Talk:FB MSBS Grot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

There should be wrote "Kbs Beryl" not "Kbks Beryl". "Kbks" stands for "karabinek sportowy" (eng. "sport rifle"). Kbs stands for "karabinek" and that means "rifle".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.93.91 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Radon" vs "Radom"[edit]

Where is the source for this name? None of the reference links seem to mention such a name. Though maybe I'm missing something, given that the links are all in Polish. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There actually was a contest in magazine "Strzał" ("Gunshot") to choose a name for it. No surprise as it is kind of a tradition to name guns after chemical elements: Radon (Rn), Tantal (Ta), Beryl (Ba) and so on. --79.191.175.202 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Radon" was NOT adtopted by FB Radom, it is not present in any offical MSBS materials. Corran.pl (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page is misnamed. The MSBS rifle is being developed by FB Radom, note the 'm'. FB stands for Fabryka Broni which is Polish for Armory; Radom is the name of the city the armory is located in. This is referenced in the article and the manufacturers website is here. This article need some work. 99.184.82.193 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The name "Radom" is confirmed to be engraved on the lower receivers of production rifles displayed at shot show 2016. This should be the name listed on this page until the manufacturer specifies differently on its website. G3pro (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users?[edit]

Should we not add a list of users? I'm pretty sure a weapon like this would be used by at least polish troops. 151.227.109.67 (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IS this any help? from Janes: Błaszczak tweeted on 25 April that the MND would order another 18,000 5.56 mm MSBS Grot C16 assault rifles worth PLN160 million, bringing the total supplied to the Polish Army by manufacturer Fabryka Broni Łucznik-Radom to 68,000. The new assault rifles will be delivered through the Polish territorial army, the Wojska Obrony Terytorialnej (WOT). The Grot is replacing 80,000 Beryl 5.56 mm rifles still used by the Polish Army. 73.138.48.231 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC) psw at Leedergroup.com[reply]

ACR Pic[edit]

Something is wrong. The Remington ACR page states that the top rifle in the picture is an ACR, the MSBS page states that the top rifle is an MSBS in conventional layout. Which is right? Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sights[edit]

MSBS doesn't have any sights. Even mechanical backup. All sights must be mount on piccatiny. Styxiak (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It have mechanical backup, very low quality.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Pictures[edit]

Would anyone be willing to upload the latest images of the rifle system from the American SHOT Show? Between Janes and several other venues, they have the production designs of these rifles in lightbox images, and in profile. 64.235.150.157 (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on FB MSBS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

User:91.237.86.201, the information you added creates undue weight, looking at other Wikipedia article about firearms and other weapons systems, they do not list every "failed bid" (since most companies submit bids and do not get picked, this is the case with most weapons systems, and I don't see that on other similar pages). Also, you added a complete section on the "defects", (UNDUE, what other rifle article has that?), Also, all three cited sources come from ONet and are based on just one opinion repeated. Also, you did not bother to include a response form the Ministry of Defense which raises issue about potential editing bias. --E-960 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look at other Wikipedia Articles about firearms and see similar sections with Defects and problems. And they are basad on many opinions from last 10 years.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
91.237.86.201, can you provide a link, I'm not sure if you are familiar with military firearms, but issues with new rifles are common, I'm sure you are familiar with the US M16 or the British L85, so creating an entire section one source (repeated several times) is UNDUE, also why are you listing failed bids, you can do that for every weapon out there (I don't see that in other articles). Also, you did not provide a response form the Ministry which said that about 4% of the rifles were returned to the manufacturer for fixes (this is well within the standards), so stop with the sensationalist approach. --E-960 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you also edited some time ago the Dassault Rafale article, (so you should be aware of this), since for a very long article on the fighter jet, it only has a short stub section on "failed bids" and "accidents". Here, with the MSBS you want to make failed bids and defect, the significant part of the text, this is wholly UNDUE WEIGHT. --E-960 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
M16, L85 and G36 have long sections about defects and problems. Article about Dassault Rafale have section about failed bids. And There is other source from Milmag page confirmed Onet article. Response from Ministry is bullshit, they write only about how many rifles send back to producer. They even don’t write about fixes paid by soldiers.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just stop, what authority do you have to say that the Ministry of Defense statement is "bull...t", at this point a claim was made that the rifles were malfunctioning, the ministry responded that it is due to a magazine issue, and that only 1 rifle out of 40,000 had what can be described as a catastrophic failure. --E-960 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All statements from Ministry of Defence are fake political news. Problems and defects are confirmed by high quality source like https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza and https://www.milmag.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=48&page=6 --91.237.86.201 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

91.237.86.201, this is nothing more then a bias entry, you base your text on a ONET piece, where the author states: "Dlatego zebraliśmy kilkuosobowy zespół specjalistów, ludzi dobrej woli, którzy wyrazili chęć przeprowadzenia prób z karabinkami Grot" (That is why we gathered a team of several specialists, people of good will, who expressed their willingness to conduct tests with Grot carabiners) so ONET did it's own test and this is the basis for the claim? You got to be kidding me, is this your high quality reference source or just a media hit piece. Maybe ONET will run it's own COVID vaccine test as well? --E-960 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, your other follow up ONET article references, cite "independent" tests done by some guy named Pawła Mosznera (not acting in any official capacity), in other word, just some former military special ops guy who did his own testing and says the rifle is bad (and ONET reported on it). They can also write articles about all the various reviews done by other YouTube personalities who routinely run their own gun reviews and post them online. What a joke, seriously. --E-960 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All problems and defects are confirmed by other source like https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza and https://www.milmag.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=48&page=6 --91.237.86.201 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only 'undue weight'/NPOV issue I can see is that the failure to include the rebuttals made by the Polish MOD and FB Radom (which by the way are included in the relevant section of Polish Wikipedia's version of this article). Otherwise, I am confused as to the nature of the complaint being made - there are plenty of articles on military weapon systems that *do* list unsuccessful bids (type "failed bids" into this site's search box, quotation marks included, and see for yourself) and plenty of articles on military weapon systems that were adopted by one country or another but had defects etc. at some point or another (The L85A1 and L86A1 were basically what Onet is alleging the MSBS to be, the XM16E1 and early production M16A1 had problems with jamming/feeding and corrosion, the G36 had overheating issues, though how much of that is due to ammunition as opposed to actual weapon design is debatable).Dvaderv2 (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with ONET is that it is not simply reporting news, but conducting it's own product review. If you read the article it clearly states that ONET organized the "test" for the rifle, at this point you are simply including a private review of the weapon and in a misleading manner presenting those results as if it was an "official report", we do not include private reviews in Wikipedia (that whole issue with Wikipedia sounding like an advertisement, there are tons of online news/magazine portals doing product reviews — they are just opinions not facts). --E-960 (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here Frag Out! Magazine did their review of the MSBS rifle and post it online: [1]. Somehow for other weapons I do not see private reviews being cited in articles because they are not high quality un-bias sources. --E-960 (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All problems and defects are confirmed by other source like https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza and https://www.milmag.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=48&page=6 --91.237.86.201 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything in the Onet articles that would indicate that the test was commissioned by and for Onet (other than the fact of Onet being the publisher, but that might merely indicate that they were the only news organisation willing to run the story or they simply offered the best terms for publication compared to other news organisations); in any event, the test was overseen by a former WP officer (and a former GROM officer at that) and conducted by former and serving WP and WOT personnel, all of whom would presumably be familiar with official testing procedures and/or official requirements for a weapon to be accepted into service and thus would be in a position to make the test conform as closely to those official parameters as possible. There should be some clarification as to whether the rifle(s) fired in the Onet test are the same variant as the rifles currently being produced and issued to WOT or belong to a series of trials or retired variants (Onet is saying the faults found either are to be rectified but only as a result of the Polish MOD and/or FB being confronted with the test results prior to publication by Onet or were downplayed/dismissed, while the Polish MOD and FB are saying that if any faults ever existed they were rectified a good while ago), but it's one thing to say that the rifle rusts after being left in the open while uncleaned for more than 24 hours (since practically any weapon will do so and only AK platforms are known to tolerate that sort of abuse) and another to say that the lower receiver cracked so badly that it effectively destroyed the weapon (I don't think I've ever seen a magazine well that looks like this).

