Talk:Sons of Guns

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Reality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Louisiana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).

Can we please keep anything that is not related to the TV show out of the article. Will Haydens charges and conviction is only relevant to the shows cancellation and requires only a single sentence. Everything else is already covered on the Will Hayden page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.117.159 (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can help fill in this page with additional information it would be appreciated. Details on the show are fairly scarce even though it's scheduled to premier this month and is being advertised on the Discovery Channel quite often. Xephael (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added an upcoming cast member. User:Seven_7s (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Changed from shotgun to AK47 and silencer to supressor on the first episode synopsis. These were huge mistakes. Mike M. —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As the items were originally manufactured and patented, they are called "silencers". Am I correct in calling it a silencer? It's debatable. But, this argument will go on for another 100 years, just as it has the past 100 years. I'm only saying that either one is "correct". Silencer is the true name, and suppressor is an accurate description. Skiendog (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of huge mistakes, the summary for the Flamethrower episode mentions modifying an AK 47 to accept a 30 round magazine. GUESS WHAT? THE STANDARD AK 47 MAGAZINE IS A 30 ROUND MAGAZINE. NO MODIFICATION NEEDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.237 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually grossly wrong. To quote the show Will says "America does not allow the importation of assault weapons. So what they do is built this specifically to not accept 30 round magazines. We have to change enough of the parts to change it's status". Playing Call of Duty does not equal knowledge :) MrCrackers (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as a dealer in Class III firearms Will would no doubt know that the assault weapons ban expired in September 2004. So this was one of several shows built around a lie. The article is sorely in need of a section about things on the show that are simply untrue or don't make a lick of sense. What is Call of Duty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.47 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every AK I have ever owned has taken standard 30rd magazines. I will have to go back to that episode, watch it again, and try to figure out what he was talking about. Skiendog (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting an end to this. This page isn't meant to discuss whether or not AK-47's can accept 30 round magazines or not. The article itself is meant to reflect the show, and it was clearly said the man wanted his AK-47 to accept 30 round magazines. Right or wrong, that is what happened in the plot. Discussion over. MrCrackers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Aren't you being kind of a dictator here? As well as other words starting with "d"? Here's the deal, Mrcrackers. The page needs a section on lies told by Will and things that just makes no sense at all. How does the rifle know how long the magazine is? Answer: it doesn't. Here's a lie Will told, according to you: "To quote the show Will says 'America does not allow the importation of assault weapons.'" Then where do all the cops and Red Jacket get their MP-5s?

Tonight's episode was about making a silencer for a grenade launcher. In what universe does that make sense? Grenades are nothing if not loud, and grenade launchers are nothing if not short range. This page is sorely in need of a section labeled "nonsense".

"Discussion over" said Mrcrackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.40 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being a "dictator". It's about keeping the article from being derailed and this page being flooded by every person who plays CoD and thinks they're an "expert" on firearms. None of your points are relevant to the article itself. Your suggestion for a lies page I'll never support. Furthermore you ask "where does Red Jacket get their MP-5s". Well...Will has mentioned MULTIPLE times that RJ has a Class III dealer's license. They can import whatever full auto guns they want...50 cal machine guns...whatever. It's doesn't take a genius to understand that when will said "doesn't allow importation..." he was referring to average folks who aren't dealers.MrCrackers (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(A) In episode 1, the Kalashnikov converted to take a silencer was a Saiga 12ga shotgun; the 1934 NFA refers to suppressors as silencers. The ATF Form 4 paperwork for my son's suppressor calls it a silencer. "Silencer" is the legal term used by the law and by the ATF for a sound suppressor or muffler for a firearm. It was a shotgun with a silencer period. (B) Many models of imported AK-style rifles follow the 1989 import restriction and are made to accept a single stack 10 round magazine. The import restriction preceded the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, and when the 94AWB was sunsetted (allowed to expire) in 2004, that had nothing to do with the 1989 import restrictions. Now some importers (eg, Century Arms) alter imported rifles to take standard AK47 magazines before distributing them to dealers in states where the standard AK47 magazines are legal. However some states and localities retained local "assault weapon" bans or limits on magazine size, so there are a number of imported AK guns that take single stack magazines and gunsmiths (eg, Red Jacket) who convert such imported rifles to accept double stack magazines in states where the standard AK47 magazines are legal. (C) The muzzle blast of a vehicle mounted 40mm grenade launcher can do with a little silencing for the sake of the hearing of the gun operator, vehicle driver, etc. The Mk 19 has an effective max range of 1,500 meters so blast of grenade at target is irrelevant to the efficiency of a silencer to reduce the muzzle blast just feet away from the gunner and vehicle driver. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naaman Brown is correct on all counts. I suggest that before posting "lies" or errors to the article, DO discuss them here for those with specific knowledge about firearms, import requirements and weapons capabilities can discuss those matters regarding a potential edit, lest we have erroneous entries. Regarding the MK 19, I've personally fired out to one kilometer, so I'd not call it short range, save if you're comparing it to an Howitzer. Hanged if I can grasp WHY a police department would want such a destructive weapon, as collateral damage is a significant risk with HE or rounds that could behave in incendiary fashion (such as CS or smoke grenades), but that is a matter for that local community to address and far beyond the scope of discussion in an article about a television show. In the industry, suppressor and silencer tend to be used somewhat equally, especially as very few firearms are TRULY silenced, only the characteristics of the report are altered. I've only handled TWO totally silenced weapons in my over 27 year military career, one of which was an old weapon from Vietnam and no longer in service.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current:

I thought this article would be OK without me for a few weeks but it seems like it's fallen into the old habit of copy-pasting episode summaries from Discovery.com. I'll work on replacing those and cutting down some of the copyright free ones that are too long.

I'm back....watching s02e01 now and will get on the summary. MrCrackers (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived:

Season finale (if I remember right) tonight. I'll deal (or someone else can) with getting the template ready for the next season and having a small blurb that "new season will start...." MrCrackers (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Up to date again. Not sure of any new episodes out this week since Discovery hasn't updated their guide. Also thinking might want to update the "Starring" panel to coincide with the Staff section, but Flemm and Mikey don't seem to have much in the way of talking roles yet. MrCrackers (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work... what pages are redirecting here that shouldn't? Xephael (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

According to "What Links Here", Brian Deck apparently had an album called Sons of Guns. Clearly not related to this article :) MrCrackers (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Gotta love Twinkle. MrCrackers (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything is up to date. Waiting for new episode to air 3/16 but I might not be able to watch until a few days later (currently on vacation) MrCrackers (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This weekend I'll try to watch all the episodes from the series so far, compare against the episode guide (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/sons-of-guns/episodes.html), and write clean synopses. I'll also add a proper episode table similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_Pawn#Episodes MrCrackers (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Most has been accomplished. Few problems are as follows. First, I can't locate a digital copy of S01E01 to watch (EDIT: Amazon Video on Demand beat out piracy for once). Second, I haven't watched episode 5 yet, but I'll write a non-copyright summary when I do. Third, we need a longer introduction section than what we have. Because we don't have much text outside of the table, on low resolution screens the info-box on the right will create a TON of whitespace. I don't know how to fix this (is there a wiki-table width = "float" option?).17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Episode 5 summary is done and updated. With the above issues, someone also needs to do all the word article stuff. I don't want to :). Oh and some pages are also redirecting here that shouldn't. No idea how to fix that either. MrCrackers (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Episode 1 summary done. All episode summaries are copyright free and not paraphrased from the official summaries. Persistent issues above. MrCrackers (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(3/9/11) With any luck I'll remember to set my computer to record an episode 13 re-broadcast this morning and I'll write the summary up soon after. And I'll keep my eye out on Discovery.com for episode 14's description to add to table, assuming 13 wasn't the last of the season. MrCrackers (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see there's been quite a few updates since I last worked on this page that need incorporating. I'm pretty hammered down with work but I'll try to spend an hour today getting everything up to date (copyright free summaries) and new episodes added (2 aired + 2 unaired). MrCrackers (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. As mentioned in my edit summary, I think the page is starting to look too much like a wall-o-text so we might need to play around with alternating colors or indenting to fix this. Persistent issues remaining include a lacking introduction section. MrCrackers (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking that a beneficial addition to this article would be a Cast section, similar in look to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_Stars#Cast . I don't think it would have to be anything on the level of the official bios on the Discovery website, but something more simple like "Will Hayden - Owner, Founder". Any comments before I implement this this weekend (or someone does it before that)? MrCrackers (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "Will Hayden - Minority Owner, Founder" since his daughter owns 51% of the bidness. That heps wid gummint contracts, as does his vet status (I think he's a vet, if he is it heps).

