Talk:Walther P22/Virginia Tech massacre dispute archive

The following text regards a lengthy and hostile dispute between parties either for or against the addition of a reference to the Virginia Tech massacre in the Walther P22 firearm article. Due to the sheer size of this debate, it has been archived to avoid further bloating of the P22 discussion page.

VT shooter reference

Merely slapping that line at the end of the description on this article (and the Glock 19 article) is most inappropriate. Author, please correct this asap. --Jmeden2000 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it in appropriate? Because you say so?

Have removed this per the consensus reached for Beretta Cx4 Storm (see its talk page). Yaf 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles about the guns used in the Columbine shooting and the guns used to kill JFK and President McKinley mention those people's deaths. Why not mention it here. Are these articles restricted to the technical aspects of the guns and their manufacture? I don't think so. MiFeinberg 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is those were criminal cases that went to court. As of yet, untill the investigation is completed totally, anything you post would be speculation. While I applaud you for wanting to update wikipedia with information, it would best be suited on the actual page for VA Tech itself if anywhere. CINEGroup 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! The murder of JFK never went to court.

1)I take it you won't object to listing the shooting here if this man is tried in court and it is proven he used this gun? 2)The police in Virginia have obtained the weapons, announed thier makes and models, and given this information to the press. And we still have to wait for the trail? MiFeinberg 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine. Similarly for the Carcano rifle that assassinated Pres. JFK that led directly to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which led to the ban on ordering weapons across state lines by private citizens. Both firearms received considerable media attention and subsequent legislative attention, by name. As the P22 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the P22 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the P22 article should be added in a few months. Meanwhile, it is just trivia to include it here now. Of course, the Glock 19 and Walther P22 should both be mentioned with wiki-links linked to the respective firearms articles in the VT Massacre article. Does this make sense? Yaf 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that in order for this article to mention VT massacre, the Glock 19 will have to receive media attention and be banned? How is it trivial to mention this weapon when it was used to kill perhaps 32 people? The event itself is not trivail -- we can agree on that. As this weapon played an important part in a terrible tragedy -- largest massacre in American history -- doesn't it deserve mentioning here? Astruc 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beretta Cx4 Storm precedent over the Dawson College shooting isn't applicable. In that relatively shooting at a minority-language high-school near Montreal there was only one death, and will quickly be forgotten. This is more comparable to an earlier Montreal shooting - the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 where 14 university students were massacred in a fairly similiar shooting. In that case a Mini-14 was used, and that information has been on the Mini-14 page for a long time. Nfitz 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Ruger Mini-14 was mentioned by name in the AWB, too. Media and legislative attention, in some cases promulgated by Bill Ruger himself in the form of his promoting limited capacity magazines in response to media attention, means that it should be mentioned on the Mini-14 page. There is no media or legislative attention being paid to the Glock 19 and Walther P22, yet. If it comes to pass that the weapons used at VT draw significant attention, then full mention should be included in the articles (Glock 19 and Walther P22, respectively) at that time. It is adequate at this time to just have wiki-links in the VT Massacre article to the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles, respectively. Yaf 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why AWB is relevent here. The Glock does appear to be the major story - see link. Nfitz 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). There is a world outside Wikipedia :-) Yaf 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And according to the link, it "It was a very unremarkable sale". Again, this is inherently not notable. Yaf 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with your local legislation. There is a world outside your local country! (of course in most countries, someone buying such a weapon, would be notable - perhaps that is part of the problem you have there). Nfitz 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very common gun and since there were two guns, we're not even sure which one was used for the murders. Should not be mentioned unless it becomes a media story about the particular gun i.e. Columbine. The main problem in this case was not the gun, but the person behind the gun using it for ill-gotten reasons.Gloriamarie 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely the main story is that these types of guns are available for sale, and this is what happens. This is unusual in civilized countries! People don't massacre 32 people with hunting knifes! :-) Nfitz 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Handguns are not any more or less deadly than any other. Any type of gun will kill. People can massacre with bombs or sarin gas if they didn't have guns. I agree, massacres of any kind happen too often, in any country, civilized or uncivilized. But taking away guns will not stop someone who is determined to kill.(i.e. Dunblane, Scotland)--Gloriamarie 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since many consider it trivial, hoiw about putting it in a trivia section? Many Wikipedia articles have trivia sections. MiFeinberg 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is counter to Wikipedia policy; see WP:AVTRIV. The goal is to make an encyclopedia, not a set of cards for a game of trivial pursuit. Yaf 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If trivia were counter to Wikipedia policy you would be busy deleting some of the hundreds of pages about fictional and obscure Star Trek characters and other science fiction nonsense, Yaf.

Yaf, how can you say a consensus was reached on this page by citing a completely different article on a completely different subject? Beretta Cx4 Storm. I'm sorry, but it certainly does not appear as if any consensus has been reached - and if one has been reached it's in favor of keeping the information in. It appears as if you're trying to keep this information out for fear that the P22 will be added to the AWB. Wikipedia is not the place for political posturing. I have a small arsenal of guns at home, but you really need to knock it off. Please don't try such spurious arguments again. Mister Jinxy 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I struck a nerve, you being a VT grad/fan and having an arsenal... (Note: Personal attacks are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia.) No, the P22 has nothing to do with the AWB, past or present or future (proposed). That is the whole point. It is trivial fact that a Walther was used. It could just have easily have been a Ruger, or a Hi Standard, or any of a whole bunch of other 22 plinkers. Including this information in the VT Massacre article is entirely appropriate, with a link that links back to here. Here, however, inserting the information is just trivia. However, out of respect for the murdered, and since you feel a need to include this trivia during your mourning with your "arsenal at home", go for it... Yaf 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This incident is about as high on the media charts that a gun can receive in a single event. That more then qualifies a mention on the P22 page. More to the point, there is the real possibility that this gun might actually get banned in regions as a result. So a simple mention is justified. And do take note, this is coming from someone who did not want Dawson mentioned in the Cx4 Storm page. Alyeska 00:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced and refined mention in the article to a single, factual sentence and placed it in context within the article. If anybody doubts it's the pistol he had on him, note the picture I've included here. Please refrain from removing or re-editing it until some concensus is reached here to warrant such action. This petty, back-and-forth revision war is rediculous. See the article on the FN 1910 for a precedent. --Asams10 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But did he actually use this gun in the shootings? Since we do not know whether this was the gun used or whether he used the Glock, it should wait until confirmation of whether he actually used this one. Saying that it was one of two he had in possession seems silly to me, especially so high in the article. Mention of it needs to wait until at least confirmation is received of it being the one used in the killings. --Gloriamarie 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he had it, it's whether or not it's truly notable enough. The use of the FN Model 10 in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is a little different from this. That started one of the worst wars ever. This was a tragic use with not as many lasting effects.--LWF 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that notability must be established before inclusion in the article. It seems to me any gun could have been used with the same result. Mentioning it in the VT article is good enough.--Gloriamarie 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What a useless thing to say. The P22 was used in the most deadly shooting in US history. Thats about as notable as you get. Alyeska 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Media hype to the contrary, this is very far from "the worst shooting in US history." See als Mountain Meadows Massacre and Wounded Knee Massacre. Edison 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edison is right-- and it's useless to say things that aren't true. Has it been confirmed that this weapon was used in the shooting? All I've heard is that he owned the gun.--Gloriamarie 00:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lobot (aka K1ng l0v3), stop removing the reference. Consensus favors a mention in this page. Alyeska 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus favors a mention. Question: In the Wikipedia article about the deadliest airline tragedy in history, is the make and model of the airplane mentioned in the article? It certainly is. And the VT incident deserves mentioning here. MiFeinberg 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that the Aviation disasters articles mention the airframe involved, however, the articles on the airframes favor not mentioning the accidents. While the make and model of Object X, used in Incident A, may be suitable for inclusion in the article for Incident A; I posit that the inverse does not hold true. A link to this article from the VT article satisfies the curiosity of those that want to learn more about the weapon and nothing is gained by cluttering up articles about objects and brands with random mentions of use. Did he type up his crazy stories on a MAC or PC? Make sure to mention the VT link at those articles. What about the chains he used? Will Chain have a mention of this incident? K1ng l0v3 19:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're being facetious. What makes the VT newsworthy are the deaths of the college students. The shooter's PC or Mac had nothing to do with that. MiFeinberg 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Had he used a PC to beat 32 people to death, you might have a point. Your example is invalid as he actively used these two guns to kill 32 people. Alyeska

