Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2013/May

Improper use of the word "clips".

In today's social media, the improper use of the word "clips" has become commonplace. However, clips and magazines are two very different things that both serve different functions. The purpose of a clip is to load ammunition into an affixed magazine that is already attached to the firearm (non-removable). Clips were most commonly used during the World War I and World War II eras in order to allow soldiers the ability to reload their firearms in the heat of battle. Without clips, soldiers would find themselves reloading each round into the affixed magazine by hand. Magazines however are a different device entirely. Magazines are designed to hold ammunition and feed them into the chamber via a spring once the prior round is ejected (clips have no such mechanism). Magazines have become much more commonplace than clips as they are more convenient and combat effective.

What I am trying to say, is that calling magazines "clips" is not a "controversy" it is just plain incorrect.

24.138.14.130 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, too many people regard it as ok / doesn't matter to really call it incorrect; "controversial" is probably the best compromise you're going to get. It's not technically correct but it's passed into common usage.

Though that doesn't mean trying to claim it's right by using a citation from a dictionary is justified. Same dictionary also gives a definition of "gasoline" that describes almost all liquid hydrocarbon fuels, so I've yanked that source as blatant POV-pushing. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the posts above, the use of the word "controversy" is incorrect, as this would imply that there are two sides to the argument as to whether or not a magazine can indeed be referred to correctly as a clip, which is not correct at all. As previously stated by IP user 24.138.14.130, magazines and clips are two separate items with their own set of uses for various types of firearms. Just because many people -think- that the words are interchangeable does not mean they -are-. I believe the sentence on the matter in the introductory paragraph should be re-worded to read "The detachable magazine is often *incorrectly* referred to as a clip." This is more truthful in stating a fact, as no matter which way you look at it, referring to a detachable magazine as a clip, regardless of the circumstances, is incorrect. 66.190.165.116 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources differ, and reliable sources report the disagreement on the usage of the terms. Wikipedia contents reflect what reliable sources say. That is what we currently have by stating that the use the term clip is controversial. The word "controversial" doesn't give equal weights to both sides, and this is explained more fully within the article. (Hohum ^@) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I do have an issue with the use of the Merriam-Webster definition because other dictionaries (eg Oxford English) give more correct ones, and Merriam-Webster does not pretend it is a technical dictionary. As noted, the definition it gives for "gasoline" could describe almost any hydrocarbon fuel, I doubt anyone would serious use this to argue that common usage has "diesel" and "gasoline" as interchangeable. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Answered in following section. Lets not have multiple debates on the same thing. (Hohum ^@) 11:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Wow. My head hurts. I've been reading the archives of the seemingly endless clip vs. magazine debate. Right now, the language in the lede is as useful as reporting that sources differ on the shape of the planet and stopping there. This is completely unhelpful to the reader and completely unnecessary given that the "controversy" can be summed up in so few words.

It looks to me like the failure to reach a consensus that might have actually ended the debate rather filling one archive after another has been due to two mistakes. First, I didn't see much serious attempt to look for better language both sides could agree was accurate and helpful. Second, the debates were allowed to grind on endlessly, repeating the same arguments without ever calling the !vote to decide the matter or even just to see how big a divide we have.

I'm going to say right off the top, just so you know where my sensibilities lie, I think the dictionary argument is pretty lame. Dictionaries and genuine firearms experts are not similarly reliable sources on the terminology associated with firearms. This is so basic, I'm going to stop there. Otoh, the fact that it's in the dictionary and in common usage is undeniable. So all that matters is to state that in a way that respects both these encyclopedic facts. It isn't necessary to answer some meta-question about who is right. We're just reporting it.

Thankfully, I see you've already agreed that it's firearms experts who object to referring to magazines as clips based on some basic differences between them. I think that's all most readers really want to know.

I propose the following change to the lede:

The detachable magazine is often controversially also commonly referred to as a clip but that usage is considered deprecated by firearms experts.

Also, I think the explanation of the difference in the Nomencature section could be improved. To that, I propose the following change, which I think matches what the sources you have are reporting. Anyone reading this can decide for themselves whether they like common usage or identify more with (possibly picky) firearms experts.

The defining difference between clips and magazines is the presence of a feed mechanism in a magazine, typically a spring-loaded follower, which a clip lacks. Use of the term "clip" to refer to detachable magazines is a point of strong disagreement.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a clip as "a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm".

Magazines are also commonly referred to as clips but firearms experts have deprecated the use of the term clip to refer to a magazine as technically incorrect. A magazine contains moving parts that make up a feed mechanism with a spring-loaded follower. Magazines are expensive enough that they're meant to be reused and they typically come with the gun. A clip contains no moving parts and is usually just bent sheet metal allowing some number of rounds to be held together, making it easy to handle and load them into a firearm as a bundle. Though clips can also be reused, in military applications, the clip comes from the factory with the ammunition it holds and is not reused.

