Talk:Walther P22/Virginia Tech massacre dispute archive

message: I'm sorry to have created so much controversy, I just intended to add in a detail about the P22. I didn't intend to demonize it, I just felt the reference had its place... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.9.173 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that people get emotional over such things, so reasonability suffers.  What should be considered is the likely effect of a policy whereby notable misuses of firearms get included within the articles about the firearms themselves.  Then should notable good uses (self defense, apprehension of criminals by law enforcement, etc.) be included also?  How about including information about arsonist use of some brand of gasoline in the article about that oil company?  Once you start going down this road, it leads to uninformative clutter.  Therefore it would be bad as a general policy.  If a particular model of firearm is nearly unknown except for its use in notorious crime, such as Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle, or if it has special characteristics that played a major role, such as Thompson submachine guns in the Saint Valentine's Day massacre, then it seems worth mentioning in the article about that model.  Otherwise, the information does indeed come under the catgeory of "trivia" and should be mentioned only in the article about the crime, if anywhere. — DAGwyn 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Author of Virginia Tech Section

message: IMO, This page seems to be written by and written for gun experts.  Possible to layify it a bit?  Also, I came here looking for 2 bits of information: what is its rate of fire and how many rounds can it fire before needing to be reloaded.  I can't seem to find this information.  I realize since the weapon is semi-automatic, rate of fire may not be well defined.  But, are all semi-automatics simply limited by the rate at which the trigger can be pulled?  If so, generally, what is that rate? Aepryus 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I see the 10 round feed in the info box now.  Does that mean 10 shots before needing to be reloaded?  Generally how long does it take to reload? Aepryus 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; the 10 round magazine means that usually the firearm has 10 shots until it needs reloading, although it is possible to maintain a round in the chamber with a full magazine, so it's possible to have 11 shots in the gun the first time it's drawn and fired.  Most people do not carry or transport a firearm with a round in the chamber, due to safety reasons (hard to have an accidental discharge if there's no round to fire!).  From personal experience, a 10-round .22 semi-auto can empty it's clip in about 2 seconds if you're not particular about hitting what you're aiming at.  If you're concerned about hitting your target, the time to empty the magazine is more dependent on the skill of the shooter, not the mechanics of the firearm.--Tthaas 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, page is generally poorly written, too technical.  I suspect the problem is that the obsessive nature of those who seem to fantasize about these weapons and hang about on these pages, result in generally obsessive, detail-oriented language that most people can't relate to.  Nfitz 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go that far.  The regular editors to any topic tend to make certain assumptions about the minimum level of knowledge of readers.  Given that this, and Glock 19, are getting a lot of readers  who may have never visited a Wikipedia firearm page before, a bit of handholding would be appreciated.  The current description is quite good, but a lead paragraph or two that explains the basics would be appreciated.  Rate of fire and magazine size are already mentioned above, to which might be added accuracy, reload time, etc - the stuff in which someone who is wondering what happens when a spree shooter carrying one of these walks into their classroom might be interested.  Imagine you're writing for an elderly lady from Finland who has never seen a handgun in her life.  I've added  to the article. Thanks, BanyanTree 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  The article is written at a reasonable level for anyone with any experience with handguns.  It is a rather limited capability handgun, too.  I don't think anyone would fantasize about this particular .22 plinker suitable for training a beginner, but there is no accounting for taste :-) Yaf 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have attempted to address the  tag issues through adding an intro section better suited for readers with no experience with handguns, and have removed tag.  If anyone disagrees, they can put the tag back.  Yaf 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But why would one assume that in this day and age, that anyone would have any experience with firearms?  In a civilised society, most people have probably never seen one unholstered in their lives. Nfitz 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very narrow worldview, my friend.  And one that makes some dubious, if not downright insulting, assumptions about a vast coross-segment of humanity. K1ng l0v3 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it?  For what reason would anyone any normal, non-police, person have a reason for seeing a handgun unholstered?  In virtually every western country, they are virtually banned.  I'd say that most people don't have much technical knowledge on guns, and as a result, the article should not be overly technical - take sentance 2 for example "The P22 is regarded by many firearms enthusiasts as being a modestly priced "plinker""   Plinker?  