I am neutral as to Polish news orgs. (at this point, all of them are effectively propagandists for their "chosen" political parties and/or blocs as well as whoever happens to be helping them to pay their electricity bills) but if, *if*, the Onet reportage turns out to the truer version of events over the coming days, then it wouldn't be the first time that a new infantry rifle turned out to have certain defects which were then denied by the manufacturer and its defence ministry client until such denials became untenable (you yourself mentioned the M16 and L85). Speaking of which, you have not responded to what I said about other weapon systems having their defects and/or failed bids covered on their respective articles despite the fact that these were part of your original complaint.

Finally, it's hard to see how any source can be truly divorced from Onet's reportage considering that it was Onet who reported on the results of the test and everyone else is either reporting on the basis of that reportage or reacting to that reportage.Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dvaderv2, read the article, the author clearly states "Dlatego zebraliśmy kilkuosobowy zespół specjalistów, ludzi dobrej woli, którzy wyrazili chęć przeprowadzenia prób z karabinkami Grot" (That is why we gathered a team of several specialists, people of good will, who expressed their willingness to conduct tests with Grot carabiners). Also, one of the people reviewing the rifle was some guy named Pawł Moszner, who apparently was in the Polish special forces — but again, this Moszner is not acting in any "official" capacity just some former military guy reviewing the rifle (really, YouTube is full of former military guys just itching to give their "expert opinions" or "reviews" on various military equipment). --E-960 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article, but I have to confess that, between my understanding of written Polish being totally inferior to my understanding of written Polish and the fact that, when I was reading a machine-translated version of the original, I was more focused on the details of the purported defects, I didn't notice that particular line and I will therefore concede that point. It does not change what I wrote about P. Moszner, "former military guy", being a particularly qualified former military guy and some of the testers being both former and serving military guys and both Moszner and those testers consequently being likely to have some awareness as to how these sorts of weapon tests are meant to be conducted in relation to Polish MOD standards. And you still haven't responded to what I said about other infantry weapons having their defects and/or failed bids covered on their respective articles despite the fact that this formed part of your original complaint (unless you are implicitly admitting that you were wrong to remove this sort of information from the article considering that its inclusion preceded Onet's reportage by nearly a month?), nor have you responded to what I said about it being hard to see how any source can be truly divorced from Onet's reportage considering how everyone else is either reporting on the basis of that reportage or reacting to that reportage.Dvaderv2 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dvaderv2 - did you ask yourself where Onet, a media outlet, got hands on a military issued only rifle for testing? Furthermore, if Onet pretends to have conducted tests that can and, in their opinion, should be trusted, how many rifles did they have access to? They list several issues/problems wit the rifle. This would suggest that they got hold of many rifles. Have they? Did you ask yourself these questions? You won't find this information in their article. To add another issue I found with Onet's article, did you see statistical data about the tests they conducted or, at least a reference to such statistics? They must have such data if it was them conducting these test. I don't think so. I don't think they have any data. It looks like it was a sponsored article and Onet acted as so called "social influencer".
Therefore, I suggest that when you analyze this and other similar types of pretend "solid" information, do that in depth and using full spectrum of possible questions. Cheers. 2607:FA48:6EDA:1C10:305A:9CE3:DFC9:DDF8 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is not even clear if the rifle tested was MIL-SPEC or a civilian version (usually civilian version are made from cheaper materials and are less durable). Also in the article the word "rifle" is used in singular, and it does not appear (or at least it is not clear) that they ran the test on multiple rifles. In any case, this is more akin to a "social influencer" review and is nothing more then an opinion at this point (low quality, potentially bias source). Finally, regarding "failed bids" — I don't see such prominently featured section in the FN SCAR, Remington ACR, SIG Sauer SIG516, SIG MCX, Heckler & Koch HK416 or Heckler & Koch HK433 articles. Btw, H&K just lost in a crushing defeat when the German military picked Haenel as its next service rifle (rather a big, big deal, and its not mentioned on the HK416 or HK433 articles). So, on other pages "failed bids" are not even listed. Btw sections for SCAR and ACR would be particularly long. --E-960 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All problems and defects are confirmed by other source like https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza and https://www.milmag.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=48&page=6 --91.237.86.201 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due. Received signficant attention, for example in Gazeta Wyborcza, that is not the initial publisher. The conclusion that these weapons are more dangerous to the poor soldiers who are issued them is significant.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Astral Leap, I'm perplexed by your approach, you were not involved in the initial discussion here, however you reported me and not the IP for disruptive behavior (ignoring IP's reverts and cursing). Now, you only included a comment here on the talk page fully supporting IP, after I wrote on the admin board that the discussion did not yield a consensus to include IP's text, and other editors involved in this discussion do not support IP's edits (in full, or at least in part). I really feel uncomfortable with your editing patterns, based on your history it appears that your activity on Wikipedia mainly revolves around admin boards and then you jump over to the article in response to something on the admin boards. --E-960 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An online news/magazine portal doing it's own review of the rifle, or any other private/social influencer review of a military firearm has never been considered as a quality and/or unbiased reference source for use in any of the other rifle articles on Wikipeida. Not even sure how ONET was able to obtain a military issue rifle for it's own private test (most likley they are testing a civilian version, yet saying the military rifle is unreliable). Also, citing other online newsmagazine portals, who repeated the ONET story simply amounts to an echo chamber. The absurdity of citing a test done by a online news/magazine portal and presenting it as "authoritative" is a ridiculous as saying in a Wikipeida article that FOX NEWS did a test on the US Army's M4 rifle and deeming it unreliable, or citing YouTube product reviews by social influencers or web portal. The simple fact that ONET instead of reporting on the news tried to make its own news raises issues of potential and very possible bias. The only legitimate and authoritative reference about any possible issues with some of the rifles is what the Polish Ministry of Defense/FB Radom reported on based on its official testing and analysis of use after the rifle was adopted, ONET simply is in no position to object to those finding based on its private test. --E-960 (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Milmag and Defence24 confirmed all problems and defects together with FB Radom. The manufacturer has even started repairing defects by upgrading all defective Grot M1 rifles to the improved M2 version.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your source Defence24.pl[2] states that: "Referring to the article by Onet, FB Radom [manufacturer] issued a statement in which it stated that the article was unreliable and mislead the public opinion. Since, before the first delivery of the carbines to WOT in December 2017, all technical and legal requirements were met." Yet, above you wrote "Defence24 confirmed all problems and defects together with FB Radom". So, it appears that your statement above as well as your article edits are inaccurate and carry a potential bias, as well as undue weight. Also, the article talks about the rifle in use by the Polish Territorial Defense Forces (WOT) and nothing about Ukraine. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC
This is diferent source than my, your source is misrepresenting because this statement is older than my source [1]. If problems don’t exist why manufacturer has started repairing defects by upgrading all defective Grot M1 rifles to the improved M2 version? About Ukraine they are writing in diferent article https://www.defence24.pl/ukraina-kupuje-bron-strzelecka-w-standardzie-nato --91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article does not even talk about MSBS Grot, just says that Ukraine is in the market for a new service rifle, and the other article talks about how to "improve its [MSBS Gort] parameters" not "problems" as you put it. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It mean you are lier writing that Grot was in fight in the market on Ukraine, because Grot even don’t meet Ukrainian requirements. Described problems and defects in M1 variant and changes in improved M2 variant are not parameters.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring, the statement you added is a synthesis (of a private review by Pawła Mosznera for ONET online news/magazine portal, and other reviews by MilMag — both low quality sources stating opinions not official government findings), not only that you included an unsourced and dubious statement. You were asked to discuss on the talk page, and there is no consensus to include the text you added the other day. Also, in the History section your statement is by far the longest, dwarfing all other paragraph there, and that creates undue weight. Again, pls follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --E-960 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus, all problems and defects are confirmed by Milmag and Defence24 together with FB Radom. And there is a sand test comparison with AR15 and AKM too.https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/karabinek-grot-nie-zdaje-proby-piaskowej/mw4n4cr --91.237.86.201 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Defense24.pl article you cited is titled: "Grot modular weapon system - exploitation is an important phase of development" and the first paragraph states "Currently, the Polish Army has over 43,000. Grot assault rifles. The weapon is constantly modified, so you can constantly improve its parameters. At the same time, the modular structure of the MSBS system, from which Grot is derived, makes it possible to develop new versions." The article talks about how the company is constantly working to improve performance parameters as stated here "At the stage of designing the order, we adopted as a dogma the assumption of the need for continuous improvement of the weapon." So, improving the rifles capabilities and taking in feedback from the military is a bit different than you saying the company admits to "defects". You are completely misrepresenting this source and others. --E-960 (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, stop saturating the article with Paweł Moszner (some former military guy, turned gun reviewer) and his private tests of the rifle for ONET. There are tons of social influencers like this other guy on YouTube here: Destruction of AK-74M | GunBusters[3], doing his "expert" tests on all sorts of riles (personal reviews are not quality sources). --E-960 (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, in his review Paweł Moszner said, when comparing MSBS to AR15: "At the beginning of the test, after reloading the AR-15, Moszner pointed to the flap securing the exit window in this carbine. There is no such flap in the Grot. He reminded that it exists precisely to prevent contamination from penetrating into the structure." Well, this other guy did his review on an AR15 model without a dust cover and says its not needed, here: S&W M&P 15 Sport No Dust Cover Shooting in the Desert[4]. So, the point here is that personal reviews are not quality sources (just opinions), and they are not included on other gun articles in Wikipedia. So, stop pushing them here. --E-960 (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FB Radom will improve all MSBS Grot rifles delivered to the military to eliminate the most frequently reported faults. https://www.rp.pl/Przemysl-Obronny/302109898-Karabinek-szturmowy-Grot-idzie-do-poprawki.html?fbclid=IwAR13E06ztR9PIbzmYIMdJQIJHiL7zH4tBlq3-NtdGg1pfHCSmcl9IFNTa04--91.237.86.201 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza

Redacted title[edit]

I was trying to learn about the Grot for my book about failed defense industry projects. This user E-960 is purging all the information on the Grot whenever anyone adds it because it makes the rifle look bad. Failed bids are also freely listed for many other weapons on wikipedia, such as the Leopard 2 tank the polish army uses and Krauss Mafia's failed bid in Saudi Arabia.

Imagine if an American went onto the article about the M16 and removed the section about reliability problems during the Vietnam war and called it a conspiracy by the media to make America look bad. Or if a German did the same thing about the G36 overheating, they'd be banned and have their changes reverted within a few minutes at most. E-960 is also clearly using double think because he claims that the testing didn't occur because a newspaper wouldn't have access to military rifles and that the testing did occur but the problems are exaggerated because the army lowered their standards to accept the rifle.

Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're writing a book and using Wikipedia as your source? Btw, I'm sure those articles don't include private reviews. All those issues with the M16 or the G36 were addressed formally by the military, and the reports were based on actual use by the soldiers, not Joe Shmoe doing a review for an online portal. Also, the Polish Territorial Defence Forces and FB Radom released statements which were highly skeptical of the "review", and pointed out that the rifle, as used by the military, does not experience regular catastrophic failures, as suggested, and that based on the photos from the "review", it's clear that this Moszner guy was doing his tests on a pre-production rifle. So if you are doing research perhaps try official sources first, not online reviews. --E-960 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, take a moment to pause and refrain from throwing around accusations of "vandalism" and personal attacks, calling other editors "Polish Nationalist". --E-960 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A personal attack is a personal attack. Unfortunately, you keep misrepresenting the reference sources using synthesis. You basically lump various articles together form the past 3 years to allege that the rifle has catastrophic failures. Also, as pointed out in the earlier discuss, upon examination, many of the sources you presented do not actually say what you claim they say (as show in my earlier comments in the previous discussion), and finally your main source for the text is a private review of a pre-production rifle by some former military guy named Pawel Moszner — I'm still trying to find another Wikipedia article on weapons that so prominently features a private review of a firearm in its text. --E-960 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why does the manufacturer want to repair 43 thousand Grot rifles? Main source is RP.pl and the repair action was confirmed and approved by the Ministry of National Defense.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used the articles you removed from the page to research for my book. H&K and many users of the G36 also claim that the testing was flawed to cover up the fact that they put out a broken rifle. I am a free thinker who doesn't just believe what the government says, of course the guys making the rifle and the government spending money on it aren't going to admit it's bad. The MSBS is already a failed rifle design that the Polish military doesn't need since the Beryl provides the exact same performance as a 5.56 assault rifle with attachment points for optics and other accessories compatible with NATO, they essentially just spent money and 14 years to replace a rifle that did everything they needed with one that is slightly heavier, looks like an ACR instead of an AK47 and probably has serious teething issues. The only real way the Polish Army could get a better 5.56 service rifle over the Beryl was if they had copied the loadout of the GROM and started producing the M4A1 since the M4A1 has the best ergonomics and recoil which is why the GROM use it instead of the MSBS.