Ok, then by your reasoning, what makes the aircrash articles newsworthy are the deaths of the passengers. Yet, the articles about the particular airframes involved in the crashes do not , on the whole, make mention of anyone crashing in them or having accidents. The airframe articles are, as you pointed out yourself, linked to from the articles about the crashes. Again, how about Chain? The chains he used were certainly a contributing factor to the body count. K1ng l0v3 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable incidents to get taken into account. Planes with a particularly bad reputation get multiple examples. Your argument is irrelevant because it fails on account of notability. This incident is as notable as you can get. Find me the Wiki rule that makes the mention against policy. Alyeska

Ok, how does the P22 have a "particularly bad reputation"? By that logic we must wait until several notable incidents have occured before making mention. That seems to make the most sense, I think we can find consensus on that standard. As for policy, I have never said the info is against policy, rather, it is against consensus and contradicts practice across a wide range of articles. A link to this article from the VT article will do quite nicely, there is no need to mention the shooting here. However, you are the one seeking inclusion, so let's hear your reasoning. How do you think this article will be improved by a trivial mention of an event that is very well documented elsewhere? K1ng l0v3 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So 32 deaths are trivial. Alyeska 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said anything about any death being trivial. Stop dodging the question and defend your addition. Or, concede that consensus is against you on this subject yet again and stop trying to add nogermane information to encyclopedia articles. K1ng l0v3 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus against me yet again? What on earth are you talking about? In the Beretta Cx4 page I was against posting the Dawson incident. I have already defended this incident. This pistol was an significant element of the most deadly shooting in US history with a media circus not seen in recent years. The information is factualy accurate and gives historical context to a point in time the pistol was used in a notable time in history. I fail to see your justification for removing it. By your reasoning, the JFK mention on that rifle should be removed. The agreement made in the Beretta Cx4 article that you agreed to gives a threshold to which media on an a weapon is sufficent to warrant its mention in the article. The Cx4 compromise in essence states that the level of media recieved by the weapon determines if it gets mentioned. Lobot, you agreed to this compromise. Alyeska 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reference needs to be removed. It is undeniably asinine in the context of the article in question. I've checked several different "notorious" weapons (such as the M1 Carbine and Remington 700 used by Charles Whitman, of far greater notoriety at this point in time than VT) and none of them make reference to infamous assassinations/murders committed with that particular weapon. The mindset of an individual wishing to make these entries is understandable, but the reference itself is not timeless. Under the logic placed on the edit, every weapon used to ever murder someone (to include knives, baseball bats, etc.) should have annotations at the bottom in regards to when and where they were ever used to kill if they received media attention afterwards. Crmadsen 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the P22 and Glock 19 articles are probably the only gun articles with references to murders and such, and if they have got to have them, then every other weapon ever used to commit murder should have references like these. Also, if the reference has absolutely got to stay, it should separated or something, I mean going from "There are a wide range of accessories, including (all the accessories)" Straight to "The P22 was used in one of the worst massacres in history" is really quite bizzare.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

JFK disagrees. The Tec9 page also mentions the murders they were involved with. Try again. Alyeska 13:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

JFK's murder was not only a murder, it was an assassination. The murder of a president is much more important to history than a mass shooting of civilians. The Tec9 was banned after Columbine, as a direct result. There are specific reasons for mentioning those killings in the gun articles that do not exist here.--Gloriamarie 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kind of grisly, making judgements as to what is and isn't tragic enough for the link. Thirty-three people died here. This IS history -- the largest mass shooting in America. That ought to mean something, right? Astruc 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Carcano heavily contributed to the 1968 Gun Control act. And the Tec-9 was banned as a result of Columbine. The P22 hasn't been banned or started a Gun control act.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't been banned YET or started a Gun Control Act YET. BTW the Tec-9 was banned in 1994, the shooting occurred in 1999. If you're going to argue any points, please get your facts straight.--Asams10 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now your making excuses Dan. You claimed that the P22 and G19 pages were the only one with mentions of murders. That is clearly wrong. Alyeska 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I said "probably", that does not mean that there wasn't a gun article that mentioned murders, it just meant that the P22 and G19 were the only two I knew of.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I got that about the Tec-9 wrong. But how could a 10 round .22 caliber pistol be banned?--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the bans floating around would ban it because it's a rimfire pistol. These have used terms like "Junk Gun" or "Saturday Night Special" to describe guns not made of high grade steel. In otherwords, they say "it's a small, cheap, plastic 22 that sprays bullets and can kill 10 people in seconds," and it's banned. --Asams10 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, If it gets banned or starts a gun control act (which I don't think will happen), then the reference would need to be in the article, but right now it hasn't been banned or anything, so mentioning the shootings would just be trivial.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't personally believe it should be in there in the first place given that this passes off as a technical article to include history, I do definitely agree with DanMP5, it's very out of place. If it's concluded that this comment is going to stay within the article, it definitely needs to find it's own place outside of the specifications of the item, i.e. at the bottom. To be truthful, this seems like a modest agenda by pro-gun-control in order to vilify the device. Crmadsen 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Crmadsen, check my user profile and then reconsider what you just said. Alyeska 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, then you might want to check MY profile and MY edit history. I'm very pro-gun and against gun control. This has nothing to do with guns or gun control. This is a historically significant event. You would not, for instance, speak about the Titanic without mentioning the fact that it sank. This is a historically significant event using this weapon seen by hundreds of millions of people, why would it be excluded? --Asams10 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh, thats what I have been saying. I have supported the inclusion of this fact. Crmadsen was trying to claim that people who support the mentioning of this fact are gun-control people. Alyeska 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh, I was trying to SECOND what you were saying. I'm with you.--Asams10 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Alyeska 22:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would mention that the Titanic sank, because that was the end of the Titanic. Nothing has happened to the P22 yet (and probably won't), so mentioning the shooting would just be trivial. But if something does happen to the P22 because of the shootings, then the shootings would need to be mentioned.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. We should make a mention of a historical use of certain items because of their importance in context. Alyeska 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Right...then I ask that the following articles be edited and that you spend the next 6 years of your life researching use of weapons in a historical context, to include infamous murders that obtained national media attention without necessarily being of any importance to American history. Then come to realize how absolutely pointless this is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer - used to assassinate President Lincoln, no mention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_700 - used by Charles Whitman in University of Texas shooting, no mention. Crmadsen 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not my responsibility. False dilemma. Alyeska 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I in a high-school debate class? This is quite easy. A "Derringer" is a class of firearm, not a make and model... however if you were to know anything about pistols, you'd note that a "Deringer" (note the single "R") is a make of pistol and was the specific make of pistol used to kill the President. Now, read the following article: Henry Deringer and rethink your point. As for your other weak example, How many pictures of there of Whitman holding the Carbine? As you continue to cite, be careful. When you're wrong, you will fall into several logical traps. For instance, you might find an exception to the rule you've already proven. The examples of the TEC-9, the Booth Deringer, the Ruger Mini-14 (even before I edited it), and the FN Model 1910 are all established and essential. They are encyclopedic, get over it.--Asams10 03:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it's a class, thank you. No different than the 1911, which happens to be a class of pistol as well. However, if I were to say one were killed with a 1911, it wouldn't necessarily matter who made the pistol, now would it? A 1911 is a 1911, just as a Derringer is a Derringer. Kimber, Smith & Wesson, Colt...it doesn't really matter. As far as Whitman is concerned, I'm a little confused by your point. Are you saying that there is evidence the M1 wasn't used in the shooting? Crmadsen 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the 1911 is ubiqutous, the P22 is obscure outside the gun world. You, again, are making my point. As far as you saying you knew the derringer was a class... that wasn't the point I was countering. You said that Lincoln was not listed under derringer. Well, it WAS listed under Deringer. If you knew it was a class, then you were intentionally listing the class that did not have Lincoln listed to avoid listing "Deringer" as that article did, indeed, list Lincoln... AS IT SHOULD. As an average person, if you see a 1911, you say, "oh, that's a 1911." If you see a P22, chances are that the first time you saw one was in the hands of Cho... you say, "Oh, that VT shooter had one of them." I'm sorry if my points are confusing (to you). The M1 carbine was never paraded in front of the Media. It was mentioned amongst a list of guns. Again, you see pictures of Lee Oswald holding a [[Carcano] (yeah, another gun article with an infamous murder blurb) and you associate Oswald with Carcano. You think of James Earl Ray and you think of the police officer holding up a Remington Model 7600 rifle. Hmmm, that one is referenced too. Please, start countering some of my points. List instances where a firearm used in a noteable murder and then prominently featured in the media was NOT referenced in Wikipedia.--Asams10 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you answer the following questions I give up. .1 What makes the VT shootings so special that they have to be included in the P22 and G19 articles when virtually all other gun articles do not mention murders they were used in? .2 What do you hope to accomplish by adding the references in the two articles?--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 14:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it possibly deserves mention. However, at this point in time, all that's known is that the Glock was used in the shootings. I have not read anywhere in the news or in police reports that any victims had wounds consistent with that of a .22 caliber bulet. The best that can be stated at this point is that he had it in his possession at the shootings, however he also had a folding knife. Should the "pocketknife" article be cited because of this? (that was facetious).