Who the heck uses the word "plinker"! (Don't see how that's insulting though) Nfitz 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what country you live in, but where I live handguns are everywhere, I personally own four, and about everyone I know has one. And as far as handguns being banned in every western country is false, in the US all you have to do is go to the local gun store, get a government background check, and pay for you're gun. I don't really know about Canada's gun laws, but guns seem to be very common there too. So you've got to remember that about half of the people who use the English Wikipedia are from those two countrys, and generally know some about guns, heck my grandmother knows what a "Plinker" is! So if you think this article is too technical, by all means change it, along with the other 2,000 or so gun articles in Wikipedia, cause that's the way there all written.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5  |  contribs 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said every western country - I said virtually every western country.  It's become quite clear to everyone how backwards the USA is on this issue!  Handguns are certainly not common in Canada - I don't think most people would have ever seen one unholstered, unless they are either a cop, or a criminal - it's almost impossible to get a permit to carry one - and most western countries are far ahead of Canada.  But that aside - I really don't think that most people would know what a "plinker" is, unless they have some kind of unhealthy gun fetish! Nfitz 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How sad on missing seeing guns just like other tools like hammers and saws.  I grew up with handguns and long guns.  They were (and are) everywhere.  I bought handgun ammo as a pre-teenager at the local hardware store, with no parents present, using money I had earned from mowing lawns.  Kids start with BB guns around age 8 or 9, moving quickly through .410 shotguns, .22 rifles, and then into .22 pistols for plinking around age 12 or 13.  By age 14, most have moved up to .32 caliber centerfire pistols/revolvers, 30-30 rifles, and 16-gauge shotguns.  By age 17 or 18, many have moved up to .45 ACP semi-automatic pistols or .38 revolvers and .30-06 rifles and 12-gauge shotguns. By age 22 or 23, some have moved up to .357 Magnum handguns. Family outings nearly always include shooting competitions among the cousins, Dads, and Uncles, for both handguns and rifles.  In the fall, squirrel, quail, deer, and rabbit hunting are all popular using a wide range of firearms.  In the winter, rabbit hunting with pistols remains especially common for those with adequate skills. Many relatives have served (or are serving) in the military. Most people I know who have grown up in the rural heartland of the U.S. have much the same set of experiences, modified only slightly by the changes in Federal gun laws that have occurred in the U.S. since 1968. It is just part of the gun culture. It is not a fetish;  it's a culture.  Yaf 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in the USA, but I have many friends in Canada. I would say 90% of them own firearms of their own (mostly rifles and a few shotguns). Handguns are hard to come by, but they are obtainable. When I took my Canadian friends shooting (I own four handguns myself and several other assorted weapons) they seemed very familiar with handguns. Not necessarily because they had shot them a lot, but because the basic principals between a magazine-fed rifle and a semi-automatic pistol are the same. Load the magazine into the gun, you must chamber a round, pull the trigger. To address the original Focus poster's question: to unload a 10-round magazine could be done in a couple seconds as stated before. With some training it could be accurately shot at a 5-yard 10-inch target in 3 or 4 seconds (depending on the user). Reloading (again depending on the user) could be done in just over a second. That speed would be accomplished after a few thousand reloading practices, but a standard [range] user would probably take more than a couple seconds. Some of the fastest (i.e. handgun masters at professional training facilities like Gun Sight or Front Sight) might be able to complete a tactical reload in three-quarters of a second. And yes, it is limited to the rate at which the trigger can be pulled and the rate at which the slide cycles (which is usually much faster than the speed a human could pull the trigger). The faster you fire the less accurate you will be. Bobbfwed  18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (Identified above anonymous editor) Edison 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above unsigned comment was made by a shill? maybe? Stating that a certain gun was used in a certain crime is not PUSHING any political agenda.  It's a statement of fact being protected by PRO-gun users who.  What possible use could the type of gun used in a certain crime be to the PRO or ANTI side of the fence?  None.  It's a non issue.  The statement is there because it's encyclopedic. BTW, not only did he OWN the gun but he carried it with him on his murder spree.  No mention yet that I know of that he USED the gun for anything, but he's shown in pictures holding the gun. That picture, in and of itself, links the P22 to this twit as much as the M-1 Carbine is linked to Patty Hearst.--Asams10 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus

message: I don't have an opinion one way or another when it comes to mentioning the use of the gun in the VT massacre. What I do have an opinion about is the format. Why one this article does it show up under usage, but under the Glok19 article it shows up under the overview? Shouldn't there be a consistent manner to the articles about the same subject? Pgrote 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The formats differ because people are constantly editing, reverting, and re-reverting them. While there is no strict guide for where they should be, a separate 'trivia' section is wholly inappropriate. It should be mentioned under usage, history, or some similar heading. --Asams10 11:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do the formats differ?

