Talk:Jarmann M1884

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Jarmann M1884 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry FA‑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

FA

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

There is a request, submitted by WegianWarrior, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Would love to see all featured articles as spoken.".

enfilading

It should be clarified as to what "438 m Enfilading" means. I know it says "(the path of the bullet would pass through a man-sized target)", but i'm not sure what the distance rating refers to. Fresheneesz 02:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in that table, it mentions a "rate of fire" but no units. What does "8" rate of fire mean? Is that 8 shots per minute? Fresheneesz 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Front page clarification

The blurb on the Wikipedia main page says that the rifle used black powder cartridges, and that it turned the Norwegian army into one armed with weapons that used smokeless powder. Smokeless powder is, of course, the modern replacement of black powder and the two are not the same. The article itself explains this later on, but the front page (and probably the beginning of the article, which I have not yet read closely) could use some clarification. I originally clicked through to make a correction to the article, but saw that the explanation is there - it could just use better placement. 68.230.214.218 03:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first rifle design or first breech loading rifle ?

Jacob Smitch Jarmann designed his first rifle breech-loading rifle firing cardboard cartridges—in 1838,[ Unclear which is intended with the repeated reference to 'rifle' pmh 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smitch or Smith

variation in text pmh 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a typo, but someone should check. Flyne 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new = unique

redundancy in text ? pmh 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

combat sight

"This combat sight was graduated to 430 m (470 yd), since the path taken by the bullet did not rise over 1,80 meter (6 ft) at this distance." It is unclear why or how the conditional statement is related to the combat sight. pmh 05:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excitable ?

"The combination of tubular magazine and centerfire ammunition has been referred to as too excitable, especially when used with pointed bullets." Unclear as to the meaning of 'too excitable'. Is there an 'excitable' quality in a rifle or its use that can be excessive? pmh 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I to have a question about "excitable" - the common problem with tubular magazines and centerfire ammunition is that the sharply pointed rounds most suitable for long range high velocity military applications will ignite the primers of the rounds loaded ahead of them in magazine by the recoil force.

This is why later military rifles were exclusively clip or rotary feeds holding the rounds with spire nosed bullets in paralell

I'm guessing excitable somehow relates to this safety issue

--WarLord 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverts over comparison with contemporary rifles

im quite happy with the table of factual data comparing the jarmann with other contemporary rifles but the paragraph at the top is in my mind clearly pov. firstly - who considered it a good weapon? secondly how can someone state its clearly an excellent weapon for its time? thats an opinion which someone has arrived at without evening showing any justification. what criteria was used to make this judgement? in what context was it an excellent weapon? close range or at a distance? What im trying to show here is that the paragraph is inherently flawed and unless an alternative is proposed should be removed. WP:NPOVD contains the statement "An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand." and to me the statement about the rilfe being excellent contradicts that. Tyhopho 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was an excellent weapon that compares well with other excellent weapons. Your quibble is at most a minor one about wording. You are going overboard on the neutral point of view issue, misapplying it to something that doesn't really make any specific claims that need justification. Gene Nygaard 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt say 'other excellent weapons'. If I regard a paragraph as clearly POV im not going to think 'oh i shouldnt quibble over a change of word' - instead im going to correct it so that it is no longer POV. Single words or brief statements can have a signficant affect on the tone of a piece, therefore i regard my edit as a valid one. also rather than worry about justifying a weak statement take a simpler solution and remove it. Tyhopho 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're reported for violating WP:3RR. Secondly, What Gene Nygaard said - the table clearly shows that the Jarmann is equal to or better than the arms used by the major european powers at the time; arms that was generaly considered to be excellent (otherwise, they would not have been adopted by a major power). Logicaly it follows that it was, in fact, an excellent weapon for it's time. WegianWarrior 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youre logic is flawed. A top of the line Mercedes Benz could have better accelleration, handling etc then a cheap nissan micra but because the micra may have better fuel consumption i could argue that its a better car for its time due to the cost of fule. that analogy will hopefully show why ive been objecting to the paragraph and not 'making stuff up' :-) Tyhopho 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough about the 3RR. Yes there is data in the table which shows its superiority in some areas, but is that enough to make a final judgement call on whether its a better rifle compared to the others in the table? No I dont think so in the slightest. Tyhopho 15:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where does it say that? The paragraph you keep deleting merely says the Jarmann M1884 was an excellent weapon for it's time, not that it was better than the others. Read what is there, and don't make stuff up that isn't in the text. WegianWarrior 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since when am i making stuff up? ive been going on what was stated in that paragraph - nothing more or less.Tyhopho 15:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me where the paragraph you kept deleting said that the Jramann M1884 was _better_ than the other rifles in the table. All it says it that it is an excellent weapon, without making a judgement weither it is better or worse than the other rifles listed. WegianWarrior 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my original post in this section. I have no interest in repeating myself unnecessarily. Tyhopho 16:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume that published (and objective) facts and figures support the statement, which means that it cannot by definition be POV, nor is it original research, as someone else published the specs, which a cursory glance can compare. The problem, however, is that examining the statement in-depth is outside the scope of the article, and that's not a POV issue either. MSJapan 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research was not something I was objecting to - and I have no problem with the stats within the table. However the content of the paragraph I thought was arriving at a conclusion based on a personal reading of the facts something which I thought this encyclopedia didnt accept (obviously Im wrong). Why would examining the statement be beyond the scope of the article? if its in the article it should be examined. Tyhopho 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]