Talk:Walther P22

message: There is an almost completel lack of citations and verifiable facts
within this article.  I already made corrections of some inaccurate facts and cited a reliable source.  Most of the other content should supported by sources or removed per Wikipedia policy.
I intend to delete portions of the this article that cannot be verified.  While I will attempt to locate citations, the original contributor bears the burden of citing reliable sources! 
Spectre9 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations, Verifiability and Reliable Sources 

message: In the article it says that Ruger and Browning design pistols are more accurate that the walther.  This seems a tad biased to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.23.152 (talk • contribs) 
:From experience(s), it may be biased but it is true. Unfortunately since this is a personal experience and not a "fact" it should not be added to the article.--Mfree 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not biased in the least bit.  The Walther P22 is less accurate than the Browning or Ruger designs.  The Beretta U22 Neos is also more accurate.  These are facts and are based on emperical data.  There is no bias at all.  Walther has never and CAN never claim their gun is more accurate... when they do and back it up, I'd say you'd have a case for bias. --Asams10 13:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Bias 

message: Due to the sheer size of this dispute, I'd like to archive it so that we can keep the discussion page to a fairly standard size.  If anybody disagrees with this action, please voice your opinions here.  If nobody disagrees, I'll go ahead with the archival in a couple of days. Gamer Junkie 08:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me.  Yaf 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound good to me.  Maybe a synopsis like we did on the Glock debate.  Eh?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the GLOCK debate? :) Yeah, except this time around wasn't quite so civil.  In any case, it wouldn't be necessary anymore since the discussion has been shifted to a mediation article now.  Anyway, I've been actively encouraged by the administration to archive this gig and free up some space, so I guess I'll do that now. Gamer Junkie 09:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's been archived.  Wow... look at this page; Not a whole lotta talk before the whole VTech debacle, eh?  Gamer Junkie 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Virginia Tech massacre discussion archival

message: Hmm, it seems that the 2 externals links on the bottom section of the page are broken... they are no longer valid and produce a 404 when clicked. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.231.30 (talk • contribs) 
:If only there were some way to edit the links... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Arthurrh 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Links

message: Shouldn't we do an RFC and see what people think? This particular case seems tricky to me, and I find myself waffling on which direction it should go. I know one was done previously, but I didn't see a final count and a cursory examination shows a lot of opinions on both sides. I wonder if after more discussion there is a better consensus. Arthurrh 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree that it's tricky.  Seems clear cut to my eyes.  I'll quote myself... "eBay's policy revision is no reason. They banned all gun items. What if Cho used a Ruger MKII and got THOSE mags from eBay. Same outcome. Gun model is moot. No impact."  Near as I can tell the only argument put forth for inclusion is eBay.  I feel like I answered that argument.  But as far as an RFC, those are always a good idea.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What Ebay did is notable in relation to VTech.  That does not make it notable to this page.  The type of gun is irrelevant, Ebay made their choice as a result of VTech.  So this is warranted as a mention on the VTech page as a reaction.  Exactly as Thernlund mentioned.  I believe that VTech should be mentioned in the article, but that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with Ebay and their policy change. Alyeska 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I disagree with having this RfC. There is a policy in place at the WikiProject Firearms. I recommend changing or amending the policy there first. Otherwise you risk opening an exception which only complicates things if people start citing precedent in other individual changes. It's the same point I made 2 days after the VT shooting: this is a larger issue on what the criteria for inclusion are, not a minor exception to the rule here. The RfC should be where the policy is made, not where it is applied.--Dali-Llama 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I was operating under the idea that comments are good in general.  But I won't mind if one of you kills the RfC.  I guess it's not NEEDED.  No biggie.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Jester, but I just want to be clear that I was not trying to discourage the concept of an RfC on this matter--rather that I feel this should be a policy RfC (probably at the Firearms project) and not an RfC for this particular article.--Dali-Llama 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: SwatJester, you and I have a history on this subject and, like the last time, I'd perfer an outside look at this, preferably somebody who doesn't normally edit firearms articles and did not 'pick a side' already.  Yeah, it's just me this time but there were others the last time.--Asams10 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC? 