It's interesting the AWB is mentioned. This is something that can and should be included in the article. The State of California bans the Walther P22 as a so-called assault weapon. The gun has a threaded barrel and under California law that means that it's used by assassins, thugs, gangmembers, and mall ninjas to commit mayhem. In all seriousness, the pistol was submitted to California DOJ for safety testing, it passed and was allowed for sale for a period of time, until the other hand at DOJ realized the dreaded threaded barrel and issued a recall. They contacted owners of the P22 (because the state illegally keeps records on gunowners so they can eventually confiscate their guns)and ordered them to sell the gun out of state or return it to Smith and Wesson to permanently attach the thread cover to the threads to keep people from attaching sound suppressors, long banned in California and stroingly regulated by the Federal Government since 1968.--Mike Searson 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Unfortunately the AWB in California is a complete crock. Often times rifles and pistols are classified as "assault weapons" merely because they look dangerous. There's other such nonsense in there such as banning flash suppressors and pistol grips on some rifles. There's also a 10-round limit on magazines. Some of it is just completely frivolous. The legislators in California aren't the brightest politicians the country has to offer.Crmadsen 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. California is the worst place to live if you're a firearms enthusiast, well maybe second worst behind NYC. However, mentioning the California AWB would not be out of context in this article. Mike Searson 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You got that right. Here in the Peoples Republic of Brooklyn the firearms permits are handled at the precinct (neighborhood police) level. Want to keep a firearm in your home? All firearms have to be locked up (unloaded in a hard shell case) and ammo locked up seperately. Oh, don't forget, to practice the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms you have pay your police precinct $80.00 per weapon, per year for a permit to keep guns at your house. Want to go to the range to practice? You'll have to drive (no guns on the subway) and you'll need another permit to tarnsport firearms in your car, $80.00 per weapon per year, keep them locked in a hardshell case, locked in your trunk. You say you got your firearm to protect your store? Another permit to have a firearm in a business at $80.00 per weapon per year. Yet, somehow people keep getting shot by criminals. Our Mayor Bloomberg blames Virginia. Let's not forget the NYPD, 2 detectives recently convicted of moonlighting as hit-men for the mob. Sean Bell killed on his wedding day by the NYPD; with one officer so well trained he fired 30 rounds at Bell from no more than 20 feet and hit with only 3. K1ng l0v3 15:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That last line is absolutely hilarious. He actually reloaded and started firing again (I would assume an 8-15 round clip on his pistol)? You have the story behind this? Crmadsen 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally officers carry an extra magazine (or two). 15 rounds in a Glock 23, sounds like he emptied twice (if all of this is true). --JE 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with the reference being present in the article. The page is about the gun and this tidbit does nothing to enhance someone's knowledge about the said gun itself. Besides, the kid probably acquired the first gun he could get his hands on; it could have been anything. I fail to see how the reference is relevant to a page focused on the actual gun itself. Illusive Formula 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Author of Virginia Tech Section

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).

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)

Focus

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{Technical}} to the article. Thanks, BanyanTree 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Have attempted to address the {{Technical}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • • Please, some un-biased person please remove the comment about the P22 being used in the VT Massacre. This is obviously being put into the artical by someone with political motives. I don't see what the fact that the VT shooter owned one of these weapons adds to the reference of the gun. It remains to be proven weather the P22 was actually used in the massacre. The unfair bias is easily shown above, where the USA is being called backwards for gun fetish, someone is claiming that no-one except criminals and cops knows what a plinker is, etc.. Wikipedia ought to be an un-biased reference. Don't dilute it's value to push your political agenda. [non-user]*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.223.243 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 23:55, 20 April 2007

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

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)

Why do the formats differ?