message: The statement about the pistol being for sale in California is not accurate.  The gun was submitted to DOJ for testing, which it passed with flying colors.  Over a year after the State of California approved the pistol for sale, the State of California declared it an Assault Weapon due to the threaded barrel.  As so-called Assault Weapons are not allowed to be sold in California, existing owners had to either modify the gun by sending it back to Smith & Wesson or remove them from the state.
There is not a legal version of this pistol available for sale in California.--Mike Searson 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: California Info

message: There is a dispute/edit war requiring other opinions to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article by itself of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate, to avoid the continuous edit warring that has been occurring since the massacre. Yaf 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a useless statement.  The information is not presented in a trivia section.  The entire point about dealing with trivia sections is to incorporate them into the article as a whole, which was done.  And speaking of notability, the most deadly shooting in US history most certainly qualifies. Alyeska 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You again.  Are you still persisting with this? Answer me this question, Alyeska: Were this Encyclopedia Britannica, would a page about the P22 have "see Virginia Tech massacre" written at the bottom? Stop persisting with this argument.  The massacre has nothing to do with the specifics of the pistol itself. It warrants mention at Virginia Tech massacre, not here. Gamer Junkie 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were this Encyclopedia Britannica, would we have entire sections devoted to fictional characters from TV shows?  Enough with the appeals to authority without actually creating an argument.  Multiple gun pages make mentions of facts not directly tied to the function of the gun.  For starters, several pages detail which countries use the gun.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of the gun, but it is directly related to it.  You also ignore the precedent set by other articles that make mention of deaths attributed to them.  By your logic, pages about a class of warship should restrict themselves purely to the technical specifications and give absolutely no history or significance.  Car pages should contain purely technical specifications.  Your "logic" is far reaching, something you fail to grasp. Alyeska 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Way to go, I already said it should be mentioned in Port Arthur.  But if I tried to add it you would remove it and still claim I was a hypocrit.  And nice going ignoring the log of what I was saying.  Who uses the gun has nothing to do with the opperation.  You claimed that only technical details qualify.  Your showing a double standard. Alyeska 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said is the fact that Port Arthur isn't mentioned in the AR-15 article is irrelevant, I didn't say anything about the Port Arthur article.  I also wrote that the technical information is WHY they are mentioned.  They buy such-and-such gun because of such-and-such feature.  So you see, that's what we call information about the weapon.  Some lunatic wanting to kill a bunch of people quickly doesn't qualify as information about the gun.  I don't know why I'm explaining this to you because you're just reading what you want to read. Gamer Junkie 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reasoning means all information that isn't relevant to technical specifications should be removed.  This means that guns that have a list of countries that use the gun should be removed.  Applying this standard you have defined to other mechanical devices means that all information that isn't relevant to the technical specifications should be removed.  Take your rule and apply it to the Delorian.  More then half of the article disapears.  Your logic is flawed. Alyeska 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to you, but I personally don't believe an encyclopedia article about a car should be made up of information from a movie, unless it's a documentary about said car.  Why don't we add the name of the store that sold Cho his P22 as well? While we're at it, let's throw in the name of the brand of holster the gun was in. Perhaps we should put information into the Ferrari 328 article about how many cows are killed to provide the interior leather upholstery, yeah? You're information doesn't belong here, it serves no use to the reader.  I think your logic is flawed, mate. Gamer Junkie 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, way to dodge the bullet there, mate.  Fine, let's put this very simply.  I don't believe you've given a good reason why this one specific incident is uniquely relevant to the P22 pistol.  Give me one good reason why it is. Gamer Junkie 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By your logic This Entry should be removed from the Boeing 757 article because it has nothing to do with the airplanes technical specifications. Go ahead, I dare you to remove the September 11th mentions from that entry. Alyeska 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And now you demonstrate your double standard.  The September 11th mention is not a technical specification and thus should be removed.  That is your logic through and through.  That you are arguing against their removal is proof of your double standard and false logic.Alyeska 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  Have nothing to do?  So you deny that the P22 was used in the VTech massacre? Alyeska 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I deny that articles about firearms should contain sections which belong in Wikipedia's crime project articles.  This is the wrong place for discussion.  Do so above.