message: Just because Griot rejoined the discussion (welcome back) and wasn't here for awhile, I just want to make sure we know who's involved in this discussion right now and where we stand so we know whose individual arguments we need to address. We may disagree on individual points even within the same camp, so this a way to know that we need to go back and look for what each person said. Can we take a quick straw poll/roll call to see who's transient and who's in the discussion? (Just reminding everyone that per WP:POLLS, this is by no means binding or a substitute to discussion)--Dali-Llama 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Griot, in response to your points above, I think Thernlund and Jester had previously made good points, which have not been responded to by you yet (I'm not so sure Asams even tried). Let me try to sinthesize them:
* The shooter acquired magazines and (maybe) ammunition on eBay. In the case of the ammunition, that is a generic product which can be bought in a number of places, for different firearms. In the case of the magazine, that is not a particular feature of this weapon (many firearms have magazines), and the fact that the magazine bought on eBay was for the P22 was incidental--IE, the particular model of firearm the magazines was used for was not the deciding factor, the the overarching fact that it was used in a firearm. 
* eBay's decision was to ban all firearm components and accessories, not just for the the P22, again making the model of firearm used incidental. If they had banned just the P22 and its components, it would absolutely make sense to include it here.
* (This is more my point) The media response to the eBay purchases were to the fact they were purchased online--not that this particular firearm's accessories/ammunition were available from eBay. After the incident, people weren't asking "Why on earth is eBay selling accessories for the P22?"--they were asking "Why on earth is eBay selling accessories for any firearm?" So when you say that the "P22 played a role in that", it seems to me clear that the role it played was incidental, and could have been played by any other firearm.
--Dali-Llama 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget this one (to quote myself, a second time)... "What if Cho used a Ruger MKII and got THOSE mags from eBay.  Same outcome.  Gun model is moot.  No impact." —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And again, Ebay didn't mention the Walther at all in their announcement, nor do they mention even the VTech incident in their "Why does Ebay have this policy?" so notability for this particular firearm is in question. Arthurrh 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I was saying that Walter isn't mentioned in their "announcement", VTech is. Neither is mentioned in there "why this policy" statement. Arthurrh 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion continued

message: I just want to mention to the participants of this debate that I've requested the protection of the page, and Reedy Boy granted it. In a matter of four hours we had 5 different users reverting back and forth. That gives us 72 hours to try to resolve the matter without worrying about the status quo of the page.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, uh, you had the page protected after you got the section in question removed.  Hmmmm.--Asams10 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't sound right to you?  It's disputed content.  For good or bad, it gets disappeared until a resolution is formulated.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just talking to Kmccoy about that. Here was my rationale: I reverted once, and then a second time. AFTER I reverted, I took a look at the history and I noticed that 1)several different people were reverting (more than 4), and 2)reverts were occurring within minutes of each other (especially your last reversion), meaning at least two parties opposed to my latest reversion were online and "watching". I figured by the time I raised an Admin (other than Jester, of course) and he responded with a page protection, there was an equal chance that someone would've reverted me already.--Dali-Llama 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I'm tiring of the whole thing.  The logic seems crystal clear to me. Trust me, I'm probably the last one to want 'trivia' in a firearm article.--Asams10 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, no concensus was reached.  Who wrote the 'concensus' wrote it thinking nothing else would happen.  It DID happen and now it's suddenly up for debate. You're trying to use the old debate as fodder for this one and it isn't... none of that should matter as a significant change has occurred.--Asams10 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only change, if any, is that MORE people agree that it shouldn't be included.  What happened has nothing to do with the Walther P22. That is blindingly, obviously clear to anyone with an open mind. What happened was a result of Ebay limiting their liability in result of the Virginia Tech shooting. If it was a M1911, or an AR15 that he had bought magazines for on ebay, they would have banned magazine sales just the same. That means that the P22 is IRRELEVANT TO EBAY'S ACTIONS. As I've said multiple times over, this is worthy of inclusion on the Magazine (firearms) article, and on the Virginia Tech massacre article, and obviously on the Ebay article. But not on the Walther P22. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The first time we had a lot of "recentism" and no clear consensus to speak of--now people want to re-examine the issue, which they're perfectly allowed to do. Now we're here, and we're talking: as we should. Let's go back up to the content discussion thread and discuss the issue at hand, shall we?--Dali-Llama 00:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Well, maybe I'm a little late in getting here from the RfC listing, but I found this one interesting and wanted to weigh in on it. I started poking around Wikipedia to see what I could see.  Guns, for instance, that could arguably have been the start of major events beyond their actual firing.  I looked at Reagan assassination attempt (arguably the impetus for the Brady Bill) and see that Hinckley used a Röhm RG-14 .22 cal.  As this firearm does not itself have a page, I looked at Röhm's page and see that its use in the assassination attempt is mentioned there.  No separate history section, just a couple words.  But in no other gun article could I find its specific use for crimes listed (I looked at another dozen or so).  To me, there seems to be nothing unique about or specific to the Walther P22 that made its use in these killings germane to this article.  For instance, if Walther had over-produced this weapon and illegally distributed it such that it somehow got into the killer's hands, perhaps it would warrant mention here.  Or if the gun had some special characteristic that made it more deadly or useful for mass murder, then perhaps.    Do we know what ammunition the killer used and have we included the VT killings on that page?  The fact remains that it's just a gun, any number of guns would have done the same sad thing.  Ebay didn't ban the selling of Walther P22 clips, it bannned all clips.  I don't think that it should be included here and, if it is, not in its own section, but perhaps just a passing mention.  Into The Fray T/C 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fundamentally true, although I will point out that the proper terminology is magazine, not clip.--LWF 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Magazine not clip.  Got it.  :)  Just out of curiosity and not to be a smart-ass . . . what's the difference?  Is clip ever appropriate.  Not a gun ethusiast, Into The Fray T/C 04:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Magazine (firearms), and Clip (ammunition) for an explanation.--LWF 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Outside View 