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)

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)

California Info

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)

Request for Comment: Walther P22

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)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I see this as being a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy of WP:AVTRIV, as well as being a non-notable point of trivia intended only to inflame passions and to encourage edit warring. It sounds blatantly biased by its very nature as well, suggesting somehow that "body counts" should now be inserted into firearms articles, on a firearm by firearm basis. Notability relative to the firearm itself and the notability-caused impact on gun law legislation should be the primary consideration, not the degree of the heinous act committed each time with a firearm. Suggest removal of all mention of the usage at Va Tech in the firearm article, with links remaining from the Va Tech Massacre article back to the Walther P22 article. -- Yaf 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Which countries use the weapon have eveything to do with the gun. The guns wouldn't be made if nobody bought them and the functions of the gun (weight, ammo capacity, etc) all play a role in why the gun was purchased by a specific country or military. Do you see anything about fictional characters in these articles? Are there trivia sections on each article about characters in movies who use the Glock 19 or the P22? No, there aren't, so what the hell are talking about? Speaking of ignoring precedent, I told you that the AR-15 article doesn't mention the Port Arthur massacre, which was worse than the Vtech event. Yet you said that this was "irrelevant". Get your argument straight and stop being a hypocrite. Gamer Junkie 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gonna keep tossing up more red herrings I see. Alyeska 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Most Deadly Shooting in US History. Alyeska 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

September 11th was a unique incident in that the passenger planes were used as weapons for the first and only time in terrorism history. That doesn't apply to this article, unless Cho modified or selected the P22 for a particlular reason or feature of the firearm. What's also not relevant that this was the most deadly shooting in U.S. history. Shootings happen all the time, all over the world, by all types of weapon. This is not a unique characteristic to the P22, nor is this an incident unique to the United States, yet with Columbine and JFK getting mentions in off-topic articles, one would think that the U.S. is exempt for Wikpedia's rules regarding relevant information. Why would we allow the United States worst massacre mention in this article if we wouldn't allow Holland's worst massacre mention? Both are irrelevant, yet U.S. shootings are allowed to be added? Most deadly shooting in U.S. history belongs in a relevant article. Gamer Junkie 08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comments

• Remove. Section provides irrelevant information, the heinous acts committed with it notwithstanding. Yaf 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. The mention of the Massacre is not particularly important to the gun, and at this time seems to make no difference to the gun. If it leads to long-lasting effects of some sort for the gun (e.g. legislation against the gun) then it would be of sufficient import to the gun to warrant mention, but as of yet it has had little effect on the gun. Suggest leaving a link to the gun's article in article on Massacre.--LWF 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. per the reasons above..--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep for two reasons. 1)There is a precedent for including mention of the Virginia Tech massacre in this article. 1)The guns used in the Colmbine shootings, JFK assassination, and McDonald's massacre mention -- respectively -- Columbine, JFK assassion, and the McDonald massacre. 2)The VT massacre is the most deadly mass shooting in American history. Therefore, the gun deserves mentioning in the same way that the make and model of airplane involved in the largest airline disaster deserves mentioning. MiFeinberg 22:35, 22 April 2007

• Keep For similar reasons as mentioned above. Established precedent agrees with keeping the VTech reference in the article. This is the most deadly shooting in us history. Using the reasoning given that it is irrelevant, we are left with a multitude of articles with "irrelevant" information. The M1 Carbine has a section detailing the countries that use it. This is "irrelevant" for the same reason VTech is irrelevant. In other words, its a pointless statement. The VTech mention must stay in the article. Alyeska 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep like this[1] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. However, there are too many precedents against my vote. I think there is a greater discussion to be had on whether the specific incidents of use of weapons should be incorporated into the articles on the weapons or just the incidents' themselves. If the specific weapon used is mentioned in the articles of the incidents, it's perfectly appropriate. If the incident in which the weapon was used is mentioned in the weapon article, it's trivia. If Wikipedia is against trivia, then my answer is "remove". Having said that, we need to have a greater discussion on this in the context of Wikipedia as a whole. I'll gladly join it if someone identifies the proper forum.--Dali-Llama 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Leaving a link to this article in the VT article is sufficient. That paragraph is written terribly anyway and could use a rewrite.--Mike Searson 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. This issue has no place in the article. The events of that day don't have anything to do with the P22 itself. This article is about a firearm, not the crimes which have been committed using it.

Comment. Have nothing to do? So you deny that the P22 was used in the VTech massacre? Alyeska 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
• Keep. Deadliest mass shooting in American history. The gun deserves mentioning. We're talking about one sentence here, folks. If there is some principle at stake that I don't know about, please spill it. Nothing is trivial about this incident, including the gun the killer used. Astruc 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Keep. The gun was used in the biggest mass-murder in North American history. Others have already noted that the precedent has been such in much lesser incidents such as Columbine. I'm unsure why many seem so bent to describe such an incident as trivial! Nfitz 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. No doubt the P22 has been used in countless other murders, and other weapons have proven just as deadly. The VT shootings can't be defined by the weapon that was used; this information belongs properly in the VT article and not here. Cmprince 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. For the many reasons I've already stated.--Asams10 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, as Cmprince says, the gun has been used in countless murders. But the VT tragedy wasn't just another murder (if I can be pardoned for saying such a thing); it played a role in the biggest mass shooting in the history of the United States. This article is about more than the technical firing aspects of a gun. Therefore, VT needs mentioning. Hashaw 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

• Remove I could have ran over twenty people at the beach with a Honda Accord but it doesn't mean there should be a note on the Wikipedia article that I did. It belongs on the VT article itself, not on the gun used. -JE 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It belongs here. It's one little sentence. This is not a narrow technical article about a gun. Griot 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If you ran over 20 people on the beach, I for one would be interested in knowing what type of car it was. It provides context. There are more than enough reputable sources to show that it was this particular gun that was used in the single worst mass shooting in modern American history. That alone, in my opinion, validates its inclusion. It seems that those who are against it are fearful that the inclusion of these facts will trigger backlash against this particular gun. As a gun owner and Virginia Tech graduate, I find that lamentable, but it's no reason to keep the facts out. Mister Jinxy 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove The mention belongs in the article about the incident, but is of trivial relevance to this article, unless someone can source distinctive characteristics of the P22 that made Cho's choice of a P22 notable in some way. PubliusFL 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove does not belong on wikipedia. CINEGroup 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

  "If you ran over 20 people on the beach, I for one would be interested in knowing what type of car it was."

  That is why the place to mention the type of car (or firearm) is in the article on the tragedy, not the article on the car (firearm). If you were reading the article on the Honda would you expect to find individual news mentions of accidents? I'm still waiting for an answer about chain. By the logic of the inclusionists, the article Chain should have a mention of the VT shooting because the chains he used to secure the doors were much more instrumental in the deaths than a pistol that may not have even been discharged. K1ng l0v3 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  Roger that. It's also well sourced that Cho mailed a package to NBC in the middle of his killing spree. Maybe the United States Postal Service article should contain a mention of this fact, since the USPS was the means he used to deliver his "manifesto"? PubliusFL 23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Check out the Boeing 757 article. Look under the incidents. Whoops, someone snuck in a September 11th mention. What a shock! Alyeska 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Try again Alyeska 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep. I find it an interesting and certainly notable fact about the gun. As a parallel, Carcano has Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the intro, not just in the article. King has a point, however; it does not belong mized in with the specs; can we compromise, for now, on a See also link?
  • On a few technical points about Wikipedia: this is not a vote. Anon editors are welcome to join the discussion; their opinions may be discounted for unfamiliarity with the way we do things, and may be marked, but it is improper to remove them. WP:AVTRIV is strictly irrelevant here (and it is not policy); it discourages structuring the whole article as a string of trivia, which noone proposes. And it is not helpful to the reader to expect him to pick up on article B because it links to article A, which he happens to be reading; it is very easy for an article to have a couple hundred articles that link to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The See also link would be the best way to go if the consensus were to end in favor of mentioning the shootings.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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 [2] CBS News. Edison 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems clear this is a political gun control issue. People interested in gun control want it in, people interested in avoiding gun control want it removed. I personally sympathize with non-gun control people, but have never held one myself. As someone without strong feelings either way; I feel this is obviously relevent information. All argument's against inclusion feel like red herrings to me. Aepryus 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comment. I agree entirely with GameJunkie's logic (except the gun control part :)). -JE 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Easy, the P22 killed people. The hat and vest didn't. Alyeska 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

