Talk:Walther P22

Citations, Verifiability and Reliable Sources

There is an almost completel lack of citations and verifiable facts within this article. I already made corrections of some inaccurate facts and cited a reliable source. Most of the other content should supported by sources or removed per Wikipedia policy.

I intend to delete portions of the this article that cannot be verified. While I will attempt to locate citations, the original contributor bears the burden of citing reliable sources! Spectre9 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Bias

In the article it says that Ruger and Browning design pistols are more accurate that the walther. This seems a tad biased to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.23.152 (talk • contribs)

From experience(s), it may be biased but it is true. Unfortunately since this is a personal experience and not a "fact" it should not be added to the article.--Mfree 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not biased in the least bit. The Walther P22 is less accurate than the Browning or Ruger designs. The Beretta U22 Neos is also more accurate. These are facts and are based on emperical data. There is no bias at all. Walther has never and CAN never claim their gun is more accurate... when they do and back it up, I'd say you'd have a case for bias. --Asams10 13:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a p22 and it is completely inaccurate with the short barrel. Would not trust my life with it. However a p99 is very accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.68.59 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I have a P22 with the 3" barrel and the rail attached laser sight designed just for the P22. Might a picture of that be worth putting on the page? Alyeska 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably in the info-box (if it's a good picture) because the current picture is of the Target version, and the picture in the info-box should always be of the base model gun (in this case the 3" version). --DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to give it the appropriate licensing tag. And I agree with Dan, the image should always be the base model. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta get my camera fixed, but I will work on getting that picture up there. Alyeska 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a P22 with coestal suppressor awaiting paperwork, once that goes through and I receive my firearm, I'll have nice pictures for you. Granted, I'm talking a couple months from now, but something to look forward to. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a picture of the P22 with a Gemtech silencer. This has become a very popular accessory and is prominently advertised by Gentech. It was deleted as "non- standard" and not relevant to the article. (sorry about the dropped signature)--Mcumpston (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're trying to troll, push my buttons, or you refuse to assume good faith, but you are not representing my edit summary in good faith. Your picute was no different than the lead photo but it had a suppressor on it. Feel free to add context such as, "the threaded barrel on the P22 allows for simplified attachment of a suppressor" but it seems from your edit history that you're just showing off the fact that you have pictures that you may or may not have taken yourself. --Asams10 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Asams, it's rather you that is not using good faith, nor properly representing your edit summaries. There is simply no call nor reason to delete a perfectly acceptable image of the pistol, just because it has a suppressor. As Mcumpston notes, it's a quite common package. You had no call to remove the image and then accuse him of trolling; especially when he's 100% correct about your edit summary. I've restored it.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You, Swatjester, seem to be of the opinion that everything I do is wrong. Of course, given your history, I seem to recall that disputed content stays off the page until all the debate is over here. So, I'm taking the irrelevant picture off the page and we can open up a discussion or... as they say, is what's good for the goose not really good for the gander? Remember the VT discussion where you REMOVED the content and told me to go fuck myself, basically. Now are you for keeping the disputed content on the Walther P22 page because you don't like me? Tsk, tsk. Shame on you. --Asams10 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be when swatjester's coestal suppressor comes along he will replace this picture with a better one --Mcumpston (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It won't. That order got hung up and never processed. ⇒SWATJester

A shame. The Walther with the Gemtech is really quiet with a most un-gunlike signature. The rig is a bit ammunition sensitive but the pistol itself is that way and the supressor doesn't seem to exaserbate it. Effects on velocity were mixed with some ten shot strings faster and other's slower without it. Some rounds hit to significantly different POI at 25 yards with/without the can but the mini-mag hollow points went into the same group. --Mcumpston (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ^{Son of the Defender} 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I took the picture a few weeks ago while checking out the Walther with Gemtech supressor. Gemtech and several other companies display this combination and a number of consumers enjoy the rig. In that context, it is by no means a "non standard" silencer. The threaded barrel does contribute to ease of attachment. When I found this article on the Walther, I thought it might be a worthwhile conribution. Since you thought it was inappropraite, I will revise my opinion and defer to your judgement --Mcumpston (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And once again, like the VT discussion, you appear to be the only one in support of your position. I'm reverting your removal. Unless you can show a legitimate, policy based reason why the picture should not be included, I'll also be considering your reversions of the picture, without said policy based reason, disruption, which may result in a block for tendentious editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know I can pigeon-hole you into the category of editors who only espouse a point of view when it benefits them and argue the opposite point of view when it suits them. The picture is a duplicate... that's what I was saying in my edit summary. It's WP:Note if you want a policy. As for being the only one, yeah, I can probably cite hundreds in Nazi Germany who disagreed with Adolph Hitler, did that make them wrong too? Also, I'm sure if I did like others and went around to all my 'buddies' asking for their help... they'd come to my defense. I'm above that. --Asams10 (talk)

