Talk:Bazooka

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Requesting reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bazooka&diff=1299324725&oldid=1299324326 to replace it with correct information based on authoritative sources (national war museums of the UK and USA).

• Disruptive activity by multiple users prevented correcting the article despite me explaining the issue and their misconceptions, until the article was locked
• ^[1][2]

Very similar issue with the disambiguation article.

94.246.147.217 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Your edits do not follow Wikipedia style guidelines (which may differ from other sources that follow different style guides). older ≠ wiser 19:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

If multiple editors are reverting you despite your "explaining the issue and their misconceptions", then it is probably not the multiple users who are being disruptive. It's probably time for you to step back on this. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes. The Bazooka is the name of this weapon series. It's like the Spitfire fighters. Or the Sherman tanks (like the Bazooka, the Sherman wasn't even originally named so, but it sticked). Or any other weapon with a proper name. Which it is.

Or if I really need to explain the obvious: https://www.pacificwarmuseum.org/visit/exhibits/artifacts/m9a1-bazooka It's "the M9A1 Bazooka" aka "the Bazooka". Not "the bazooka". Compare with the "M6A1 Rocket" (of the Bazooka) aka "the rocket" there. Because it's a rocket, while the Bazooka isn't really a (minorcase) bazooka - the latter a colloquialism that may mean whatever the user wants and not a real military term.

Or, as your own version of the article says currently: "The term "bazooka" still sees informal use as a generic term[11] referring to any shoulder fired ground-to-ground/ground-to-air missile weapon (mainly rocket-propelled grenade launchers or recoilless rifles)". Which is really whatever you want because it's not an actually defined military term (there is no such military term).

I'll add a third museum definition for a good measure (Smithsonian's): https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/rocket-anti-tank-solid-fuel-236/nasm_A19890577000 (and https://www.si.edu/object/rocket-anti-tank-35-inch-or-super-bazooka%3Anasm_A19890587000)

And a fourth, why not: https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_415906

And https://muzeumsnp.sk/en/archive-and-collections/sneak-peek-into-our-collections/m1-bazooka-rocket-launcher/

And https://www.facebook.com/tankmuseum/photos/the-bazooka-set-the-standard-for-anti-tank-weaponsduring-the-second-world-war-mo/976484554663386/

And when I say colloquial word may mean anything, compare these 2 definitions so pushed by User:Bkonrad just before he locked the article:

• Bazooka "The term "bazooka" still sees informal use as a generic term[11] referring to any shoulder fired ground-to-ground/ground-to-air missile weapon (mainly rocket-propelled grenade launchers or recoilless rifles), and as an expression that heavy measures are being taken.[11]" (he misspelled "shoulder-fired")
• Bazooka (disambiguation) "A bazooka is an anti-tank rocket-launcher weapon." (he misspelled "rocket launcher")

According to one of these definitions, the FIM-92 Stinger can be a "bazooka" as it's "any shoulder fired [sic] ... ground-to-air missile weapon".

And yet according to his own other definition, it must be "anti-tank" only, and now the Stinger is suddenly not "a bazooka".

This is also what I mean when I say misinformation. And I wasn't even done correcting it before it was locked - here and there, both. My accompanying request is also to revert his edit at Bazooka (disambiguation).

Now, what is the subject of the article Bazooka? It's about the Bazooka series and their copies. And nothing else.

94.246.147.217 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it difficult to understand that WP has its own style guide. It is not unusual for specialist sources to use stylization that is not applicable here. Let's check some reliable generalist and recheck some of the specialist sources:

• Bazooka | Definition, Development, & Facts | Britannica -- not capitalized
• The "Bazooka" and Its Evolution in Photos | War History Online -- inconsistent
• M9A1 Bazooka | National Museum of the Pacific War --- inconsistent
• Launcher, Rocket, A.T., 2.36 Inch M9A1 & Bazooka | Imperial War Museums -- always in single quotes 'Bazooka' except the heading
• 3.5-inch Rocket launcher 'Bazooka' and crew, Devon and Dorset Regiment, 1960 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London -- inconsistent
• M1 Rocket Launcher | Smithsonian Institution -- consistently upper case, and sometimes in quote marks
• The "Bazooka," new U.S. Army rocket gun. Sept., 1943 | Library of Congress -- capitalized, but always in quote marks
• [Soldier holding a bazooka] | Library of Congress -- not capitalized
• [Rocket for a bazooka] | Library of Congress -- not capitalized
• Blast from the Past: History of the Bazooka - The Armory Life -- not capitalized
• Bazooka: How the legendary rocket-propelled anti-armour weapon got its name -- not capitalized
• The Bazooka - Google Books -- not capitalized
• Bazooka Vs Panzer - Google Books -- not capitalized

Seems clear that there is no consistent capitalization. older ≠ wiser 20:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

And many other capitalize it, including actual displays of the weapon "the Bazooka", and not just random captions of photos.