No, the killer killed people. The gun he used to kill them is as irrelevant as the vest and the hat. Gamer Junkie 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep Because the Walther p22 and Virginia Tech appear jointly in about 83ooo Google hits, such as Time magazine at [3] which says "..Cho possessed Walther P22 and Glock 9 mm handguns — both expensive, accurate guns favored by gun enthusiasts and cops. " It was not a randomly selected weapon. Autopsy results and forensics have not yet revealed whether any of the wounds came from the 22, but a spree killer could used it as a backup weapon to prevent counterattacks by unarmed students while changing the magazine in the 9mm. Had he used a "Saturday night special" or a revolver as the primary or backup weapon, he might well have not been able to fire over 100 rounds into the victims in the few minutes of the attack. That is not a condemnation of the Walther anymore than was Bonnie and Clyde's letter endorsing Ford cars a condemnation of them. Edison 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep - it's pertinent. Jefferson Anderson 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove - the Walther is mentioned on the Virginia Tech massacre page and that is sufficient Kevinp2 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove this irrelevent information. This information belongs in the Virginia Tech Massacre article.

  It is not suitable for this article because the crime was in no way unique to this weapon. There was nothing specifically unique about this weapon which enabled Cho to achieve his intentions, and that would be the only reason a crime would be notable on an article about a firearm. This article is about a gun, not a crime, regardless of how horrific that crime was. The gun should be mentioned in the article about the massacre because it played a major role in the events of that day, but the crime should not be mentioned here, because this is an article about the Glock 19 firearm, not what crimes have been committed with it. There are no mentions of the most deadly massacres in other parts of the world in other firearms articles, why U.S. shootings appear to be exempt from this rule is beyond me.

  Copied from somewhere, credit to Gamer Junkie — coelacan — 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment per [4] he fired 170 shots in 9 minutes, or an average of a shot every 3 seconds, and used both the Glock and the Walther, with a total of 17 magazines. This would have been difficult or impossible with anything less than very reliable semiautomatics. Previous spree killers have had trouble with guns jamming. He apparently did his research and selected precision manufactured weapons, making a succinct "See also" refeerence to the crime a relevant part of the article. Edison 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I don't think anyone who knows anything about firearms would refer to either a Glock or a Walther P22 as "Precision Weapons". Maybe in video games or in the airsoft world, I suppose. Thanks for the chuckle. --Mike Searson 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  I would think anything but the very least reliable semiautomatics would let you get off 170 rounds in 9 minutes without a show-stopping failure, if you're starting out with a backup gun. Do you have any sources about his conscious attempts to select precision manufactured weapons? PubliusFL 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove clearly irrelevant. The information is duplicated in the Virginia Tech article. Per the consensus at Glock 19, this should not be included. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no consensus in the Glock19 article. The primary discussion is over here, the people who did the primary discussion on Glock19 are involved over here. Using Glock19 as proof is horribly inaccurate. I could just as easily get all the Keep voters to post a keep comment on Glock19 and suddenly the consensus your claiming disapears. The P22 and Glock19 discussions are connected and should not be taken as seperate. Alyeska 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Unless this weapon faces legislative action or sweep gun law changes in US due to VT shooting. See mail order gun bans on rifles due JFK shooting or Bill Ruger coming out against 30 round mags for civilians after shooting involving Mini-14 which lead to Assault Weapons Ban in US. Rabbit994 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Such details are appropriate, although not very important, in the article about the incident (with Wikilinks to other articles if the reader wants to explore further), but amount to completely unimportant "trivia" in other articles, including articles on the University, on breakfast (assuming Cho ate one that morning), on the manufacturer of the sneakers he wore, and on the firearms he happened to acquire. There is no particularly noteworthy feature of any of the firearms involved in this incident that suggests a need to mention the incident in articles on the firearms themselves (or their manufacturers). I don't strongly object to a "see also" link to the incident article, although I don't think it is particularly helpful here. — DAGwyn 05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Mention of the use of the firearm is trivial. Mentioning it on the VT page is enough as it gets the information to people who desire to find the information. At the moment the P22 isn't in the position where it is so far into public knowledge that everyone knows Cho used that gun as the main weapon choice for his act. The gun (being a gun by definition is dangerous) is still only a .22 caliber as opposed to the Glock's higher performance and power is likely not the gun to be his primary weapon. Would it be worth noting if he was wearing Nike shoes if it helped him to run a bit faster? It isn't a prime characteristic that people can recognize as the trenchcoats were for Columbine so there isn't any point to mentioning it into this article unless it was his primary handgun on the Day's events. Currently there aren't many .22 models to buy and are usually marketed as plinkers or target pistols rather than fullblown handguns.. Catastrophese 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

VT murder spree compromise?