WP:NOTE does not apply to article content, only to articles themselves, and nothing on WP:NOTE applies to pictures. Furthermore, it's not a policy. As for your godwin-esque nazi analogy, it makes no sense. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify the analogy more, if I'm the only Prussian that opposes Hitler, does that make me wrong? If I am the only one VOICING my opinion that the picture is redundant and vain, does that make me wrong? Your assertion that it makes me wrong is, in essence, "Nobody is jumping in to defend you, therefore you're wrong." Bunk. Now, if you refer back to my original argument, there is ZERO context for the inclusion of a picture with a suppressor. There can be content, but added without that content, the picture is worthless and redundant. The content I suggested was... and I do quote myself from above, "Feel free to add context such as, "the threaded barrel on the P22 allows for simplified attachment of a suppressor."" But nobody did that. You acuse me of the same things you're doing. You're playing owner of this article. VT doesn't go here because YOU say it doesn't! I lost that one. Picture of the suppressor goes into the article without context... why? Because YOU SAY SO! PLEASE, add context or concede that it's there for eye candy. In the meantime, I'm REMOVING IT AGAIN as disputed content. Why? Because that's what you did to the point of nausea during the VT censorship fiasco and you felt justified in that instance. VT content belonged in the VT article then... so I was to assume you were for keeping suppressor content in the suppressor article, but you aren't? I can't reconcile those two things. Are you arguing just for argument's sake? --Asams10 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strawmen don't help your argument. Sorry. You have no policy based reason to remove this content. Remove it again, and you'll be blocked. You've been warned multiple times now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy-based reason? There is NO context in the article for this picture, and, Quite Frankly, you've given no reason to insert it in the article, that was ME who gave the reason. This whole thing is some rediculous reasoning you have for not either inserting context, heck, I GAVE YOU the context, or conceding it's eye candy and doesn't need to be in there. I've cited about half a dozen WP policies and you either ignore them or you refuse to accept them. That's a disagreement. You're going to ban me because... you disagree and you dislike me. You warn me, yes, you warn me not to mess with you. Who the heck is a strawman? As much as you've followed my editing history like a hawk, you can't seriously be accusing me of sock puppetry or strawmanship, can you? Get real. --Asams10 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture has plenty of context. It's a picture of a Walther P22, on the article Walther P22. You've cited a single guidelines, that specifically does not and cannot apply to article content. WP:NOTE cannot apply to article content, only article creation. I don't know where you're getting accusations of sockpuppetry from, since I've not accused you of that. The picture gives another view of the P22, and it increases the reader's understanding of the subject. That's a worthy reason to have a picture in there. It violates no policies to be included, and fits our general goal of having a more complete, free licensed encyclopedia. If you're not working towards that goal, you need to not work on the article anymore. "I don't like it" is not an acceptable reason for removing the picture.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like the picture, but for some reason you've said that about half a dozen times. Without the text (I'd remind you again, I suggested it only needed context) there is no point in having an IDENTICAL view as the lead photo. I cited WP:Note, however I mentioned several other items that you conveniently ignored. As for sock puppetry, you said, "Strawmen don't help your argument. Sorry." Then you went on to threaten me, again. WTF did you mean by this? A strawman is a person that stands in for another person to do their 'dirty work'. For instance, a SOCKPUPPET! You accused me of Strawmanship, please explain what you were talking about there. --Asams10 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester: I regret that I can't add significant context to this picture. I have considerable performance data now but it is all as-yet-unpublished personal research. My understanding of the guidelines is that such material is not allowed and in any case, it would conflict with exclusivicity expectations for a work in progress. I should have done some background reading on the Walther P22 Article before jumping in.--Mcumpston (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To all involved, would this work as a picture caption to satisfy all parties? "The threaded barrel of the P22 simplifies the attachment of certain accessories such as this GemTech suppressor". It would provide context, which seems to be Asams10's main concern, and it retains the picture. I have the edit ready to go, but would like to see if it is agreeable to all.--LWF (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's exactly what I should have put on the thing to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we haven't heard back from Asams10, but since the wording I am using is so close to the one he suggested, I'll go ahead and change the caption.--LWF (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks fine. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections. --Asams10 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, since all parties are satisfied, I see no reason for this to continue.--LWF (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre discussion archival