Would it seem satisfactory to all to open a period of, say, 2 weeks, to ask for discussion (at least to get us started)? May I call for !votes, please, to Support or Oppose? Msnicki (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think the Merriam-Webster source is absolutely terrible (clips are not just used by "some rifles," but by revolvers and even antiaircraft guns) and shouldn't really be quoted on its own; it's there because someone added it while trying to "prove" that the two terms are exactly the same, and other dictionaries (eg Oxford English) give definitions much closer to what's accepted by experts. I think "considered incorrect" is more accurate than "considered depreciated" since the majority argument is that clip is not accurate by definition (because a magazine does not "clip" things together) rather than just not correct anymore. Also, your definition of "clip" doesn't really apply to moon clips there.

Really a cartridge clip shares the meaning of "clip" used in paper clip; it's a device with no moving parts used to fasten cartridges together. A magazine is a feeding device with a spring-loaded or otherwise mechanised follower. Clip can be used to load magazine, magazine is never used to load anything but weapon. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree what the military and/or technical definition is, however, that isn't the only usage. Dictionaries are reliable sources for how words *are actually* used. That is why we mention it in the lead, and explain more fully in the article. Additionally, when there is more than one set of reliably sourced information, we don't just mention the majority version, we mention them all according to their weight. Currently the article does that. (Hohum ^@) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't have a problem with "The detachable magazine is also commonly referred to as a clip, but that usage is considered deprecated by firearms experts" - I was trying to keep the lead short, and that is slightly more wordy - but still good. (Hohum ^@) 11:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

But it strikes me as rather OR'ish to suggest that one particular dictionary definition, not matched by those in other popular dictionaries (Oxford English magazine, clip for example), solely denotes common usage, especially when it doesn't (for example, it fails to describe moon clips because it claims clips are only used in "some rifles"). Herr Gruber (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Using a dictionary for the definition of a word is clearly not Original Research. (Hohum ^@) 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion that one dictionary provides the correct or popular definition of a word when others provide different ones, however, is. Strikes me as getting into UNDUE since Oxford English is every bit as well-regarded as M-W is, if not more so. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. A couple remarks. I chose deprecated over incorrect because I thought it was more WP:NPOV, less judgmental and that it accurately reflects what I perceive as a changing consensus among those we might think of (or who might think of themselves!) as firearms experts. I think the use of the term clip to mean a magazine is declining. I still hear it today in occasional conversation with serious shooters who undeniably know firearms. But they tend to be older individuals and I get the sense their usage today reflects a more casual confusion of the terms, a kind of slang usage in the 50s and 60s that's less acceptable today. I know I heard magazines and clips confused a lot more 20 years ago than I do today. News and entertainment are also getting it right more often. I wanted to capture that the consensus is changing and that it's understandable that some people who actually do know what they're talking about may still like to call them clips.
  Re: the which dictionary is right argument, I think this is a waste of time over the same who's right argument that's characterized the endless debate I saw in the archives. What I think we can establish in an WP:NPOV fashion is that people do call magazines clips and firearms experts don't like that. The dictionary certainly documents that common usage, no matter who else (including other dictionaries) thinks that's wrong. But in my proposed change, I saw no reason to quote the dictionary inline and moved that to the citation. Msnicki (talk)

Yeah, but I think it's a little disingenuous to describe the point of view of firearms experts with NPOV language, that seems to more play down what they actually think on the subject (ie that it isn't right and many that it never was). Herr Gruber (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What's disingenuous? Maybe that's a word to look up as well because as I understand the word, you're wrong. I happen to agree with the experts who think magazines are definitely not clips. I flinch every time I hear them called clips. But I'd like to improve the article and that takes trying to find language that both sides can accept. Msnicki (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading, if you prefer, to try to describe the point of view of a group while simultaneously trying to incorporate the opposite point of view into that description. Firearms experts will generally say the usage is wrong, not that it's declining or depreciated. We're saying "firearms experts say X" and so it must be what they actually say, not what they say tempered by what people who aren't firearms experts say. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what deprecated means? "1. To express disapproval of; deplore. 2. To belittle; depreciate. 3. Computer Science To mark (a component of a software standard) as obsolete to warn against its use in the future so that it may be phased out." You're holding out for something stronger than deplore?
Anyway, you seem to arguing that you can't be satisfied until it's agreed that not only is this wrong, it's always been wrong. Never mind that the sources don't make that claim and that if what you're asking were ever on the table, you'd have gotten it long ago in any one of the endless archives of this debate.
The bigger problem is that your contention that it's always been wrong is just very unlikely. How do we explain how this confusion between clips and magazines could have happened, never mind, made it into dictionaries? My guess (sorry, I have no cites, this is just my guess) is the WWII GIs learned to use the term both for the actual clips for their Garrands and for the magazines for their 1911s. And in the context, their instructors who allowed that to happen and likely did it themselves would have been the experts. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Bullet doesn't have anything like this degree of argument; it simply says that "bullet" is commonly used to mean "cartridge" which leads to confusion, without requiring a whole subsection on who calls cartridges bullets and why they might do so. It's correct to say that most firearms experts consider the usage to be incorrect rather than simply that they "express disapproval" of it, since that's just watering down what they say for no good reason. I'm not saying I think it's always been wrong, I'm saying some experts do in fact argue it is simply wrong, with no qualifiers of any kind. Also, do you mind cutting back on suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about every time you reply? It's obnoxious. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I don't like being called disingenuous, either. Msnicki (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)