And THIS ARTICLE HERE is about THE Bazooka, not "a" anything like in your definition play the disambiguation page, linking here.

And where you reverted my edit on bizarre grounds of my version not having the phrase "shoulder fired", while your own version has no phrase "shoulder fired" too.

• "M9A1 Bazooka | National Museum of the Pacific War --- inconsistent"

???

"The M9A1 Bazooka and M6A1 Rocket were in common use by 1945. When fired, the rocket can punch through solid steel or concrete and served as a devastating weapon against Japanese bunkers on Iwo Jima. Due to the rockets being quite delicate, requiring careful wiring to the Bazooka, it was intended to be a weapon with a crew of two men. Julian both loaded and fired his bazooka four times during the firefight which earned him the Medal of Honor."

So "inconsistent".

94.246.147.217 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"Julian both loaded and fired his bazooka four times during the firefight which earned him the Medal of Honor." Yes, it is not consistently capitalized. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm actually not against quote marks at all. It's a nickname. Like the "Sherman" tank (it was even originally just a British nickname, along with the M3 "Lee", predating the later tradition of the Americans naming their tanks after their generals). Both only retroactively renamed so.

Where I mean both the Sherman and the Bazooka started as a nickname but now are an officially recognised names retroactively, and their successors used this naming (Super Bazooka, Pershing/Patton/Abrams tanks officially since adapting into service).

And even "The Bazooka - Google Books -- not capitalized" - it's always "the bazooka", not as in the Bazooka (disambiguation) falsely linking here to this article but with a wrong "a bazooka" definition that I attempted to correct and you reverted to the stupid one.

Quotation marks or not, "the Bazooka" as capitalized is certainly better here when this article (very briefly) mentions the (never actually militarily defined) "a bazooka" minorcase (which is to mean whatever one wants, like someone writing this article here wanted it to mean anti-air missiles, which isn't even a nonsense because "a bazooka" isn't a real thing and it's what you want it to be). Speaking of nonsense - this article here says this whole "shoulder fired" for its "a bazooka" definition, while the actual Bazookas had even a version fired from a plane (launchers mounted under wings). Also other air-to-ground rocket launchers were called so: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205371011 And there were actual Bazookas mounted on ground vehicles (like in dual mounts on the Jeeps).

Other Smithsonian exhibits:

• original Bazooka rocket ("the Bazooka, the Bazooka, the Bazooka, the Bazooka")
• Super Bazooka rocket ("the Super Bazooka or M20", "the famous 2.36 inch caliber Bazooka", "the original Bazooka")
• Super Bazooka but as "Modern Bazooka" (with the original Bazooka being referred to as "The original Bazooka")

The lead in a [note] may note the minorcase usage of "the bazooka" to refer to the actual Bazooka the specific weapon, and once again point out it's not about the "a bazooka" (which is a nebulous term that refers to just whatever one wants).

The Willys MB article used both "Jeep, or jeep" in the lead summary as the "commonly known" name. As to talk about what Wikipedia does in such cases.

So you can revert yourself, then write "the Bazooka, or bazooka," or whatever else you want at the beginning of the lead (actually probably quite marks are not needed after all), fix the remaining nonsense ("shoulder fired" - "a bazooka" can mean jest literally any rocket launcher, but especially hand-held), then revert yourself in the other article, fix the remaining nonsense also there, and then unlock both articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"declined, there is no consistent capitalization of the term in reliable souorces" - I guess I will need to repeat:

>The Willys MB article used both "Jeep, or jeep" in the lead summary as the "commonly known" name. As to talk about what Wikipedia does in such cases.

>So you can revert yourself, then write "the Bazooka, or bazooka," or whatever else you want at the beginning of the lead (actually probably quite marks are not needed after all), fix the remaining nonsense ("shoulder fired" - "a bazooka" can mean jest literally any rocket launcher, but especially hand-held), then revert yourself in the other article, fix the remaining nonsense also there, and then unlock both articles.

Where I meant to use both versions ("The Bazooka, or bazooka") here, and in the other article too (besides of course to correct the above mentioned misinformation of definitions, different but both wrong). Apparently it was somehow not obvious when I said "As to talk about what Wikipedia does in such cases." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: There is clearly disagreement and a lack of consensus surrounding this issue. I am closing the edit request pending establishment of consensus. Please feel free to continue discussing if you would like to. You can reopen the edit request once consensus has been established. SI09 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)