*Remove  First of all I would like to apologize for my share of the revert war, A 24 hour break was just what I needed to regain perspective. I posit that we should follow the precedent set by the airline disaster articles as suggested by someone earlier.  The articles about the crashes mention the type aitcraft involved and wikilink to the article on that aircraft, but the articles about the aircraft make no mention of crashes unless there is some long-standing problem with that model.  The VT article should contain a link to the P22 article, but the P22 article has no need for a link to the VT article.  If there is a source that provides evidence of a long-standing history of problems with the P22 that were evinced by the VT shooting, then a mention might be acceptable.  The VT shooting has had no effect on the technical aspects of this firearm or legislation of its use, therefore it is nongermane to this article.  Are we serving our readers by mentioning the shooting in the article on the firearm?  Is there any likelyhood of a reader searching for the P22 article without ever having heard of the VT shooting?  Surely the safe, lawfull users of the P22 outnumber the VT shooter by a vast margin.  Is it not then a violation of wp:NPOV to give undue weight and mention to one bad act?  If the VT shooting leads to change in firearms law regarding the P22 or to a redesign of the pistol, then that would be worth a mention.  K1ng l0v3 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment  You are correct, the firearm does deserve a mention at the VT article, if this is a firearm used in the shooting.  The reverse does not hold true however, One misuse, no matter how emotional a tragedy, has no bearing on the technical operations of this firearm and as such has no place in this article.  If and when a source can be cited for a history of problems with the P22 being used in murders or if this particular pistol is more heavily regulated because of the VT shooting then that would merit a mention.  As it stands now, it is trivial (not the tragedy, just the info seeking inclusion), and has no place in an encyclopedia article as it contravenes AVTRIV and NPOV. K1ng l0v3 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment. You're right, the VT tragedy "has no bearing on the technical operations of this firearm." However, this article isn't just about the technical aspects of a firearm. It's about the weapon itself, its history, and its use. As such, the VT tragedy deserves mentioning here. Hashaw 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment You say countless.  Please name at least one other instance of this pistol being used in a murder outside of this one, if it was even used to kill anyone at VT. --Mike Searson 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply Good call; I spoke out of turn. I actually tried to look this information up, and came across this page that would seem to refute my claim. The blogger claims that "[t]he Walther is not a common choice for criminals. Far from what one would call a 'Saturday night special.'". Without any data to back this claim up, though, it's as dubious as my own claim that "countless" murders have been committed with the weapon. I still stand by not including the reference here, though. That so many people were killed is definitive of the crime, not of the weapon used to commit it. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do—kill people—so it's not particularly relevant to the discussion of the gun itself. Cmprince 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Your asking the wrong person.  Cmprince made the original claim and Hashaw merely agreed with it. Alyeska 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Either one can answer, I still think it's a generalization without merit.Mike Searson 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment I understand the validity of your (the group wishing to keep the clip) argument and can comprehend why you would want to keep it in there. However, can it be decided after the debate is concluded (if it ends as such) that we move the sentence in question outside of the technical specifications of the pistol and place it under another category within the article? It just doesn't fit with the context of the preceding paragraph. Crmadsen 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Stop avoiding the issue K1ng l0v3.  You agreed to the Beretta Cx4 compromise and that compromise supports the VTech mention in the P22. Alyeska 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How on Earth am I "avoiding the issue"?  What compromise are you talking about?  The only thing I agreed to at that article was that we should never mention trivial nonsense like this in firearms article ever again. K1ng l0v3 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try again Alyeska 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for saying this Alyeska, but your statement in the above link seems to support removing the mention of VT unless it has an impact (such as legislative) on the gun. That seems to be the polar opposite of your position here. Then again, people can and do change their minds.--LWF 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section talks about impact in the Media.  The P22 most certainly qualifies as the magnitude surrounding it.  The link says absolutely nothing about gun bans being the only arbiter.  And the gun ban issue is yet another red herring.  Gun bans are not technical specifications and by the arguments given in this thread even a gun ban is unworthy of being mentioned in the article. Alyeska 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note, though, that the 757 article lists the 9/11 incidents as part of an exhaustive list of all (eight) incidents involving 757 hull losses. I don't think anyone here would propose that every incident involving the P22 be listed here. Cmprince 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not every "incident" involving the P22 should be listed here. But this is more than just an "incident," don't you think? Griot 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but no, I don't think it's any more or less tragic than any other murder. The 757 article only mentions that the two 9/11 aircraft were destroyed; it does not make any mention of how or why they were destroyed. It merely lists the fact that eight aircraft were lost and does not associate the model with any particular incident.Cmprince 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.