If I'm reading the RFC correctly, the concensus seems to be a compromise listing the shooting as a 'see also' link thereby leaving the article proper clear. Is there any comment on this? Please don't go over ground covered above. Essentially, place your agreement or disagreement with the compromise.--Asams10 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• For: Keep it in the "See Also" section and don't expand it beyond current version.--Asams10 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• For. I think this is a good way to work it. It needs to stay a short, single, non-sensational sentence, though. Cmprince 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against, it is irrelevant to the history of the gun, and irrelevant to people searching. See Also should be containing other .22's and other Walthers. Duplication of the information at the VT page, and per prior consensus on Glock 19, should not be included. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against I concur. I'm against--Dali-Llama 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against, because I don't agree that the topic Virginia Tech massacre is related to the topic Walther P22. In my opinion, this almost makes less sense than a brief mention in the body of the article. It wouldn't be appropriate to put a "see also" link to Virginia Tech massacre at mail (or vice versa) just because the fact that he mailed a package in the middle of his spree got a lot of media attention. The topics aren't related. What is appropriate is to mention that fact in Virginia Tech massacre, and wikilink to mail. Similarly, it would not be appropriate to put a "see also" link to Virginia Tech massacre in chain (or vice versa), just because Cho made a highly notable use of chains to block Norris Hall's exists (again with considerable media attention). Again, the appropriate course of action is to describe what happened in Virginia Tech massacre, with a wikilink to chain. Unless the Virginia Tech incident becomes more closely intertwined with the notability of the P22 itself as time goes by, I don't see a difference here. PubliusFL 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Due to reasons mentioned in copious amounts above. With concensus already reached on the Glock 19 article, hopefully this issue will be put to rest entirely very soon. Gamer Junkie 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against. The weapon's use at Virginia Tech is not notable in the context of the weapon, for it has led to no legal bans by name, and no subsequent legal impacts or changes in firearms law extending to firearms in general. The mention in the Virginia Tech and Cho articles, with Wikilinks here, is adequate to provide navigation here should anyone want to know more about the weapon. --Yaf 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Per the reasons above.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional For I support this compromise only if the inclusion of the VTech incident is taken out of the main article. The information is significant and very much on point. Alyeska 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is the minimum possible mention of a strongly related article. I concur in principle with this edit, which removed the sources that the P22 was actually used; that sourcing does belong in the other article, not here. But it does exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against This is completely nongermane to an article on a firearm. If this is added then we have to add a section to Chain because the chains he used played a larger part in the shooting than a firearm that was never fired. Oh and Mail too for the same reason. K1ng l0v3 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Both were fired, as the sources which were edited out show. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Which still changes nothing about the germaneness of a mention in this article. The only proper place for a mention is in an article about the shooting. Let's keep this gun-hating, anti-freedom POV out of the encyclopedia.K1ng l0v3 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How in the WORLD is it anti-gun to say that a gun was used in a certain high-profile crime? Tell me. Where does it say or imply in this mention ANYTHING that would lead ANYONE who's not already anti-gun to think that guns are now bad?--Asams10 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or indeed, anyone who is anti-gun? As for me, my first merit badge was in rifle-shooting; my interest here is in preserving a patently useful link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to comment here. The point of this section is to gather the tally without the many additional comments hindering the count as they did above. Gamer Junkie 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Against Unless it faces legislative action against it in the future. Rabbit994 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• For -- Strong support. I understood that this was the compromise we reached. Rather than put VT in the main article, it would go here as a tangenital "See also." Without this compromise, we have to put it back in the main article. Griot 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• For The compromise reached earlier had us putting VT in a "See also" section. If this compromise is challenged, we have to revisit putting it in the main article. The compromise was reached. You can't compromise a compromise, right? MiFeinberg 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• AGAINST and so are several other wikipedia editors including admins who just locked the Glock_19 article because of the same 3 malicious editors Asams10, MiFeinberg and Alyeska. In the Admin incident board [5] he even names those 3 as trouble makers. This article is about a pistol. Not a news story. Also as other editors/admins AND wikipedia have put it, red names have no say in consensus votes, votes CINEGroup 02:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and abuse do not help you make your case. --Asams10 02:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "case" see here [6] for how other admins handled the Glock_19 case and your friends. All were named. Go find a new article to abuse. Good luck on the whole abuse and attacks thing, Anyone here can look at your previous edits and conduct with other editors! CINEGroup 02:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It'd be a lot easier to sort this out if you would not LIE. Neither asams10 nor MiFeinberg are mentioned in your references. While Alyeska is mentioned, he is actively engaged and is merely chastized by the admin for not being civil. I'm not sure where you're going with this. The RFC ended about even for and against for the Walther P22 article so you're making an argument by Proxy here, lying about Admins calling me an instigator and making no new points. You've got an OPINION that is not backed up by precedents set in half a dozen articles I cited and you don't attack those arguments, you directly lie and attack the editors who disagree with you. Please read the Wikipedia rules again before reverting or responding. I see you now understand the WP:3RR.--Asams10 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you write it doesn't make it true, and harassing editors that don't agree with you doesn't make it very nice for them. I forsee the article being locked down, maybe then you will move on to articles you would enjoy editing and not arguing over. CINEGroup 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that you fail to see the irony of your statement, "Just because you write it doesn't make it true, and harassing editors that don't agree with you doesn't make it very nice for them." I'm seriously concerned for your ability to be introspective and objective. I'm referring to this specific report: [7]. It seems clear to me that you are unwilling or unable to engage in a fair exchange of ideas. I'm going to disengage. Good day.--Asams10 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you wrote that trying to make me look bad that's okay. It's just too bad you didn't pass the checksum! OOOPS! Oh and BTW, all the users I reported were blocked indef or for 48 hours for vandalism. Is that what set you off, was it one of your puppets?CINEGroup 02:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Report me and EVERY alias you think I'm sock puppeting. When that gets resolved, I expect an apology. I'll stop tossing bread under the bridge for you.--Asams10 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of trolls Asams10... I LOVE this jewel you left in an editing comment

"(rv: You're not admin and there is an ongoing discussion without a concensus. Wanna start playing by the rules yet? Didn't think so.) "

CINEGroup 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove/Keep removed The VT Tech massacre is not notable in the pistol's frame of reference. Georgewilliamherbert 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Griot's canvassing began at this point. ··coelacan 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• For: Per User:Asams10. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Against, obviously, as I'm currently reverting the article to the pre-incident state. For the same reason as I quoted before before,[8] this content is just as irrelevant to the article as a "see also" as in any other form. "This article is about a gun, not a crime, regardless of how horrific that crime was. The gun should be mentioned in the article about the massacre because it played a major role in the events of that day, but the crime should not be mentioned here, because this is an article about the Glock 19 firearm, not what crimes have been committed with it", etc. And since there is no consensus for this proposed "compromise", the article defaults to the pre-incident state. ··coelacan 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• For A simple mention in the "See also" section seems appropriate. This is the highest visibility news coverage the P22 has ever had. In Google search, "Walther P22" gets 150,000 hits. 58,900 of those are in conjunction with "Virginia Tech." The choice of weapons was far more salient to the killings than were the other red herrings brought forth here such as the fact that he mailed something or nonsensical comparisons. Edison 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• For. I understood this as a compromise. Originally, this was going to be mentioned in the main topic. Let's abide by the other editors' compromise solution. It isn't right to attack a compromise after it was reached. Hashaw 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, no, that's false. The compromise was never "reached", it was proposed, and this is the section to discuss whether it should be adopted. ··coelacan 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that isn't false. Semper Fi and Yaf agreed to to it, among others. I've copied comments about the original compromise here, taken from above: Hashaw 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The See also link would be the best way to go if the consensus were to end in favor of mentioning the shootings.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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 [9] CBS News. Edison 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet, Hashaw, several of the people you just cited have now decided against the "compromise":

Against. Per the reasons above.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Against I concur. I'm against--Dali-Llama 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. The weapon's use at Virginia Tech is not notable in the context of the weapon, for it has led to no legal bans by name, and no subsequent legal impacts or changes in firearms law extending to firearms in general. The mention in the Virginia Tech and Cho articles, with Wikilinks here, is adequate to provide navigation here should anyone want to know more about the weapon. --Yaf 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

People are allowed to change their minds, and apparently, some have. You appear to be saying that those of us who came to this discussion later are bound to something that happened earlier. But that is a false premise. There is no consensus for what you are calling a compromise. Without consensus, it is not a compromise. ··coelacan 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Allowed to change their minds! Fickle indeed! But seriously, if you agree to a compromise, you're supposed to stick to it, no? MiFeinberg 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really a moot point, considering that the discussion has long since moved on and the majority of us never agreed to any "compromise". There is no ownership of this discussion. Those who came later must be given consideration, and this necessitates re-evaluating any supposed compromise. ··coelacan 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No one changed their mind. Look at what DanMP5 said again: "The See also link would be the best way to go if the consensus were to end in favor of mentioning the shootings." Do you see the clause starting with "if" there? The consensus never ended in favor of mentioning the shootings. Therefore his opinion about the best way of actually including such a mention is meaningless. PubliusFL 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• For, strongly. Am I missing something? We're talking about a link here. I am in favor of this compromise, and if we can't make it here, let's revisit putting it in the main article. BTW, see the "Mediation" suggestion below. If ever an article needed mediating, it's this one. Astruc 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Against because it makes no difference to the gun. The gun made a difference to the crime but the reverse is not yet true. If the media itself starts doing stories about the "horror" of the .22LR pistol, or legislation is created against the P22, then I may support mention. Except none of those things has happened.--LWF 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• For Haven't we done this already? Nfitz 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Griot has been canvassing in an attempt to vote-stack, by contacting only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article. The canvassing began at 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC), and the message included a direct link to edit this section. This is absolutely unacceptable. I have now alerted everyone whose signature is on this page who were not yet contacted. Hopefully that will alleviate the attempted vote-stacking. ··coelacan 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I see the issue here. I've been contacted twice now - once each by supporters on both sides of the debate - despite it being clear which way I'd go. Seems pretty equal to me. Nfitz 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that votestacking is flagrantly against the rules. It would have been okay if Griot contacted everyone who'd given input on this page, but instead Griot only contacted people who were in favor of keeping the VT mention. If you can't see what's wrong with that, you should probably sign up for an ethics course at your local uni. ··coelacan 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Against I disagree with the mention of this information in the article. Keep it in the VT article. Above I originally posted during a discussion that I felt it could be a compromise, but generally disagree with its inclusion. -JE 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ack, just read below and noticed the resolution. -02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How old is the P22?

