Type 69 Rocket Launcher?
 

A user recently changed all of the Type 69 RPG entries to just "Type 69", arguing that "RPG" is not the correct nomenclature to the Chinese launcher. Another user then changed it back. I wanted to get other moderators' feedback on this so there could be a final decision on what it should be. My vote would be either keep it at RPG or name it a "Type 69" Rocket Launcher since "Type 69" is very generic.

The other moderators' thoughts would be appreciated.

That was me who changed it the first time and Evil Tim who changed it back. Evil Tim is another name of Dongs/Vangelis who I know people have had problems with before.

Check our talk pages for the dialog so far.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/User_talk:...noldsMoustache

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/User_talk:Evil_Tim

I'll give Tim this...it is true that the Chinese use "Type XX" to name every weapon, and the "XX" is always after the year that said weapon entered service. It's pretty confusing that the Chinese SKS and AK-47 copies are both called the "Type 56".

That being said, I don't think such matters of confusion are applicable to the Type 69 RPG. As best I know, it is the only Chinese Type 69 that would be included on this site (whereas obviously, the Type 69 MBT and the Type 69 land mine are outside the scope of IMFDB). So I think it's fine to just say "Type 69". I'm with Burt on this.

Also, if we were going to say "Type 69 RPG", then we should also alter "Norinco Type 56" on the AK-47 page to read something like, "Norinco Type 56 assault rifle".

I believe the official terms are Type 56 rifle for the SKS and Type 56 submachine gun for the AK.

Type 56 carbine for the SKS, but you are right that the AK was called a Type 56 submachine gun. That's because until the 1970s, the PLA only used the AK in a submachine gun role (most infantry riflemen used SKS).

We need a consensus on this from the admins. Ben41 told me to cool it so I did. (Is he an admin?) And even if he's not, this edit war between me and Tim isn't going anywhere anyway. So I ask the admins to consider our respective arguments and reach an official decision on this.

Yes Ben's an admin. He just doesn't frequent the forums much.

Also I say just leave it as Type 69 RPG.

Just a side thought, anyone who's an admin on the wiki should be a moderator here in the forums. Just makes sense to me. Promote Ben41 says I.

He probably is, just doesn't have a lot of post and still says junior member. I have moderator privileges but it still says senior member.

BTW, do you have a reason for your decision on this issue? I'd like to here it if you do. I'm not challenging your authority here, I'd just like to know why my argument didn't appeal to you.

To leave it dummy proof. So someone who's not that into weapons, may not know what the hell Type 69 means.

I tried to read the back and forth messages between you and Evil Tim. But it was too much to sort through. I don't care that much about the topic. So I would rather just leave it be.

I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds here, but I'd like to point out that there are photographs on this site. Anything listed as "Type 69" has a photograph accompanying it. On a more personal note, I feel that there is no point in appealing to the uninformed when this site exists specifically to inform and present accurate information.

The way I see it, what's good for the AK-47/Type 56 distinction, is just as good for the RPG-7/Type 69 distinction. I think it would be a good idea to use the former as a guide in whatever decision is finally reached.

I've spent the entire day arguing back and forth with Evil Tim about this and it has been exhausting, so I'd like to raise some points about him and his debate style that should be taken into consideration in this issue.

1: His basic argument is a fallacy. Everything he says keeps coming back to a variation of "everyone does it so it must be ok." I keep refuting this with the fact that common usage does not make something technically correct. He counters with "yes it does."

2: His basic position is false. He claims that "RPG" is a catchall term for personal antitank weapons. It isn't. I have never heard or seen "RPG" used to describe the M72 LAW, the AT4, the Carl Gustaf, the SMAW, the B300, the Armbrust, the Panzerschrek, the Bazooka, or any other shoulder launched recoilless antitank weapon.

3: He seems more interested in arguing with me than in correcting information. I went through about 10-15 articles originally, deleting the phrase "RPG" from sections on the Type 69. He changed back exactly 2 of them, RPG-7 and Terminator 3. When I undid his revisions, he almost immediately changed them back again, every time. He made no effort to revert any of the other articles, nor did he make any effort to edit any articles I had not changed to suit his position. Going through every instance of the Type 69, even just once, would have been easier, less tedious, and less time consuming then arguing with me over this for the last 12 hours.

4: He has a history of being difficult. On his user page it says that he used to be known as Dongs, Vangelis, and Vangelis2. I remember reading in old threads about Dongs/Vangelis being a bit of a pill in the Perfect Dark and Goldeneye 007 articles. I'm sure the people who were actually here when it happened can vouch for this.