--Dali-Llama 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I as well. if the massacre is included that is the best way to do so. It avoids most of the problems we have been having.--LWF 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I could live with this as well.  It avoids many of the POV issues with mentioning the massacre in the main body, while still including a link for interested readers. Can other editors live with this as well?  Yaf 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While I still think it's a bit much, it's more appropriate.Mike Searson 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Suppose this sounds fair. -JE 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A "See also" mention seems like it would be all that is indicated at this point. As to it being randomly chosen or carefully selected as a second weapon, press reports said he was  not just some guy who wandered into a shop and said "Gimme a gun!" He asked the seller "Is Walther P22 product 10632 second generation? What year was the assembly date?" per  CBS News. Edison 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment.  Actually, I'm for gun control.  I'm a leftist and I don't particularly care for guns.  What I'm not is somebody who wants to see information that has no context at all in this particular article added for no proper reason, just like every other article I watch.  Why are U.S. massacres allowed mention in articles about firearms? What's the exemption of U.S. shootings to these articles? This addition is completely irrelevant to the weapon itself.  I don't care if it's the worst shooting in America, I don't care if it's the worst shooting in Brazil or Cambodia, it is completely irrelevant to this particular article. Gamer Junkie 08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I agree entirely with GameJunkie's logic (except the gun control part :)). -JE 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment GameJunkie's logic is non-existant.  By that logic the September 11th mentions in the 757 articles should be removed. Alyeska 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Again, if you check the 757 article, there are no references to September 11th, only wikilinks to the individual flights that crashed, as part of a complete catalog of all 757 hull losses. I'm with Game Junkie on this one; I don't even like to be around guns, but I don't think the VT shootings are any more relevant to a discussion of the gun than any other shooting.Cmprince 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CommentGameJunkie claimed that the article should only contain technical specifications and nothing else.  A list of incidents for the 757 is not a technical specification and thus should be removed, according to his logic. Alyeska 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I don't see where he's made that claim (though this is a long page, now); he has mentioned wanting only specifics about the gun, which is different than specifications about the gun. My argument, and I'm guessing this is what GJ might endorse (please comment), is that culturally or historically relevant information can be placed in this article, but only so long as it pertains to the specifics of the gun. As it stands now, eight days after the shootings, there is nothing specific about the gun that seems to have influenced the shootings. Perhaps as the case unfolds and evidence is released, that will change. Cmprince 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at the section above the votes. Alyeska 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Like GameJunkie, I am opposite of what you claim.  I am against gun control and want to keep the VTech reference.  Don't make generalizations when you don't know the entire situation. Alyeska 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Alyeska, you've yet to explain why this massacre is apparently exempt from relevance to the topic.  And also why we should mention this shooting above all others.  Certainly this was not the worst massacre in history.  Should we include an irrelevant topic into this article simply because many Americans were killed with a gun? Should I expect to see you campaigning for the inclusion of the Port Arthur massacre in the AR-15's article soon? Or would the 35 dead Australians not warrant mention as these Americans students would? Gamer Junkie 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I think the mention of the Port Arthur massacre belongs in the AR-15 article. These straw man arguments about having to mention all murders with a gun if one is to be mentioned are bogus. The Port Arthur massacre radically changed Australia's gun regulation laws besides resulting in the deaths of 35 people. Why the AR-15 isn't mentioned in that article I don't know. MiFeinberg 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment It is mentioned in the Port Arthur article and that's where it belongs.  It's not mentioned in the AR-15's article because Australian gun laws have nothing to do with the AR-15, just as some madman who shoots people in America has nothing to do with the P22.  It's a crime, it belongs in Wikipedia's crime project, specifically the List of school massacres and the Viginia Tech massacre. That's the only place the information is in context and relevant to the subject. Gamer Junkie 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And who makes you the sole arbiter on whats relevant?  The Port Arthur mention belongs on the AR15 page because of how deeply the Australian gun laws were affected and the sheer size of the crime. Alyeska 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I'm the arbiter? Excuse me, but I'm the one attempting to stop YOU from deciding which massacres are important and which aren't. Like I said, you've made your position quite clear on the Glock 19 discussion article.  