Only a guilty person attempts to hide information that makes them look bad so your attempts to coverup the Grot's problems actually backfired on you and made it look worse. Similar to how the Polish government criminalized acknowledging the holocaust to try and stifle study of Polish anti-Semitism. I'm also curious as to why you're vandalizing an English language Wikipedia article when you're a Polish speaking Polish person. Or why you try to talk about rule breaking constantly despite being the one that breaks the rules.

Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As noted above in the discussion, the new text had issues with source accuracy (misrepresenting what the sources actually said) and undue-weight — reverting it is not "vandalism" as you put it (see discussion above). Also, note this is not a forum or a chat, your comments are taking a personal turn and go beyond the scope of this article, which clearly goes against Wikipedia rules and are starting to resemble trolling and harassment. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I am going to restore the list of failed bids and controversy surrounding the rifle. Since the Polish government doesn't get to determine that something isn't true or worth learning just because it's embarrassing to them. Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits, back to the original content. You restored all of the text originally inserted by IP without consensus and you did not provide any arguments, which would directly and in a meaningful way address the stated concerns about the disputed text (such as the fact that the sources cited do not actually say what IP included in the article and issues with un-due weight), instead you engaged in personal attacks claiming "vandalism" by "Polish Nationalists", and voiced personal opinions. --E-960 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please note that three other users had concerns regarding the IP's text, and/or reverted it as well. --E-960 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you keep misrepresenting the reference sources using synthesis. You basically lump various articles together form the past 3 years to allege that the rifle has catastrophic failures. Also, as pointed out in the earlier discuss, upon examination, many of the sources you presented do not actually say what you claim they say (as show in my earlier comments in the previous discussion), and finally your main source for the text is a private review of a pre-production rifle by some former military guy named Pawel Moszner — I'm still trying to find another Wikipedia article on weapons that so prominently features a private review of a firearm in its text. --E-960 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why does the manufacturer want to repair 43 thousand Grot rifles? Main source is RP.pl and the repair action was confirmed and approved by the Ministry of National Defense.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the RP.pl article you just linked, says that FB Radon will work with the military to "wyeliminować najczęściej zgłaszane usterki", the word "usterka" in Polish would translate to "bugs" in other words small problems/issues, etc. (the article does not talk about "failed projects" or something, as alleged by you and now Military Galaxy Brain). Also, the article says that "according to the manufacturer, most of the cases when the weapons failed were incidental, and the more serious reported shortcomings concerned only a few percent of over 43,000 rifles". So, again we have an issue with how the sources are presented (also Defence24.pl and MilMag do not say what you claim they say). Also, you drafted a text about alleged systemic failures of the rifle, which was longer then all the other paragraphs in the history section combined. In fact, at first you made it a separate section and then proceeded to listed all the failed bids (looking at other rifle articles on Wikipedia, I don't see such prominently featured failed bids sections in the FN SCAR, Remington ACR, SIG Sauer SIG516, SIG MCX, Heckler & Koch HK416 or Heckler & Koch HK433 articles - and believe me, the SCAR and ACR would have very long failed bid section, those are all issues relating to undue-weight). --E-960 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they want repair all 43,000 Grot rifles. Articles about M16, L85, HK G36, CZ Bren 805 or Beretta 92 have sections about defects and problems. --91.237.86.201 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted before, the Defence24.pl article states that "at the stage of designing the order, we [FB Radom] adopted as a dogma the assumption of the need for continuous improvement of the weapon" this in reference to another statement "exploitation is an important phase of development". In other word, the manufacturers clearly stated that there will be bugs when the weapon is first put into service with reserve units and they will work with the military to improve the design and fix any bug that come up. However, claims using synthesis, that the weapon is a "failed project" or that the rifle experiences catastrophic failures are a misrepresentation of the sources, and that Moszner review is nothing more than a personal opinion. It all comes down to undue-weight and evaluating what the sources actually say. --E-960 (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note: please note that any discussion which fails to remain professional and matter-of-fact is likely to be met with severity. Key items to review: WP:ONUS, WP:ASPERSIONS. El_C 06:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will this article ever mention that there is or was a controversy?[edit]

It's been a few months since the edit warring over the reliability controversy, and there's still nary a word about it. Never mind the fact that, as has been pointed out ad nauseum on previous occasions, other articles on military equipment tend to mention developmental/reliability issues and/or failed bids where relevant (and if User:E-960 feels that this has somehow not been done in relation to, say, the HK416 or the FN SCAR, he/she is perfectly welcome to do so him/herself provided that reliable sources can be supplied to demonstrate that XYZ defence department found the 416/SCAR to be lacking). Never mind the fact that this was the most notable development in the weapon's service history since the 2019 announcement of the 7.62x51mm variant. Never mind that this was covered in sources other than the original Onet article. Never mind the fact that the Polish Wikipedia version of this article covers the issue and the consenus there seems to have been "OK, this was reported by reliable sources in a fairly objective manner, let's leave it in". Never mind that the Polish MOD and FB Radom both responded to say "No, rifle is fine", even as it later transpired that some sort of improvement was planned, and so all that anyone claiming undue weight has to do is include those responses from officialdom. I feel that as soon as someone, someone, dares to restore the article to its 25 January 2021 revision, User:E-960 or someone else will swoop in to remove that information.

Alright, so you believe that the guy who did the tests was a cad, that he's a Germany-loving traitor who wants German arms companies to win Ukrainian MOD contracts rather than Polish arms companies (even though Ukraine has an armaments industry of its own), that the Grot was set up to fail by default during these tests? You believe that the Grot is lighter than the Indian Ordnance Factory Board's Nidar revolver, more accurate than Mike Wilson's IBS 1000-Yard Light Gun, more reliable than an AK-47 Type 2 or Type 3 (these being the versions of the AK-47 that use the distinctive milled receiver)? Find reliable sources to demonstrate all of that. Find reliable sources to demonstrate that the guy organising the tests is as trustworthy as Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ, i.e. not at all. Find reliable sources to demonstrate that the guy, say, meets with various anti-PIS notables every month on the full moon at some Masonic temple, that he brings the live lamb and the long knife, that those attending begin deliberations with a pledge of allegiance to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, and that those who attended the meeting immediately prior to the tests agreed that they would make out the Grot to be Poland's answer to the L85A1 so that Heckler & Koch, Haenel or Rheinmetall could then sell rifles to Ukraine at will. Find reliable sources to demonstrate that the production versions of the Grot are the best rifles ever made and that the guy who did the tests got his grubby mitts on prototype versions that he knew would fail, that the Grot was covered in industrial-strength superglue during the sand tests while the other rifle models didn't even have a single drop of lubricant, that the Grot was covering in some sort of rust-acclerating agent during the rusting tests, that the particular Grot which suffered a catastrophic magazine well failure was deliberately weakened or had the damage manually inflicted, and so on and so forth. If you manage to do this, then you can make the article say "so-and-so tried to present the Grot as a piece of junk, but was subsequently proven to be a filthy no-good liar who, on top of being a filthy no-good liar, was regularly meeting with the board of Heckler & Koch, the board of Haenel, and/or the board of Rheinmetall in a conspiracy to make Ukraine want nothing to do with the Polish armaments industry.' If on the other hand you can't find such sources, then you'll probably have to settle for the previously mentioned Polish MOD and FB Radom responses.

Sorry if what I've just written is a bit brash or snarky or whatever, but at the end of the day there is this strange thing called WP:NOTCENSORED. You do not get to remove information just because you believe the originator of that information to be manifestly unfair towards/prejudiced against your particular political position(s) or because you believe the originator of that information to be a member of the yellow press; you must establish that there is consensus among Wikipedians that the originator of the information is manifestly unfair or biased and/or is a member of the yellow press. If you believe that any news organisation whose reportage of the issue was anything other than "evil crypto-Communist Germanophilic traitors falsely present Polish-made rifle as a pile of faeces" has an incorrigible bias and/or is part of the yellow press, go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and make your case there. If it turns out that the community consensus is that anyone other than TVP Info/Gazeta Polska/Do Rzeczy/Sieci/wPolityce/TV Republika is not to be consulted on the Grot, then the article can continue to keep mum or can be edited to say "evil crypto-Communist Germanophilic traitors falsely present Polish-made rifle as a pile of faeces". If, on the other hand, it turns out that the community consensus is that it is TVP Info/Gazeta Polska/Do Rzeczy/Sieci/wPolityce/TV Republika that are not to be consulted on the Grot while Onet and others are usually veritas, you should probably respect that. --Dvaderv2 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since I got pinged; please note WP:ONUS — "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Some former special ops guy did a test of the rifle for an online news website, and then posted it on YouTube. Btw, that same "sand test" will also jam an AK-47, I also saw it on an unrelated YouTube video. The guy performed a test that will jam just about every rifle out there, so why is this headline "news" about MSBS worthy of inclusion? In any case, increasingly, discussions on Wikipedia regarding topics related to Poland are steering in the direction of having "quality sources" — in other words, not some opinion articles. When M16 experienced major reliability issues back in the day, they were documented by the US Military and Colt, news articles were citing government's own findings. They were not discovered by Joe Schmo who did his own test of the rifle. That's the big difference. --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, pls see here the AK-47 sand test here [5] (failure, see 4:00 min), and the MSBS sand test here [6]. Long story short, you dump enough sand on any rifle and you will cause a catastrophic failure of some kind. Also, notice one IMPORTANT FACT, the YouTuber testing the AK says: "[I'm going] to try get as much of the dust out of there" before shooting, and proceeds to try and shake out as much of the sand as possible before firing the rifle. The YouTuber testing the MSBS rifle (the one that did the test for the online news and opinion portal) just tries to fire the MSBS rifle right after pouring a ton of sand into it. This is not quality encyclopedic information this is just online opinions masquerading as news. --E-960 (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still its real history of this rifle.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, User:E-960, I've put off my rebuttal for long enough:

  • Btw, that same "sand test" will also jam an AK-47, I also saw it on an unrelated YouTube video. The guy performed a test that will jam just about every rifle out there

I've said it at an earlier stage and I'll say it again - no rile is going to withstand indefinite lack of cleaning and exposure to the elements. The AK simply has a higher endurance under adverse conditions and, if it starts to have problems, is easier to strip down and clean (if that - in this test, which had three sequential exposures to dust and sand and so was a harsher test overall, the shooter only had to work the action a couple of times and the rifle was able to fire again) compared to most other rifles. The post-Vietnam AR-15 isn't a failure-prone weapon either, with both civilian and military models doing a good job of coping with "moon dust" conditions... and those two links pertain to weapons using the classic direct-impingement action as opposed to the gas piston action of the HK416/M27, SIG 516, SIG MCX etc. that is specifically touted as bringing about better reliability (or at least that's what the marketing teams say!). In any event, sand testing wasn't the only point of concern raised r.e. the Grot.

Oh, and thanks for admitting that the guy doing the AK torture test that you linked to was subjecting the gat to a lower standard than that in the Onet testing.

  • In any case, increasingly, discussions on Wikipedia regarding topics related to Poland are steering in the direction of having "quality sources" — in other words, not some opinion articles.

Again, I find myself saying something I've said earlier - if you want to have "Onet bad" recognised as the official stance of Wikipedia, proper channels exist for you to bring your case - though, having looked through the RSN archives, I have this weird feeling that your opinion isn't going to be widely welcomed. I should also note (also yet again) that Onet wasn't the only outlet to share the findings. Even those outlets which reacted negatively to the test had to, by necessity, spell out just what it was that they were having a negative reaction to, and more often than not this was within those articles/segments that were intended as a formal presentation of the day's/week's news. Are those other outlets, both positive and negative, also magically reduced to "opinion articles" the minute they mention the Grot receiving bad press? Here's the WOT's official reponse to the Onet reportage which, again by necessity, repeats some of the issues reported in order to deny their occurrence - is a press release by an official military user an "opinion article"? Here's FB Radom's official reponse to the Onet reportage which, again by necessity, repeats some of the issues reported in order to deny their occurrence - is a press release by the weapon's manufacturer an "opinion article"?

  • When M16 experienced major reliability issues back in the day, they were documented by the US Military and Colt, news articles were citing government's own findings.