Three of the categories the gummint uses to give extra weight for awarding contracts are: wimmin owned, minority owned, veteran owned.

"MrCrackers" that sounds like someone my mom would warn me about when I was a kid. LOL!!! It's cool that you're so cool with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.230 (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got my approval. Skiendog (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? Nothing on IMDB or Youtube channel about a second season as of yet. Skiendog (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added sections. Please use the "new section" button at the top for adding a new section. This page was one giant paragraph with little to no formatting of sections. Maybe i'm just OCD like that. Skiendog (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from copy-pasting the episode summaries from Discovery.com and not citing them. a) They're copyrighted. b) It makes it hard for myself and others to tell whether or not the episode needs a copyright free summary. 24.234.219.211 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, but the link/source to the "scripted" part never mentions it being scripted. Stop feeding the trolls and actually come up with a source that says it's scripted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.109.121 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that no one noticed that get added. This is one of the things that happen with an Online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you for fixing it btw --Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of the Theme song? 72.86.37.79 (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tab Benoit, Shelter Me. Glrx (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted material from TMZ, which is part of Time-Warner. Time Magazine is a WP:RS. The San Jose Mercury News routinely uses TMZ as a source for material on celebrities. Although this article may be about the show, the show also involves the people and the company Red Jacket. Glrx (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking further I do see that in general TMZ is a WP:RS, though reading through at least a couple archives about it on WP:RSN it looks like normally they get attributed for the information in the prose. I do disagree that it needs or even should be included, at least until it is shown to have an affect on the show, but will give up that fight. Though should we be removing Vince from the list of staff here? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add a TMZ attribution in the prose, that would be OK with me. I do not believe Vince should be expunged; from what I understand, he has been part of the show and a staff member. His leaving should just be noted by commenting on a time period. Glrx (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While looking for info on the ATF story, I came across a federal lawsuit in Louisiana Middle District Court that alleges William Hayden and others violated the Securities Exchange Act:

• http://dockets.justia.com/docket/louisiana/lamdce/3:2011cv00561/42159/

A possible copy of the complaint:

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/76500159/Bum.

That document alleges that Radford owned ten percent of Red Jacket Firearms, Inc.; that Sons of Guns started in 2010; that 3 employees of Red Jacket Firearms, Inc. registered a new entity Red Jacket Firearms, L.L.C. in May 2010; that, on information and belief, sometime in 2010 or 2011, Hayden (and possibly others), "fraudulently transferred all assets, interest and goodwill out of Red Jacket, Inc. and into Red Jacket Firearms, L.L.C." (Paragraphs 15–20.)

Glrx (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit documents are available on PACER (United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, Case 3:11-cv-00561-JJB-SCR). Here's what the answer to the complaint (document 7) says about complaint paragraphs 15–20.

15. The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and submits that the referenced document is the best evidence of its contents.

16. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint are denied.

17. The allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint are denied.

18. The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent the Louisiana Secretary of State records show the name “Red Jacket Firearms” was registered as a trademark on July 12, 2010.

19. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent the Louisiana Secretary of State records speak for themselves.

20. The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint are denied.

Glrx (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amended complaint on PACER, of which I have no access to. Anyone have access to the system?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a credit card can open a PACER account and download documents at $0.08 per page. The charges accumulate, but the credit card is not billed until the charges go over $10. Consequently, people who only obtain a few documents can get them for free.

Complaints and answers often don't say much. Many lawsuits end with a confidential settlement where the public never knows what happened. Right now, there's a lawsuit, but there's not a lot to say about it. Furthermore, secondary sources aren't commenting on this lawsuit. Until there is RS coverage of the suit, I don't think it belongs in the article.