There's no way that I'm ever going to concede that a United States shooting takes priority over everything else simply because it "doesn't happen all that often" in a Western country. Gamer Junkie 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smoke and mirrors.  I already stated the Port Arthur shooting should deserve a mention.  Furthermore, I asked you to cite an example of a mass shooting outside of western countries perpetrated by a relative handful of individuals.  Your trying to cloud the issue by making arguments without any base behind them. Alyeska 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Indeed.  By some arguments made by others, Port Arthur more then qualifies as a single weapon influencing gun control country wide. Alyeska 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is much more than you can say about Virginia Tech and the P22 at this point.  What effect has the Virginia Tech massacre had on the P22 at this point, more than it has had on hats, vests, mail, chains, or any number of other things discussed (just like the P22) in thousands of sources on the Virginia Tech massacre? PubliusFL 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not my argument.  I was using an argument made by remove voters who claimed that political significance was a threshold.  Point being, by their own argument Port Arthur should have a mention.  My argument is the sheer scale of what happened at Virginia Tech requires the P22 get a mention. Alyeska 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're missing my argument.  Unless you can show that the P22 specifically contributed to the "sheer scale of what happened," why does the "sheer scale of what happened" justify a mention of the incident in the P22 article, any more than it justifies a mention of the incident in the articles relating to other things commonly mentioned in connection with the incident (but not necessarily related to the "sheer scale of what happened"), like hats, vests, mail, and chains.  Why not a reference to the incident in Koreans?   PubliusFL 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, the P22 killed people.  The hat and vest didn't. Alyeska 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, do you have a source for that?  The "see also" link stating that the P22 "was used" in the attack was fact-tagged.  I wouldn't be surprised if that is true, but I would like to know.  Second, is there anything specific about the P22 that contributed to the "sheer scale of what happened"?  Seems to me that just about any semi-automatic handgun would have served him just as well, and the fact that it was a P22 is irrelevant to the "sheer scale of what happened."  It's no more relevant to the "sheer scale of what happened" than the specific brand of gasoline used by Julio González is relevant to the "sheer scale" of the Happy Land Fire (87 dead).  By contrast, Cho's vest was used to carry magazines, and the fact that he wore one was likely more relevant to the "sheer scale of what happened" than the fact that one of his handguns was a P22.  Finally, "Cho killed the people, and Cho was Korean."  Distinguish that statement from "Cho used handguns to kill the people, and one of the handguns was a Walther P22."  What does the second statement require a mention of the incident in Walther P22, and the first statement not require a mention of the statement in Koreans?   PubliusFL 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You just threw away any support you might have had with anyone else with that mind numbingly stupid statement. Alyeska 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Mentioning the Vtech massacre on any of those articles would be totally irrelevant. Also, I just looked it up and this isn't even the deadliest school killing in U.S. history.  The Bath School disaster of 1927 was the worst when one of the school board members blew up 45 students and injured another 58. Gamer Junkie 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to change the subject again I see.  You just claimed the gun didn't kill the people which is clearly false.  And do a little fact finding.  I never said this was the worst school killing.  I said that it was the worst shooting in US history, which it is.  But go on and continue to bring up irrelevant facts. Alyeska 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Because these articles are about the event, and not the gun, I think that supports putting the gun particulars in the event article, and not the gun article. Had Cho actually left evidence that he sought out a P22 in particular, maybe this would be a different argument, but for now I don't think anyone could say whether this was a randomly selected gun or not.Cmprince 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment If Google hits is our standard, the Virginia Tech incident should also be added to the articles Hat and Vest, because both of those get more Google hits in the context of "Virginia Tech" and Cho than does P22.  The problem is, these are all (hat, vest, and P22) trivial mentions, and don't really relate to the notability of those articles. PubliusFL 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Walther P22 can be had for a few hundred dollars, which isn't very expensive compared to many guns. Glocks, on the other hand, are quite expensive sometimes (easily $400-500 dollars). Walther P22 isn't the most reliable gun either, I've had MANY Failure to ejects as well as chambering issues with mine (and many other people have similar issues). Squeeze 100 rounds out of that without having to rack the slide or check to make sure the rounds are loading right. Just a few thoughts related to your comment. -JE 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Walther P22

message: This article says nothing about the history of the P22, not even when it was first made. That would be a better use of editorial time that the section above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know, but it's a version of the Walther P99, so it can't have been designed before 1996. I'm guessing either the same year as the P99, or one or two years later.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5  |  contribs 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How old is the P22?