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)

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)

Are we done yet?

So we have a quick head count of 15 against inclusion and 13 for inclusion in the first RFC and now in the second section we have 9 editors against incluion and 6 editors for inclusion. That seems like enough of a consensus for the inclusionists to bow out gracefully. Can we please just agree on NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the VT shootings in this article?K1ng l0v3 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, my count is the same but that's not a concensus. That's also just the count for the current compromise, not for inclusion or exclusion of the information. If we're up to counting sock puppets, trolls, and vandals, that count might actually be even. Let's get this straight, the largest single-shooter, multiple murder incident in US History, and the gun he uses doesn't have a mention of it? I noticed there are MANY "Johnny-come-lately's" out here that have NEVER edited a firearms article were either sock-puppeting their votes and/or told there was a vote going on. Given that this is a firearms article, I'd rather see votes from LWF, Yaf, or others that I seen on a fairly regular basis editing these articles. The whole vote process seems muddied, and yet the vote still didn't reach a concensus. I hope you don't call this a concensus:

RFC phase I:

Include: 13 Remove: 15

Compromise:

Yes: 6 No: 9

--Asams10 14:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like consensus to me. Just because you would "...rather see votes from LWF, Yaf, or others that I seen on a fairly regular basis editing these articles." is no reason to keep flogging this horse. Consensus is against inclusion on this and other articles. K1ng l0v3 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple majority does NOT a concensus make. --Asams10 15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then how do you define consensus? What will it take to get you to stop trying to add nongermane info to articles?K1ng l0v3 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not consensus. Consensus is a clear weight of community opinion in favor of something. Not a simple majority.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me suggest this: Revert to the status quo prior to shooting and let's have a real discussion on this perhaps in the WikiProject Firearms page. We're being a bit too narrow-minded on this particular firearm, when we have to remember that there are countless other examples of incidents being named in firearm pages throughout Wikipedia. I'm not saying that's correct or incorrect--I'm just saying that we're all arguing about one or two pages when we know that the precedent we set will reverberate to other pages--just like people were mentioning "per {firearm}'s consensus" at the beginning of this very discussion. Let's get this organized. The moment a consensus is reached there we can apply it consistently through other pages!--Dali-Llama 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I can't see that working. The problem is, not every shooting is as notable as any other shooting. The VT shooting is far more notable for the amount of deaths involved, but the types of gun used in the shooting were not important. However, in a hypothetical situation where a presidential candidate was shot with a sniper rifle, the type of gun used is critical to the crime, and in such a case it may be useful. Or, for instance, if the type of rifle is relatively rare, such as if it was for instance a M82A3, or if the victim is highly important, such as Kennedy's Mannlicher Carcano. One blanket policy really doesn't apply too well across all grounds and all firearms. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right--which is why I'm saying let's not do a case-by-case basis or a blanket policy, but rather criteria that have to be met, and according to those criteria the decision should be made. So, for example, if controversy erupts over the legality of the weapon, or if the weapon used is of particular significance in a criminal investigation--again, I'm not defending these criteria, but certainly we should have a policy for it. It's ineffective and inefficient to have this discussion over and over again for every firearm if we can have one large discussion where we can hammer down the criteria that would or would not warrant a reference in the firearm's page and specifically what type of reference.--Dali-Llama 17:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is more weight, given SwatJester's example of the Barrett as a rare firearm, to say that there SHOULD be mention under the Walther P22, moreso than the Glock 19 article. The Glock is a ubiqutous self-defense firearm whereas the Walther P22 is a poor and somewhat perplexing choice of firearm for use in the VT shooting.--Asams10 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Asams, regardless of whether or not I agree with your assertion, what I'm suggesting is creating a framework for deciding whether or not to include the reference. Rarity, as you mentioned, could be one.I'm not trying to judge the merits of the P22, but rather saying that this is a much bigger issue.--Dali-Llama 22:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Asams10's point is just that they aren't interested in letting this particular discussion go for the sake of a wider set of guidelines which might not end up with the desired result here. ··coelacan 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Dali llama, I misunderstood you, I didn't see you were talking about a sort of criteria method, as opposed to a blanket policy. I agree that a criteria should be established for inclusion of references to school shootings in an article. I'm sure there will be a whole lot of debate as to what the criteria are: that should be handled at Wikiproject Firearms (which I really should join), not here. Asams: I partially agree with you and I partially disagree with you. You're absolutely right: the Glock is a ubiquitous self defense firearm, while the P22 is, for all intents and purposes not, and is really a target pistol/plinker. And you're absolutely right that that fact makes the Glock article ridiculous that the shooting should be included, and gives quite a bit more weight to the P22 argument. I agree with you there: I myself am not quite sure how I feel about it on the P22 article, though I clearly disagree with it in the Glock article. You know as well as I do that the P22 is not a gun that would have likely been chosen by a professional for a mass shooting. The problem here, is WP:SYN. For us to be including the reference to the shootings in the P22 article, on the grounds that the weapon is unusual, is WP:SYNthesis, because as far as I'm aware there have not been any media publications about the strangeness of using the P22....they just say that he USED a P22. Correct me if I am wrong, of course, but as far as I've seen, nobody seems to be talking about WHY he used a P22. For us to use the question of WHY as an inclusion question is a leap from verifiable sources, to synthesis of material, a.k.a. original research. Now, come on Asams, you and I both know that using a .22LR platform firearm in a mass shooting is a stupid idea, and that the P22 is not a common defense handgun, but the point is that our published secondary sources haven't came to that conclusion yet. We'd be overstepping our bounds to do that for them. In the aforementioned example of the Barrett: well you know that the media, especially in California, would jump on it in two seconds, talking about the capabilities of the Barrett, and likely getting them wrong (the mythage of "it can shoot down a plane, it can destroy a tank, it's banned by the Geneva convention: all myths perpetrated by the media).....but in that case the media would be talking precisely about the TYPE of weapon used, and they're just not doing that in the Walther P22 case. That's why I don't think that we can do this. Of course, Dali-llama's plan offers a solution to that, by creating criteria that apply to all firearms. However, before pursuing that route, we'd need to think of situations in which that may create an unintended negative externality: i.e. referring to AK's because they have been used in that one bank robbery years back (forget if it was miami or LA).....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the North Hollywood shootout involved semi-automatic rifles that were illegally converted to full-auto. Wouldn't it be fair to say that since the P22 was a peculiar choice it speaks more towards the insanity and lack of rational thought that went into the planning on the part of the murderer? Sane people generally would not go out and kill dozens of people without just cause so their choosing skills in firearms is likely to suffer accordingly. I'd have been disturbed had the shooter used a more appropriate firearm the likes of which I will not get into for fear of 'giving ideas' or thereby consulting nutballs like Cho. Suffice it to say, mentioning that he made an absurd choice for mass murder says volumes about his diminshed mental state thereby refocusing the argument on the true issues in the case. As I see it, those issues are 1) the failure of the mental health system to adequately identify, report, and confine dangerous people and 2) the failure of politicians to pass meaningful personal-defense laws allowing the students access to legal protection. Shooters choose schools because everybody there who follows the law is disarmed. Ironically, somebody unable to choose an appropriate firearm is STILL able to choose a soft target. The implication I'm making is that, yes, it's painfully obvious that students and faculty at VT should have had the ability to protect themselves. Even a psycho could reason that one out.--Asams10 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do not agreee that "the types of gun used in the shooting were not important." Had he used a Saturday night special, it might well have jammed. Had he used a revolver, hw could never had fired 170 shots in 9 minutes. For such a killing spree, given that he did not choose to use an assault rifle, he needed accurate and reliable seimiautomatis pistols, and the P22 is a frequent choice as a backup weapon, even though it lacks the stopping power of the 9mm that he chose as his other weapon. From his corespondence with the merchant, it is clear he had done some investigation of the characteristics of this weapon and sought it out. Edison 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"...the P22 is a frequent choice as a backup weapon," WHAT? No it's not.--Asams10 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there were mental health issues involved. But that has very little bearing on the Walther P22, GLOCK 19, etc. which aren't particularly interesting. Now, if he had used an RPG that would be an interesting choice; however, it still wouldn't justify a mention in an article on RPGs. — DAGwyn 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine the only reason Cho used the .22 was because it was there to be used. A .22 might be a .22, but a .22 and a 9 mm are still more likely to inflict damage than a 9 mm alone. Doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Gamer Junkie 06:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm way late to this discussion as I've been on hiatus due to a completely crazy life right now. But for the record, my vote is to completely omit any reference to the VT shootings. The tragedy at VT has not a thing to do with firearms and everything to do with a deranged individual going completely off the deep end. He used the most effective tools he could find to carry out his insane plan. A ref to the P22 in the VT article is good, but not the other way. Should we mention Lizzy Borden in the axe article? Pfff. Please. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