Glrx (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All too true, Glrx. As one who HAS been involved in a legal action, I know that all too well. But, many, many, many people do not know that, either from the US or foreign, hence, my mention and request for one with information to "distill" the information, for the BROAD audience, to include those who do NOT have a credit card. THAT said, it does NOT currently belong in the article, but MAY end up a topic of discussion upon the court decision. Hence, a valid topic of discussion, unless you disagree, then, we'd have to discuss what the threshold is for discussion. Not trying to be nasty or anything, just inclusive of INFORMATION that isn't YET potentially relevant for the article, but most certainly educational to future potential authors. THAT said, this should NOT attempt to become a blog. Only a discussion on article related information, yes?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:WELLKNOWN and this fit the requirements it is about read jacket and belongs there. it may not paint them in a good light but it is still them. ACE home (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WELLKNOWN requires a multitude of independent reliable sources. The cited sources do not suggest notability. Getting sued is not notable. The courthousenews.com source is just a copy of the federal complaint; it is not independent; it is the plaintiff's one-sided view of the conflict. Justia.com just copies the docket information from the federal courts; it makes no value judgment at all; it is just an index; it is not an indication of notability because it copies everything.

There is no doubt that Radford has sued RJF and Hayden. I've accessed the case on PACER, the federal court information system. We need some reliable sources to look at the lawsuit and decide it is notable. Anybody with $350 can file a federal lawsuit.

Furthermore, the current text violates WP:NPOV because it does not offer RJF and Hayden's position. A responsible secondary source would take that step. It might also want to see a copy of the prospectus or any stock certificates.

Glrx (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At less it should be left on there with a side note that this is in courts... an 10% owner sue his "company" and other owner is importing to this. the source is ok special if you can get the one from the government page.ACE home (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Radford's claim to 10% ownership is only an allegation. We need sources that say the case is notable -- not just that it exists. The government sources are not independent. We cannot use primary sources to develop our own evaluation of the case.

I've taken the issue to WP:BLPN.

Glrx (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material about the lawsuit clearly violates WP:BLPPRIMARY ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.") and cannot be put in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An order was made on 3-August-2012. Is the order noteworthy for this article? I don't have access to Justia.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A news report on the lawsuit:

• Former family members set sights on 'Sons of Guns' star in lawsuit, Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, 8 April 2013

The report explains the controversy, but the stock shares do not add up. Has other details. Glrx (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will and Stephanie owned Red Jacket Firearms Inc, not Red Jacket Firearms LLC. This is because they lost their FFL due to the fact 10 firearms were missing when the ATF did a routine inspection back in 2009. Until recently Vince Buckles the only licensed gunsmith the company had until his departure from the company was the owner of Red Jacket Firearms LLC. To state that Will and his daughter own the company is incorrect and Wikipeidia is supposed to be about providing facts. They illegally converted the assets of Red Jacket Firearms Inc into the LLC after the loss of their FFL. This needs to be corrected regardless if it goes against what Will, his daughter, and the Discovery channel want people to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.21.141 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above claims would need to be backed by reliable sources. There is no "Red Jacket Firearms Inc", so nobody owned that; the corporation was Red Jacket, Inc. The easily accessed LA entity statements identify the officers but not the owners of the corporation and the limited liability company. The article quotes cites sources about a FFL. VB need not have been the only licensed gunsmith. The only identified FFL is not for VB but rather RJF LLC. Ownership can be incredibly complicated. For all we know, Hayden (or some other entity) could own all the guns and equipment in the shop and consign/lease them to RJF LLC. Whether assets were "illegally converted" is unknown. There's a federal lawsuit that alleges an improper transfer from RJ Inc to RJF LLC, but the mere existence of a lawsuit does not make its allegations true. A lawsuit is not a reliable source for the truth of the allegation. It should come as no shock that many of the allegations in the complaint have been denied. Glrx (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glrx, the LEGAL TERMS OF LAWSUIT insist that the term "Red Jacket Firearms" is a company, under a certain state that has a leading "L" in its name. Again, in said state that remains in "L", is in contest, under the FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNION. So, as such, it REMAINS in contest.

Personally, I prefer the "man" of the show. Shall he fail to prevail upon honor and basis of our law, he's lower than dog crap,along with his family honor, tribal honor (as he prevailed upon such, with zero objection) and his company, which has produced zero "ground breaking" weapons. One has honor or one does not. Let Will and his company suggest which is true.

Better yet, let the COURT decide. I rather LIKE the SOB, but am beyond shocked by the court case, which is ongoing.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Easily accessed state records show "Red Jacket Inc" and "Red Jacket Firearms LLC". I came across some ATF production reports in 2005 and 2006 that refer to "Red Jacket Firearms, Inc", so there may have been a name change, a fictitious business name, or even another company. As far as the lawsuit goes, it doesn't much matter as long as the entities are adequately identified.

I don't care how it turns out - and I know there can be several outcomes. Right now, I consider the lawsuit a whole lot of nothing. It might have merit, and it might not. WP doesn't care until some reliable sources offer an assessment.

Glrx (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree more with your sentiment, though I rather WANT to like the individuals involved, that is NOT Wiki information. But, I have no access to state records, as I've not requested access, as frankly, it's not my state. There could also be a true stock issuance that was false, but that is for the court to decide upon. It could as easily be a false, nuisance suit. It could even be a suit by little green men from Mars, who have no stand in our courts. In ALL cases, it is up to the COURTS to decide.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I SHOULD clarify a few points, just so we understand each other, I'd normally pay the money and report the FACTS, as disclosed by the court. As I'm currently out of work and have familial medical issues and regular bills enclosing my current finances, I cannot research such things (not that the current marital status is of issue for THIS article). Frankly, the lawsuit is either a whole lot of nothing OR a frank fraud case of the "owner", who does not LEGALLY own (under BATF regulations) Red Jacket anything. Of course, the entire thing could be a case of intellectual flatulence, where the "owner" forgot one stock issue. OR be a case of fraud. Indeed, at this point, the case could be a case of space aliens trying to access firearms or something. I'm rather adverse to the last point, but eagerly awaiting a court trial and decision. As in keeping my emotions in "limbo" pending the decision, which will be WELL documented. Who knows? I might even manage to find work in this depression and manage to afford to be able to READ the decision! (Unlike SCOTUS decisions, which are FREE to read.) But, as you hinted at, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the VERDICT, which is rather far away, currently. As such, is BEYOND consideration for inclusion for THIS article, but worthy of discussion, when events occur.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it further interesting that no other legal notice has been rendered after the initial case. Indeed, after FAR after the docket date, the absence of further information is of grave concern, owing to the ability of the plaintiffs access to class three and higher weapons. Can anyone provide further information?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, the article has included claims that Kris Ford and Stephanie Hayden were married. The claims were not sourced, so they were removed.

Now there is a claim that Ford and Hayden married on March 19, 2011 with a link to the Clark County, NV, recorder's website. The website has an index of a marriage certificate for "Kristafor Adam Ford" and "Stephanie Marie Hayden", instrument number 201103210002369. The new edits do not cite any secondary sources for the marriage.

Although the certificate seems obvious, I suspect that linking the certificate to the show's stars is WP:OR (i.e., WP:BLPREMOVE "conjectural interpretation of a source"). To put a fine point on it, the recorder's website shows that a marriage certificate with certain names was recorded, but it does not show that the show's stars were or are married.

The details may also run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. My sense is that some reliable secondary source must discuss the marriage or the marriage certificate before WP can use it.

The editor making the claim is a WP:SPA; only significant edits are claims about the FH marriage.

Glrx (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the record clearly shows a marriage took place 03/19/2011. Right under the issue date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.232.186 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to delete the Sons of Guns#Production section. Shows need producers and editors, but listing them here doesn't seem to add to the article. One has his own WP article. (The list also ignores Benoit). Glrx (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were more sources and some prose could be written about the Production team then it might be worthwhile but this section only repeats information that really belongs in the infobox (at least there it is meaningful, semantically tagged data, not just a dull list). -- 109.77.162.32 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the relevance and propriety of including that section in the wiki. Seems like it had no connection to the Sons of Guns show other than it involved the producers. The Red Jacket people weren't really involved. What say you, folks, keep or remove? Sector001 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. The article is about the show and not just Red Jacket. Inclusion is relevant and proper. Glrx (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Having watched the series up to the Vegas episode, I'm finding it exceptionally difficult to get a comprehensive picture of what's going on.

