User talk:BurtReynoldsMoustache

Ok, now that I've fixed all that

You've got it backwards; you shouldn't just call it the Type 69 and should add RPG to the end (also, you shouldn't remove the note that the calibre is 40mm). This is because Norinco have several things called Type 69 that they manufacture, including the Type 69 rocket propelled grenade launcher, the Type 69 Main Battle Tank, and I believe there's also a Type 69 landmine. It's no more wrong to call it a "Type 69 RPG" than it is to use the term "M4 Carbine" to describe the M4; it gives the weapon's type, and distinguishes it from the many other things also called M4 (eg the SITES Spectre M4).

Really, we should call it the "RPG-7 RPG" since in that case the first RPG is actually in Russian and means something slightly different to the usual Western acronym (it's "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher"), but we don't do that because it's rather redundant; people tend to just assume that the first "RPG" stands for "rocket propelled grenade." Certainly, it's correct to use it as the type of weapon and / or the name of the projectiles it fires. Evil Tim 02:25, 13 April 2011 (CDT)

• Not true: RPG is an acronym with two different meanings depending on who's using it. In Russian it stands for Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot, in English it stands for Rocket Propelled Grenade. It only has the Russian meaning when specifically used to reference Russian launchers that use that prefix; otherwise it's assumed to have the English meaning. RPG is a generic term used to describe devices that launch rocket propelled grenades and the projectiles they launch; it's not an incorrect use, just a different one. Evil Tim 22:31, 13 April 2011 (CDT)

• • The US military would beg to differ; they use RPG to describe launchers and projectiles, and really "RPG" is in English a generic term to describe unguided infantry rocket weapons. Seriously, have you never seen Black Hawk Down? Another good one: here's BAE Systems describing their LROD cage armour: "The LROD system provides lightweight, low-cost RPG protection that is easily adapted to virtually any armored vehicle." So, the defence industry calls them that too. Another: here's one of Wikipedia's sources, the Historical Dictionary of the US Army (granted, that has an error in saying the Panzerfaust was an RPG, they've confused it with the Panzershreck). You're saying BAE systems and the US Army are wrong and you're right? It might be a backronym, but it's been used so extensively as to become a fully correct term in it's own right, and we're not here to try to undo history. Evil Tim 01:54, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

• • • No, it's not even technically incorrect when technical descriptions use it. BAE are hardly going to be wrong about what term they choose to use for the weapon. This is no longer something incorrect but widely used, it is something that has become correct and is used as a proper name. You are not in a position to overrule people who manufacture and operate weapons professionally on what they are correctly called. It's a Type 69, class RPG, so it is as correct to call it that as it is to call an M4 an "M4 carbine" in a caption. We're here to use terms correctly, not alter them to how you wish they were used. Evil Tim 04:46, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

• • • • Let me reiterate: defence industry contractors use the term in official press releases. English-speaking armies use the term. This can be sourced, your opinion on the subject cannot be sourced as coming from anyone but you. We are here to use the correct terms, not tell everyone terms used by authorities on the subject are wrong because we wish they weren't right. Evil Tim 18:35, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

• • • • • And you are wrong. It might once have been correct to argue as you're arguing, but it is now technically correct. It can be sourced to official literature as a correct term rather than just being confined to general use. It is used in technical literature to describe this class of weapons and their warheads. It doesn't matter where the term came from, what matters is how it is used now, and now it is a fully correct term. As I've said, it's as correct to label it Type 69 RPG as it is to call an M4 an M4 carbine or an M16 an M16 assault rifle, and nobody would remove the latter for being wrong. Evil Tim 19:08, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

• • • • • • I don't need a source from Norinco or the PRC to prove the general use of the term "RPG" to describe a class of weapons that includes the Type 69. You are not in a position to overrule the defence industry and the army on what "RPG" means, it really is that simple. Evil Tim 19:37, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

• • • • • • • This wiki is in English. Of course the Chinese aren't going to use an English term for RPG to name their RPG, but that's irrelevant to the discussion; it's correct for us to refer to any RPG weapon as an RPG, and that includes the Type 69. You might as well argue that we can't say "MG42 machine gun" because there's no way any German would use the English term "machine gun." Evil Tim 19:52, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

• • • • • • • • Right, so you're saying we should change every mention of "MG42 machine gun" to "MG42 machine rifle" since that's what the manufacturers called it? I've heard this argument over calling the King Tiger a King Tiger (it should be "Bengal Tiger"), and the same applies here; it might once have been wrong, but is now so commonly used by authoritive sources that those arguing it is wrong are the ones who are incorrect. As far as I can see, nobody has yet agreed with you that RPG is not a correct term to use to describe a class of weapons that includes the Type 69. It might be superfluous to call it "Type 69 RPG" all the time, but that does not fit your idea that it is wrong; nobody has agreed on that point. Evil Tim 20:17, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

Type 69

Please refrain from making any more corrections to the "Type 69" launcher entries until this is sorted out with the other mods. Also, when you make such a drastic change across the board without making any indication to any of the mods, this is bound to catch the attention of the moderators and might be cause for further action. --Ben41 17:03, 14 April 2011 (CDT)