I don't know about the information sources at your disposal, but last time I checked it took a good, good while and a Congressional investigation for military officialdom to acknowledge that there were problems with the XM16E1 rifle as used in Vietnam (as well as the Olin WC 846 powder used in contemporary 5.56mm ball), and this was in addition to all sorts of shenanigans that influenced the decision to adopt the weapon in the first place. In addition to what this encyclopedia has to offer, I'd recommend reading chapter 7 of C.J. Chivers' "The Gun" for a fuller account. The SA80A1's issues were also slow to be recognised, to the point where the MOD initially denied the existence of its own LANDSET report. This history of other faulty rifles not being immediately acknowledged as faulty, combined with various things about the PiS government that you won't have heard from TVP Info/Gazeta Polska/Do Rzeczy/Sieci/wPolityce/TV Republika, goes a long way to explaining why people wouldn't have been prepared to accept the official denial of there being any problems with the Grot, at least not at face value.

Now, you didn't mention the failed bids section at all (may I therefore assume that your reference to the HK416 in this regard constituted whataboutery?), but I might as well throw in something about it as well. In addition to the fact that most of the section preceded the Onet reportage, the fact of a weapon having failed bids does not automatically mean "weapon bad". It might have simply been too expensive for the prospective adopter (see for example the debate over the US' 1980s pistol selection - interestingly, the P226 was the cheaper gun in terms of the basic weapon, but lost out to the Beretta 92 once technical package costs were added). It might not have satisfied some technical requirement that is irrelevant to reliability (for example, the FN SCAR-H was deemed by the MOD to be too light for DMR usage and the HK417 was conversely deemed to be too heavy, thus leading to the adoption of the LM308MWS as the L129A1, or at least that's the information presented in this video). The prospective adopter might simply be insistent on adopting a particular weapon regardless of how well competing designs do (see the fracas over the FN FAL as a candidate for the US's first 7.62x51mm service rifle). Add the fact of other weapon articles having failed bid sections and it becomes apparent that, at the very least, there should be a restoration of the failed bid section.

I strongly urge you to look at the Polish Wikipedia article (y'know, the article where ultimately there was no problem with mentioning the Onet reportage) and its talk page. What was said there that hasn't been said in some form here? If the version of Wikipedia that is available in the home country of Onet, the Grot etc. and thus was best placed to evaluate the Onet reportage ultimately had no problem with mentioning the Onet reportage, why should the English Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia localisation that has an article on the Grot) be treated differently?

And, finally, a thought experiment:

  • Our timeline where "former special ops guy" "Joe Schmo" (AKA Paweł Moszner) and Onet state there are issues with the Grot, the MON and FB Radom issue denials, and neither side budges. This is the version of events that you have a problem including.
  • An alternate timeline where the MON and FB Radom acknowledge that there are issues. Would you have accepted the inclusion of this version of events if it had occured?
  • An alternate timeline where Onet's initial reportage finds that the Grot is the second coming of the Nidar revolver (weight), Mike Wilson's IBS 1000-Yard Light Gun (accuracy), and the AK-47 Type 2 or Type 3 (reliability)... or is decidedly more modest in performance whilst still being a satisfactory combat weapon (so basically an M16A2-A4, an L85A2/A3, any other 5.56mm rifle that is reasonably reliable, or any given AK rifle). Would you have accepted the inclusion of this version of events if it had occured?
  • An alternate timeline that mostly resembles our timeline but sees Onet retracting its report after the MON/FB Radom response (something which, to my knowledge, they have yet to actually do... wasn't FB Radom supposed to have filed a lawsuit?). Would you have accepted the inclusion of this version of events if it had occured?
  • An alternate timeline where PO remained in power beyond 2015 and up to the present day and thus the Grot is entirely a PO-owned weapon (whereas in our timeline the Grot was designed under the PO government and had a few initial examples produced under the PO government, with all subsequent production and development taking place under the PiS government). Roman Polko hears that some people in his former GROM unit have a problem with the Grot (sound familiar?), tests the Grot and some other rifles for Gazeta Polska/Do Rzeczy/Sieci/wPolityce/TV Republika (sound familiar?), and these tests lead to one of the outcomes listed above (though obviously with the replacemnt of references to Onet by references to Gazeta Polska/Do Rzeczy/Sieci/wPolityce/TV Republika). Would you have accepted the inclusion of this version of events if it had occured? --Dvaderv2 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dvaderv2, I'll make this really strait-forward to understand:
  • Private tests, because what Moszner did of his own initiative was a private test, are not reliable, end of story, it's that simple — this is not quality encyclopedic material. Let me give you an example, it was noted by FB Radom that from the video it is clear that Moszner was using a prototype pre-production model for this test. The rifles ultimately, distributed to the Polish military are quite different in terms of finish and durability. Moszner did not bother to disclose this fact! It's like someone arguing that a particular Ford, Toyota or Mercedes models sold to the public are not reliable, because they tested a factory prototype.
There is just a lot of questionmarks with the test, starting from the motive, to the tests themselves (how they were conducted), and even what rifle was used. Hence, WP:ONUS. See here, statement by Jan Moszczuk writer for the Frag Out! firearms/military news magazine:
"The tests concluded by Moszner, an ex-GROM operator, were clearly biased – virtually no carbine currently in military service is expected to handle thirty magazines of continuous burst fire. Considering that Grot’s barrel has relatively light profile the test, if anything, proved that Grot handles intensive firing schedule very well. It is no worse than AR-15s and AKs with similar barrel profiles.”
“The so called “sand test” was also questionable as the carbines such as AK and AR seemed to be dry when subjected to the sand… Yet, when [the] Grot was subjected to the sand test, the dust mysteriously stuck on the gun surface, that can indicate the lubrication of the assault rifle before the test – something that could explain the result… Thus, the “test” was not conducted in an objective manner (at best) and staged (at worst).”
So, please consider these statement form Jan Moszczuk and others who question Moszner's tests. --E-960 (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, these are the facts that have taken place and should be described in the article because they present a neutral point of view. Rzęsor (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@E-960 and Rzęsor: First off, please cease the reverting, even if the current page is not your preference. Just let the page be stable for a moment while the incidents team deals with that end of it. Looking at the dispute and the material deleted, I think you two need to compromise. Much of the material from the company that was sued is presented uncritically in the various additions to this article. If that outlet is to be cited, inline attribution should be done, as it there is going to be some bias against the rifle from that outlet no matter what. Secondly, the material should be included—at least, most of it. The failed bids portion seems a tad excessive and does not appear on many other firearm pages. If the failed bids or volume thereof is notable, use a reliable and independent source to cite that textually, rather than as a list. The various alterations to the rifle also don't have to be listed individually (again, this material is not standard to firearm articles). The controversy is notable as it is attested to by multiple sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, pls consider WP:ONUS, adding a private YouTube review of the rifle that was picked up by some news/opinion website in Poland is not encyclopedic material. You can find bad/good reviews of every rifle on YouTube, and sometimes they get noted by magazines, etc. However, Wikipedia is not an opinion and gossip site, hence WP:ONUS. It's bad encyclopedia when dubious claims are raised to the level of legitimate facts. Consider how reliable is it to add content in the history section which other sources have described as: "Yet, when [the] Grot was subjected to the sand test, the dust mysteriously stuck on the gun surface, that can indicate the lubrication of the assault rifle before the test – something that could explain the result… Thus, the “test” was not conducted in an objective manner (at best) and staged (at worst)." Compromise by including a staged YouTube review and present it as empirical facts? --E-960 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pbritti, here is a great example of this, a video called Why do SEALs HATE the FN SCAR 17? [7] by a relatively known YouTube personality Shawn Ryan. Now, here is an article that was written by someone about that very review [8], and another [9]. So, now we can add to the FN SCAR article on Wikipedia that SEALs hate the SCAR rifle... right? And, there are tons of similar examples where some YouTube review gets some attention online with the news/opinion websites. This does not make it encyclopedic quality. --E-960 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All defects described by Onet have been confirmed by the Territorial Defence Forces and are to be removed as part of the modernization to the A3 version.https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/grotowisko-22 91.237.86.201 (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: I am familiar with the errancy of using YouTube videos and resulting posts for Wikipedia articles, especially on firearm articles. However, that becomes less relevant when you consider that a legal issue developed and that sources say that the rifle was modified in response to the video. Arguing that this is simply about a video review does not apply here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, well the text added is unfortunately a bunch of WP:SYNTHESIS (pls note what this means and how the reverted text was exactly that). So, we have accuracy and WP:UNDUE issues here. Also, a staged YouTube test was being presented as if it was part of an official testing of the rifle. Also, many of the the commentators later noted that the rifle used in the test was a pre-production version (not the rifle that was ultimately shipped to the troops, which means that different materials were used as often is the case, pre-production models may be built to test ergonomics, rifle accuracy and not necessarily durability). I'm not sure why you are not concerned about these accuracy issues. Finally, again WP:ONUS, that's why you don't have the birther controversy on the Barak Obama page, or the flat-earth theory in the Earth article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an opinion, gossip or echo chamber page. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All defects described by Onet have been confirmed by the Territorial Defence Forces and are to be removed as part of the modernization to the A3 version.https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/grotowisko-22 91.237.86.201 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your duplicate/spam comment in the below section, the source you cite does not even talk about Onet, so you need to stop misrepresenting sources and what they actually say. --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it is talk about removing the defects previously described by Onet. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on controversy[edit]

