Enemy: Sounds like a great idea! Much better sounding name. - Mr.1032 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Use Section[edit]

At least one editor has expressed opposition to the "Criminal Use" section, and there have been reversions back and forth. I restored it, but I wanted to open up a dialogue to see whether people feel that this may be a WP:NOT list issue, or not appropriately balanced. Maltice (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to no counter argument being provided and the author having plainly displayed their political affiliation on their profile page, I believe that it should stay down until a satisfactory one is given. 108.58.17.26 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What author are you referring to? The section seems to be primarily written by this IP user 2600:1010:B157:A0BF:F94C:A68E:5627:61A3, who does not have a user page. User:Mr.1032 was the first person to add a "notable use section", all he has is an "arm bears" joke. Regardless, stating a political affiliation does not mean a user's edits are invalid. The counter argument is what I listed in my edit summary:

"The main standard for whether content is noteworthy on Wikipedia is whether there are trustworthy secondary sources to support the text. Household cleaners, cars and cutlery are all used in deliberate crime, but are less likely to be noted in the media for it, for reasons of sensationalism as well as political bias."

Arguing from the absence of 'criminal use' sections on other items is not a valid argument based on Wikipedia policy. You stated in your edit summary that you thought this might be a "political inclusion". Wikipedia does not prohibit editors from adding information that supports their political beliefs, see WP:NPOV, when the information is accurate. For these reasons I have restored the section. Maltice (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reasoning, the purpose of this website is to provide neutral information, hence the fact checks and the discussions on bias. 74.90.153.8 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a subsection "criminal uses" is neutral? Wouldn't neutral include a section of "lawful uses" (self-defense, predator control, subsistance hunting, recreational target shooting, marksmanship training (civilian, military, police), military use (U.S. Navy SEALS), etc.)? An Internet Movie Firearms Database style listing of every appearance of Ruger Standard variant in movies, TV, anime, videos, etc. would quickly be struck as redundant trivia.--Naaman Brown (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there may be an issue, but the issue is not Neutrality. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that articles must be halfway between being pro-gun and anti-gun, it means representing fairly and proportionally the views expressed in published, reliable sources. Published, reliable sources are more likely to focus on illicit uses of guns. If this were just an indiscriminate list of all illegal uses, I would agree that it is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. However, the list on this page focuses on high-profile mass-shootings, which I'm sure you know represent a small but extensively-reported portion of gun crimes. Maltice (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]