How much is scripted, and how much real? Will says on the show a couple times that he's going to do something illegal, and ask for forgiveness later if necessary. He doesn't play straight. There's abundant smoke and mirrors going on, and that is not what Wikipedia is about. In the reference given in "GBR Business Report" by Glrx, I'm especially disturbed, not by the article, but by the outside comments given to that article. They, by turns, either vilify Vince or name him as the most competent gunsmith. There's heavy manipulation of the media going on. Hard(ish) facts reported by an independent TV station and the AP are welcome. Leptus Froggi (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems biased in favour of the show. I saw part of an episode that glorified the senseless killing of alligators. This is a low point for the once educational and family-friendly Discovery Channel, and it was widely criticized. There should be a "RECEPTION" section in this article.77Mike77 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight. It's not about Nielsen ratings, or any other mainstream ratings service numbers, it's about the senseless or senseful killing of some animal that counts in your universe? Nothing about notability, nothing about no original research, it's all about your opinion. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not rate anything, it reports like a *good* encyclopedia, what is. Not what one wishes to be or any particular view. Or, it does attempt to do so. Here, one's opinion, beyond manual of style, matters for a hill of beans. As you offered no citation for "widely criticized", your point has zero merit for inclusion for the article. Cite or do not suggest an edit or make one, lest one be reverted.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TVLEAD, the lead paragraph should remain in present tense, even though the show is over. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. "Aired" reflects the time it was running ans is correctly past tense. It still exists somewhere. Unlike living things that actually die, shows can live on in syndication, etc so no reason that it's past tense. Similar to "Huck Finn is a novel" regardless of print status or author. --DHeyward (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit reducing repetition of the sentence about the arrest of Will Hayden got reverted without a proper explanation. Is there a reason why in this relatively short article we must state that Hayden was arrested and the show was cancelled three times? Once at the lead, another time at the "Production" section and yet another at a separate subsection of "Legal trouble"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the matter was rectified. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps happening for some reason. I removed the second occurrence again today. This repetition should not be restored. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we can see from this permalink we have "Cancellation" bolded as a separate title first under the "Production" section and then as the last of the "Legal issues" section.

First occurrence

Production

Sons of Guns first aired on the Discovery Channel on January 26, 2011 with the pilot episode “Civil War Cannon, Shotgun silencer.”

Cancellation

On August 27, 2014, the series was abruptly cancelled after child endangerment and abuse charges were brought against Will Hayden.<ref name=apArrest2>{{cite news|title=Gun company cuts ties with reality TV star|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gun-company-cuts-ties-reality-tv-star|accessdate=2 September 2014|publisher=AP}}</ref> "Given the serious and horrific nature of the charges against Will Hayden, we have decided to halt further production of 'Sons of Guns' and cancel the series," a Discovery Channel rep told TMZ. <ref name=apArrest>{{cite web|url=http://www.chron.com/entertainment/television/article/Reality-star-accused-of-rape-child-molestation-5716547.php|title=Reality star accused of rape, child molestation|publisher=Houston Chronicle|accessdate=2014-08-28}}</ref>

Second occurrence

Cancellation of series

The show was canceled after five seasons on August 27, 2014 due to child rape charges against Will Hayden.<ref name=apArrest2 /> Shortly thereafter the show's entire web presence, both on the Discovery Channel's website and on social media, was entirely removed.

I am not sure why this repetition keeps happening, but whatever the reason may be I find it clearly unacceptable. Finally the sentence: Shortly thereafter the show's entire web presence, both on the Discovery Channel's website and on social media, was entirely removed. is unsourced original research which I also removed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for adding to any confusion. This article popped up on the Pending Changes list today and caught my attention. I saw the mention of the cancellation and the molestation charges and made some edits. This includes removing the reason for the cancellation from the Lead. Even if we have sources that state this, its WP:UNDUE to include it in the Lead. The show was cancelled, period, end of story. If someone wants to know more, there's a section they can read with more detail, but WP is WP:NOTATABLOID. I made some similar cleanup edits to the Will Hayden article and IMO, more detail about the charges and it leading to the cancellation of the show are more pertinent there. This article is about the tv show, not how big of scumbag one of the characters might be. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]