message: Enough! The non=substantive and non-factual arguments against having this article indicate a link to Virginia Tech massacre (which of course links here); the hysterical assumptions of partisanship (certainly false of me; unproven of anybody); the perpetual repolling; and the defense of the reversions of a perma-blocked user are getting to me.
While I am still capable of disregarding the evidence and assuming good faith, I recommend mediation. Who is genuinely interested? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It needs mediation. I don't see the parties coming to an agreement without it. Hashaw 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, let's have a mediation. I'm tired of going around and around about this. I thought we reached a compromise of putting it in a "See also" section, but now this compromise is up for grabs too. Let's go for mediation. Moreover, we should mediate the Glock 19 article at the same time. Astruc 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misstate the compromise.  The idea of a "see also" link was put forward, and a number of the editors who opposed including a reference to VTech said that they thought a "see also" link would be the best course of action if a consensus in support of some mention of VTech developed.  There never was a consensus in favor of the general proposition that VTech should be mentioned here, therefore the condition was not fulfilled. PubliusFL 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Glock 19 ended in a strong consensus for NOT including the trivia.  There is a majority here favoring exclusion of the trivia, and this type of trivia is not found on most other firearms articles; (North Hollywood shootout mentions the weapons used but the weapon's articles (quite rightly) do not mention their use in the bank robbery.  I've started a thread over at the Firearmrs Project to come up with some inclusion standards for this sort of trivia. K1ng l0v3 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Glock did not end with a strong concensus. The issue -- or whether to include a mention of the guns used in the VT massacre -- is the same for both of these articles. I'm in favor of mediating this article and the Glock 19 article. MiFeinberg 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14 opposed to 5 support is strong consensus.  How long will this continue? These weapons make no difference as to the outcome of the massacre, any weapon would have been sufficient.  Unless you've got a notable characteristic or function regarding why Cho had chosen the P22, it's irrelevant to this article.  Oswald chose the Carcano because he needed a sniper rifle.  Cho chose the first gun he could get his hands on.  Why is that relevant above all else? Gamer Junkie 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a consensus against including it. There is as such, no need for mediation. That is unless someone ignores consensus, which could end in either mediation or a banning. Anyone who ignores concensus should remember this.--LWF 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right that allegations of partisanship should be left out of this discussion.  It's not clear to me that opinions regarding this question correlate strongly with opinions about gun control or any other issue.  Talking about "the defense of the reversions of a perma-blocked user" is not helpful either.  No one is defending that user's reversions per se.  Don't you think there could be a good faith motivation for trying to return the article to the state it was in prior to a controversial addition while consensus regarding the propriety of the addition eludes us? PubliusFL 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it's difficult for me to take PMAnderson's denouncement of "hysterical assumptions of partisanship" seriously when that user just called other editors here "ideologues". ··coelacan 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The assumption, repeatedly made above, that the link inherently an act of anti-gun advocacy, is what convinces me that the opposition to it is driven by ideology. On my part, it is a strong sense that the articles are related.  I also await, with curiosity, Coelacan's explanation of how he defends CineGroup's right to edit in his edit summaries with his disavowal of interest in him now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at my edit summaries; I see nothing there that "defends CineGroup's right to edit". If you would like me to keep explaining my removals of the content, I invite you back to our user talk pages. I was pretty sure I'd explained myself; if you still have specific questions, my talk page is open to you. ··coelacan 07:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?