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)

I agree. It needs mediation. I don't see the parties coming to an agreement without it. Hashaw 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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".[10] ··coelacan 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

K1ng l0v3's initiative, I believe, is the correct one, to be addressed in the Firearms project and if need be retroactively applied in this case. Until a consensus is reached on the criteria of inclusion/non-inclusion, this discussion will not yield a result agreeable to either side.--Dali-Llama 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and submit this article for mediation. I'm very curious to see what the whole community thinks about the matter of including a little old link to the VT massacre in this and the Glock 19 article. Griot 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make it to the poll, but you can add me in on the "against inclusion" side. --Gloriamarie 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article re-protected

Still edit warring within the article rather than discussing points here. I have reapplied protection for 2 days for cooldown - for now, semi-protection (many of you can still edit it), but if edit wars continue will escalate to full protection (again, for a short period of time).

Please stop reverting back and forth. The POV tag discussion has not happened in talk at all, that I see. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See discussion immediately above; the removal of any link to VT violates WP:NOT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That explanation is about as clear as mud. Care to elaborate? ··coelacan 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - Please clarify what you mean by that. I don't see any argument above, nor see any logical argument from re-reading WP:NOT in detail, as to how it applies. Georgewilliamherbert 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple; Wikipedia is not censored. The only arguments against the link (excluding WP:IDONTLIKEIT) have been "if we include this link, it would assist gun control" usually combined with "You only want this link because you support gun control"; the latter statement has been made repeatedly above without evidence - or, in at least one instance, factuality. If I came to this article, and had no hint that the VT article related to it, I would (if I found otherwise) feel cheated of an interesting and relevant article - which is my sole reason for proposing or supporting the cross link; an attitude which has nothing to do with politics.

The political argument of the censors is also silly; anyone who expects a WP see also to fire a political campaign has very exaggerated ideas of our importance in the great scheme of things. This does not make it in accordance with policy; less so, if anything. But is pointless censorship really in any way good for Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only people who have brought up politics are the people for the link. What has been stated by the people against the link is that it makes little difference to the gun. Now, if the gun's usage led to some sort of legislation, then it would probably be considered notable enough, but it is too soon to say that, as there has been no such legislation.--LWF 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't censorship, it's what is relevant to the article and nothing more. As somebody who supports gun control and regulation, I would hardly be censoring the dangers of firearms to Wikipedia's readers, but at the same time, I wouldn't be linking gun control articles to this one just because this article is about a gun. The fact is that it's not relevant to this article. Not only that, but the gun is mentioned on the article where it is relevant, so accusations of censorship are unfounded and inplausible. Gamer Junkie 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson: the argument is not IDONTLIKEIT, it's WP:CONTEXT. The exclusionist side is arguing from a point of policy, as well as a point of common sense. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is not "policy", but a guideline. It does not apply to See Alsos, but to links where there is context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do believe guidelines represent a wide acceptance of specific protocol amongst the greater Wikipedian community. I also recall that those wishing to add the link wanted to incorporate the opinions of the greater Wikipedian community into this decision. Gamer Junkie 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Status of the VT link: resolved"

Currently there is no clear consensus regarding the status of the VT link, although it does appear to be leaning towards opposing. As such, with no consensus, the article defaults back to the original state before the VT shootings: that is, the state without the information included. Do not add the link again without a clear consensus of the community. I've added a commented warning about that in the See Also section.

Also, while we're on the subject, just because you disagree with something does not make an article non-neutral. Please do not add a POV tag to this article. There is nothing POV about the technical operation or metallic composition of the firearm. In some cases, tag abuse is considered disruptive editing.

At this point in time, the questions of inclusion for the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles are now resolved. The Walther P22 article may change at a future date with a shift in consensus. The Glock 19 article likely will not. The community has now spoken: it's time now for the editors to respect the decision of the community and abide by it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The following are from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.

• We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We at MedCabal are not at all official and are just ordinary Wikipedians. We facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement by their own efforts.
• We cannot judge who is right (unless there is a clear policy violation).

What Swatjester has pretended to do here is to decide which side is right; and to attempt to declare it resolved in the direction he prefers. Additional !votes would always be welcome; but SwatJester is not one: he was a participant in the discussion before he claimed to "mediate". I see nothing in his edit log which can be described as "facilitating communication"; I hope I have overlooked something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute your removal of the "resolved" template (obviously we can't say that "there is no dispute in anyone's mind about the outcome"). But it is unfair to misportray Swatjester as having "claimed to 'mediate'". He did no such thing. He expressed his opinion on both MedCabal case pages (Glock 19 and P22) as a participant in the discussions and nothing more. PubliusFL 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, he has phrased himself quite poorly, both here and there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would care to read the Mediation page, you would see that HammerHeadHuman is the mediator. K1ng l0v3 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be a mediator. I'm acting as an administrator, responding to a thread on the Administrator's noticeboard. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)