message: I found a few sites that list a "+3 mag follower".  It is not listed in this article.  Does this add the capacity for 3 more rounds to the p22's magazine (i.e. from 10 to 13 round capacity)?  Or is it simply a replacement for the normal magazine follower in the stock magazines?  Should it be mentioned with the accessories in this article?  --Mijunkin (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, here's a link to what I'm talking about:   --Mijunkin (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: +3 Mag Follower

message: Should the SP22 be included in this article seeing as it is based heavily on the P22 or does it warrant it's own article? Mullhawk (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you assuming the SP22 is based heavily on the P22 or do you have a reference?  It's quite a different gun from what I've seen. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just what I've seen at the local gun shop. From what i understand it's old wine in a new bottle with a match barrel. But seeing as there's still a small amount information available on the Walther SP22 we're going to have to wait for more information before any action can be taken...or not takenMullhawk (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of the SP22

message: This weapons was used in the Kauhajoki massacre. There is no mention of this in the article and in the SIG Mosquito article omission of the Jokela massacre was explained as there being no law changes due to usage of the weapon in a massacre. As a result of the Kauhajoki and Jokela massacres, the Police Department of the Ministry of Interior of Finland has issued an order (SMDno/2008/1009, dated Sep 29th 2008) to all police departments in Finland instructing them to grant licenses to SIG Mosquito, Walther P22 and similar .22LR pistols made to resemble service calibre weapons, only with special consideration. In Finnish:
Viranomaiskäyttöön tarkoitettujen ampuma-aseiden pienoispistooli-kaliiperisten versioiden ei tulisi katsoa soveltuvan hyvin ampumaurheiluun.
Translation: "Small calibre pistol versions of such firearms, that are intended for use by the authorities, should not be considered to be well suitable for sport shooting." Soveltuu hyvin or is well suitable for the purpose of is the technical requirement for all licensed firearms per section 44 of the Finnish Firearms Act. So in other words this order (whether actually legal to give or not) had the effect of almost outright banning the licensing of Walther P22 Target to new purchasers. Consequently gun shops are selling them at a significant discount to persons who managed to secure their license to purchase before this order from the Ministry of Interior. --85.156.227.17 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information you have given is accurate, then there is a case for covering the Kauhajoki massacre. The reason why it wasn't covered before was that we had yet to see any effects such as those given as criteria in WP:GUNS#Criminal use, but we now see that there has been an effect as a result of the shooting.--LWF (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kauhajoki massacre 

message: This link now just goes to the home page: . I found an entry under "Land Warfare/Small Arms/Handguns" for the Walther P22: . However it isn't clear to me that this indicates it's actually part of the Bangladesh military's arsenal. Also, I see there was some question about whether the website is even a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#bdmilitary.com. Rezin (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladesh 

message: The article has a rather long and tedious section titled "operation" that's mostly sourced to the user's manual. Some of it is "how-to"
material which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If there are unusual or innovative mechanisms then that'd be worth reporting. Otherwise I'm inclined to reduce it substantially. Rezin (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation 

message: This article is currently so short and thinly sourced that I'd question the notability. I know that thousands of words have been written about whether to include some historical uses. But it looks like those uses are the only things that make this firearm notable. Ignoring numerous reliable sources in favor of low-quality technical or fan publications doesn't seem like sound editing. Unless someone can come up with a reason for bypassing the WP:WEIGHT policy, I'll add a brief mention of notable historical uses. Rezin (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; uncited; unneeded self-citations to manual; excessive ext links". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit