Talk:FN M1900

Just an observation: The opening paragraph states that this was among the first handguns to have a short recoil operation. Then the specification table on the right states that it is blowback operated.

Short recoil and blowback are altogether different.

The article for .32 ACP states that the cartridge was designed for the M1900, and that the straight walls were necessary for reliable blowback operation. Marshaul (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct now. Yes, it's blowback. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nikolay Bobrikov vs. Roosevelt ownership of FN 1900

User Berean Hunter deleted the paragraph that dealt with the assassination of Governor-General of Finland, Nikolay Bobrikov, in 1904, because he thought that the incident wasn't notable enough according to the Wikipedia policies. Now, there still remains a mention that U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt happened to own a FN 1900 pistol. I have to wonder which one is more notable? The fact that some U.S. president owned this particular handgun (all the while he probably owned several other firearms) or the fact that it was used in the only high-profile political assassination in the history of Finland, which had profound effect on the independence movement and later revolution in 1917 which granted the Finnish independence. Article on FN 1910 tells that the pistol in question was used to assassinate Huey Long, who was a local governor in Louisiana, instead of being de facto ruler of an entire country like Bobrikov was. Is that really notable? JJohannes (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss a key point here, JJohannes. The passage that I removed regarding Bobrikov is uncited whereas the other examples that you have tried to use are cited. Now that you have asserted "the fact that it was used in the only high-profile political assassination in the history of Finland, which had profound effect on the independence movement and later revolution in 1917 which granted the Finnish independence", it shouldn't be a problem to show that. The burden would be on you to provide a citation from a high quality source before restoring.

As to your question, "Is that really notable?", this seems to suggest that you aren't familiar with the policy or you would have recognized that it is cited and notability has already been established. But that is in a different article and has nothing to do with anything here. Arguments concerning Roosevelt or Long are not relevant here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I was under the impression that you removed the passage just because you didn't consider it notable as you cited Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use. I concur that the burden is on me and I might try to source the role of FN 1900 in Bobrikov murder later. I won't, of course, try to restore anything that is uncited. JJohannes (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]