Just to split things up I am adding a break. I just did a quick Google search and found this article which, whilst it may not be a WP:RS sums things up in a relatively neutral way. I would like to note that one of the items mentioned in the article is that "Fabryka Broni, however, have gone a step further and launched a lawsuit against Onet and the authors of publication, suing for $250,000 in reparations on the basis of personal rights infringement and defamation." It would seem to be as a newcomer to the page / topic that having a section saying something like "some people decided to do some tests (some of which were a tad unfair) and publish a negative review. In response FB is suing them for defamation saying that they got it wrong." and something about "any M1/A1 already delivered will be uplifted to become M2/A2". Obviously that should be translated into proper wording but that is an outline. I would also note that there is a research paper from a journal about the riffle which looks like it has some related information at doi:10.5604/01.3001.0014.7852. Gusfriend (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text that was reverted it a blatant WP:SYNTHESIS, in other word "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion". Also, as was noted previously by by another user, WP:ONUS, here too "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." That's why you don't have the dumb birther controversy plastered into the Barack Obama page, smear campaigns should not be added into an article and should not be presented as legitimate history. --E-960 (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment on what was there previously but the fact that there is now a lawsuit against Onet for their review makes it easier to argue for something to be included. To say something along the lines of "A magazine did a negative review saying bad things and they are now being sued because of it." seems like a reasonable starting point. My suggestion would be to come up with text that you would be happy with and then start a RfC to include it or let someone else start a RfC. Gusfriend (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations file many laws suits, just did a quick search and found this one regarding FN SCAR [10] — other firearms companies have them as well, I'm sure of that. So, why are we highlighting such things here, giving them WP:UNDUE and in this case to a private YouTube video review the subsequent lawsuit? If this was a major court case (like families of the victim of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting suing Bushmaster) I could see that, but not for some defamation, infringement or rights drama. Finally, pls consider that Wikipedia is a proper encyclopedia not Conservapedia, RationalWiki or Fandom. That's why (and this is a great example) you don't have birther drama included in the Barak Obama article, we don't need Wikipedia articles loaded with trivia. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All defects described by Onet have been confirmed by the Territorial Defence Forces and are to be removed as part of the modernization to the A3 version.https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/grotowisko-22 91.237.86.201 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
91.237.86.201 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misrepresenting sources, the article you cited does NOT even talk about Onet. You repeatedly have made inaccurate claims and inserted text which in effect amount to WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research. Your inaccuracies harm Wikipedia credibility, and your tedious editing is disrupting the article. --E-960 (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this article talk about removing the defects previously described by Onet. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include this prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I propose adding the following text to the page: In January 2022, following ongoing reports of the dissatisfaction with the new rifle, especially with respect to corrosion, Polish company Onet.pl published an article documenting the results of a number of tests which presented the MSBS Grot in a bad light. Whilst some other reports mentioned possible quality control issues there was criticism of the article from outlets associated with the Government within Poland and Fabryka Broni responded by suing the publication for $250,000 for defamation.[1]Gusfriend (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have no real preference about this, I am merely proposing the RfC to short-circuit the recent issues. Gusfriend (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gusfriend, unfortunately I'm not sure you are familiar with the issue and the proposed text amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. The statement I highlighted in green criticizing the YouTube review reported on by Onet.pl was by an author from the FragOut! firearms/military news magazine, he is not connected to the Polish Government or FB Radom. So, why did you start a RfC not understanding the issue at hand, you jumped into the discussion and decided to initiate a RfC not fully knowing the details of the issue, thus I strongly recommend that Pbritti and Compassionate727 read over what the cited reference source actually says. --E-960 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All defects are confirmed by other sources like RP.pl, Defence24.pl, Milmag.pl, FB Radom and Territorial Defence Forces. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brief, to the point, captures the relevancy to the rifle, and does not engage in speculation. Excellent compromise edit, Gusfriend. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot)Support, seems reasonable. In the future, you should clarify where you intend this to go. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The statement that Gusfriend is proposing does not reflect the issue correctly, what "ongoing reports of the dissatisfaction" what "number of tests" are we talking about? Onet.pl reported on one YouTube review of the rifle by a guy named Paweł Moszner (not official military testing), you can see part of the test done by Moszner and his group of "EXPERTS" here on YouTube [11] (the setting and the stupid track suit worn by Moszner will tell you everything about the reliability of the test). This poorly worded statement only shows a lack of understanding by user Gusfriend who initiated the RfC. Also, what Gusfriend fails to include in his proposed summary is a statement by the an author for the FragOut! firearms/military magazine who questioned the motive and accuracy of Paweł Moszner's test saying: “The tests concluded by Moszner, an ex-GROM operator, were clearly biased – virtually no carbine currently in military service is expected to handle thirty magazines of continuous burst fire. Considering that Grot’s barrel has relatively light profile the test, if anything, proved that Grot handles intensive firing schedule very well. It is no worse than AR-15s and AKs with similar barrel profiles.”The so called “sand test” was also questionable as the carbines such as AK and AR seemed to be dry when subjected to the sand… Yet, when [the] Grot was subjected to the sand test, the dust mysteriously stuck on the gun surface, that can indicate the lubrication of the assault rifle before the test – something that could explain the result… Thus, the “test” was not conducted in an objective manner (at best) and staged (at worst).” So, we are really talking about a hit-piece for which Onet.pl got sued for. And not legitimate but ALLEGED claims of dissatisfaction with the new rifle, because no one else apart from Paweł Moszner made the same "dissatisfaction" claims publicly. So, in the end you are trying to insert a reference to a YouTube review of the rifle... consider WP:ONUS "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." --E-960 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All defects are confirmed by other sources like RP.pl, Defence24, Milmag, FB Radom and Territorial Defence Forces. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this RFC is well-meaning but its conclusion seems rushed and not well thought-out --83.24.81.67 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is the IP's only edit, accompanying comment has little meaning. Elaboration from the IP editor is encouraged. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You need to specify the test (was it a standard test, repeatable, compared with other models of similar weapons etc), who it was done by and their credentials/claim to reliability as a weapons testing facility. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All this was described in removed section. You should add other sources confirmed defects like: https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art282721-karabinek-szturmowy-grot-idzie-do-poprawki https://www.milmag.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue id=48&page=6 https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/system-broni-modulowej-grot-eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/grotowisko-22 91.237.86.201 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misrepresenting sources and for the 100th time. Two of the sources don't even mention Onet.pl, and only one of the three sources references the Onet.pl and Piotr Moszner, however it talks about the manufacturer improving the rife based on recommendation and tests done by the Polish Territorial Defence Forces (so not the "Moszner" test). Go back and read through what WP:SYNTHESIS is. Mixing various sources to come yup with your own WP:Original research conclusion is what you are doing. Unfortunately, Gusfriend an editor who was not involved in any of the previous discussions, just out of nowhere, dropped in and decided to provide you with another venue to WP:FORUMSHOP by setting up an RfC out of the blue.
All this sources talk about removing the defects previously described by Onet and Piotr Moszner.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also, I would like to ask Piotrus to advise if any of the sources presented here are suitable for this article, since on many Poland related topics, standards are being raised and user Piotrus is quite familiar with this matter: As noted on another article: "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.' As in the past, there were many issues similar to what is happening on this page. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RP.pl, Defence24 and Milmag meet this requirements. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't, for several reasons, with one reason being that they are in POLISH not ENGLISH. --E-960 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check later, the anon is probably right (although I am less familiar with Milmag). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should be as it is described in the Polish Wikipedia article about the MSBS Grot. Rzęsor (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out that user Rzęsor may need to be investigated as a sockpupet, along with users Dvaderv2 and Military Galaxy Brain, as they drop in to re-add the exact same text originally inserted into the article by IP 91.237.86.201. Also, I'd like to point out that user Rzęsor stopped editing on 15 August, 2012 and then re-started editing 18 January 2022 (a 10 year break in activity). At this point, I'm considering launching a sockpuppet investigation, however I need to review my understanding of the evidence needed. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are bot or idiot? Rzęsor (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin civility warnings needed. Eh, User:El C, would you mind? Or ping someone else who can call folks to order... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would the user be able to clarify why Rzęsor account was dormant for 10 yesrs, only to awaken in January of 2022? --E-960 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am an idiot bot. Erm, Rzęsor, please don't call users idiots. E-960, it's not appropriate to suggest a user is a sock on an article talk page, because that has a chilling effect. So in future, please limit comments of that nature to WP:SPI, WP:ANI, etc. Thanks. El_C 05:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The controversy should be described neutrally. The part as proposed to be added seems fine as long as it is not considered to be all we say about this, as it likely represents only one side of the story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, there are a couple of things to consider, often we get tunnel vision on Wikipedia, does some YouTube/media tempest in a tea cup really that fundamentally important to the rifle? Now, we are going to add a long paragraph about some secondary "food fight" issue, and make it longer and longer to include every dumb detail of this superficial issue. Also, where would you place this text anyway? Media hype is not what one would consider "History" of the rife. Also, the lack of English language reference sources proves only one thing, internationally this is not even an on the radar, you can have a controversies text on it on Polish Wikipedia, but here we should consider WP:ONUS. --E-960 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@E-960 Notability is not local, foreign language sources are perfectly fine. IMHO the coverage (ex. here, here, here, here, here, and many others) does make this a notable incident. PS. Coverage in English: "Media Drama Over Poland’s MSBS Grot Rifle Causes National Security Concerns in Poland", [12]...). PPS. I am not endorsing any particular version, as I haven't had time to check all facts and verify the refs, but this was a notable controversy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've heard (from U.S. law-talking guys) that the dollar amount 'X' in "Sued for $X" is meaningless – it's whatever you claim when you sue, with almost complete creative license. I don't know how different Polish tort is, but I suggest amending the proposed text to omit the dollar amount claimed. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see that the IP user re-adde the same text yet again[13], despite this on-going "compromise" RfC, and as I noted to Piotrus during the last few comments this RfC only added to the confusion with poorly articulated point, and in the end it's not going to solve the disruptive editing by IP and Rzęsor. --E-960 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note - in response to a RFPP request (concerning the IP re-adding the disputed text) I have semi-protected the article for a week while the discussion progresses here. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ "Media Drama Over Poland's MSBS Grot Rifle Causes National Security Concerns in Poland". Overt Defense. 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2022-06-10.

Number of rifles delivered to Urkaine[edit]

Presentation from "GROTowisko 2022" event, talks about "more than 10k" pieces. Second slide, point nr 4 https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/grotowisko-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.253.233.68 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the rifle is incorrect[edit]

The main picture is incorrect. Its a picture of a prototype. PabLo-08.04 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FB_MSBS_Grot&oldid=1212525064"