5: He seems completely incapable of understanding certain basic concepts. Throughout my debate with him I kept repeating certain things multiple times. Key to our debate; he does not understand the difference between accepted usage and and preferred usage in language. He believes them to be one and the same. Nor does he understand the difference between literal translation (transliteration) and equivalent translation (using analogous phrases). This deficiency presented itself in a very strange argument he used which I will detail below.

6: Some of his arguments are bizarre. For some reason, he felt that bringing up a supposed naming dispute over a WW2 German tank was appropriate to the issue. The tank in question is the Tiger II, informally known as the Königstiger. Königstiger was translated by allied soldiers as "king tiger" or "royal tiger". the literal translation is "king's tiger", with "king tiger" being the most widely know translation. Königstiger is the German language phrase used to refer to Panthera tigris tigris, which is known in English as the Bengal tiger. If you understand that "Königstiger" and "Bengal tiger" are analogous phrases and not direct translations of each other, then you will understand the frustration I'm about to relay to you.

Evil Tim presented an article as part of his argument. The article claimed that "king tiger" is an incorrect translation of Königstiger, and that the Tiger II's informal name should be translated to Bengal tiger. Evil Tim presented this article originally as an example of what he thought I was doing wrong. He compared my position on "Type 69 RPG" to that of the author of the article on the Königstiger translation. The link he claimed was that we were both arguing for a claimed technically correct term that is not in common professional usage (Type 69 for me, Bengal tiger for the author), and therefore incorrect by his standards. I then explained how the author was incorrect in his assertion and was arguing from a position of not understanding how linguistic translations work. Evil Tim then flipped his position on the article and claimed that the author was correct in claiming that Bengal tiger was correct inspite of not being widely used, the exact opposite of the argument he'd been making the whole time. I think he may have flipped to support a previous argument he tried to make where he asserted that because of my position, I would logically want all German machine guns to be labelled as "machine rifles" because the German language analog to machine gun translates to "machine rifle" (much like the German phrase for submachine gun transliterates to "machine pistol").

If this sounds confusing, it's because it is. I'm not even sure if I'm remembering this correctly because of how mentally draining debating with Evil Tim is. It's late, I'm tired and frazzled, and I've spent several hours typing this post and replying to him with a headache while trying to dull the pain with Law & Order: SVU. If anyone wants to sift through the whole thing to try to make sense of it, the whole debate is on his talk page.

Please take this into consideration when determining the validity of anything he says.

"history of being difficult"

Hmmm. Burt Reynolds Mustache. That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. ;) (edit) One must be careful of latching onto an idea and 'marrying the idea'. Many times on IMFDB you don't get what you want. I have yielded many times to decisions I was strongly against. As for the argument I don't have that strong of an opinion one way or another, BUT, there is merit to the argument that we are here to educate people who are NOT gun experts. Idiot proofing must be balanced with 'exact historical nomenclature'.

I have no dog in this fight, but looking at the volumes each of you have written here and on the discussion pages, I have to say, the passion is quite admirable.

I looked this up at the top English language source for information on the Chinese military, http://www.sinodefence.com/ . They don't have any information about small arms anymore for some reason so I used the wayback machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php to view their archives. The Type 69 page refers to it as "Type 69 rocket launcher". The phrase "rocket propelled grenade" is used to describe the ammunition, though they are not type classified as such, instead using names like "Type 69 HEAT", "Type 69-1 HEAT", etc. Additionally, the photographs of the ammunition have labels describing them as "rocket shells". These labels are part of the photographs and are not text captions, indicating that where ever they originated from used that phrase to describe them.

Since I doubt such a minor text change will be taken to the supreme court anytime soon, nor deserves such extreme effort to argue over, I found this fitting:

http://i54.tinypic.com/33w2ljn.jpg

I admit that debating (as opposed to arguing) can be fun. But yes, it's becoming pretty obvious to me that Burt invests a little too much of his self-esteem into these sorts of exchanges.

Anyway, I was away a lot this weekend, but here's my take: I think both Burt and Tim need to shut up, and we, the mods and admins, should decide. They've been had more than enough time to make their case, and ultimately, it comes down to what we think. In situations like this, what else can we do?

All in favor of Burt's position, vote yeah. Opposed, nay. I vote nay.

I vote nay.

I vote Nay.

I'll live.

I see that Evil Tim has an account now.

He's coming for you, Burt

Honestly I really have no strong opinion either way.

Uh, no. That was before I heard Evil Tim's position.

I vote Nay

what are the waffles about?

Nay it is, then.

That being said, I hope y'all voted because of how you genuinely feel on the issue, not because of how you feel about Burt. He may be stubborn and argumentative (for its own sake), but the issue isn't completely invalid.