Due to the sheer size of this dispute, I'd like to archive it so that we can keep the discussion page to a fairly standard size. If anybody disagrees with this action, please voice your opinions here. If nobody disagrees, I'll go ahead with the archival in a couple of days. Gamer Junkie 08:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Yaf 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Maybe a synopsis like we did on the Glock debate. Eh? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the GLOCK debate? :) Yeah, except this time around wasn't quite so civil. In any case, it wouldn't be necessary anymore since the discussion has been shifted to a mediation article now. Anyway, I've been actively encouraged by the administration to archive this gig and free up some space, so I guess I'll do that now. Gamer Junkie 09:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's been archived. Wow... look at this page; Not a whole lotta talk before the whole VTech debacle, eh? Gamer Junkie 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken Links

Hmm, it seems that the 2 externals links on the bottom section of the page are broken... they are no longer valid and produce a 404 when clicked. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.231.30 (talk • contribs)

If only there were some way to edit the links... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Arthurrh 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech and the Revisionist, Nazi Book-Burning, Censorship that's going on

RFC?

Shouldn't we do an RFC and see what people think? This particular case seems tricky to me, and I find myself waffling on which direction it should go. I know one was done previously, but I didn't see a final count and a cursory examination shows a lot of opinions on both sides. I wonder if after more discussion there is a better consensus. Arthurrh 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree that it's tricky. Seems clear cut to my eyes. I'll quote myself... "eBay's policy revision is no reason. They banned all gun items. What if Cho used a Ruger MKII and got THOSE mags from eBay. Same outcome. Gun model is moot. No impact." Near as I can tell the only argument put forth for inclusion is eBay. I feel like I answered that argument. But as far as an RFC, those are always a good idea. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I currently find myself agreeing with your position Thernlund. But it is also true that Ebay banning all firearms related products is a pretty big step, so it is certainly notable. Nonetheless, I feel that this information belongs on the Ebay and VT pages, and not on the Walther page. Call it Notable, but not notable for this article. Arthurrh 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What Ebay did is notable in relation to VTech. That does not make it notable to this page. The type of gun is irrelevant, Ebay made their choice as a result of VTech. So this is warranted as a mention on the VTech page as a reaction. Exactly as Thernlund mentioned. I believe that VTech should be mentioned in the article, but that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with Ebay and their policy change. Alyeska 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I disagree with having this RfC. There is a policy in place at the WikiProject Firearms. I recommend changing or amending the policy there first. Otherwise you risk opening an exception which only complicates things if people start citing precedent in other individual changes. It's the same point I made 2 days after the VT shooting: this is a larger issue on what the criteria for inclusion are, not a minor exception to the rule here. The RfC should be where the policy is made, not where it is applied.--Dali-Llama 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about having an RFC. There is so far only one person who thinks that it should be included: Asams. Everyone else, including WikiProject Firearms, and common sense, agree that it should not be included. There's no reason for an RFC, and starting one is not just beating a dead horse, but is making a point for the sake of a point (Yes, I know that Asams did not open the RFC, and yes, I know that Arthurrh opening one is not disruptive. But considering he mentions above that he now agrees against inclusion, that makes the end result unnecessarily disruptive process). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was operating under the idea that comments are good in general. But I won't mind if one of you kills the RfC. I guess it's not NEEDED. No biggie. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jester, but I just want to be clear that I was not trying to discourage the concept of an RfC on this matter--rather that I feel this should be a policy RfC (probably at the Firearms project) and not an RfC for this particular article.--Dali-Llama 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Request for comments: VT massacre inclusion

While it's been said that we've been through this before, we have and the concensus was NOT reached. It was hotly debated and, in the end, people other than me decided that they were going to censor this article and prevent anybody who read it from realizing the fact that the Walther P22 was used in the VT shooting. Now then, the reasoning behind it was that since the shooting did not result in any action relating to the P22 -- legislation, etc -- then it didn't deserve mention. So, the largest internet auction site in the world BANS the sale of hundreds of thousands of items through its web site and that doesn't reach the level of notability? It seems the objections are coming from that don't want the VT massacre to be linked in any way shape or form to a firearm. Look, we all know that the crazy dude killed those people. We also know that the root cause was the failure of the legislative branches of the state (lobbied by the ACLU) to allow medical records pertinant to this nutball to be released to the FBI. It was an overzealous desire to protect the murderer's privacy that killed those people, not the gun. Gun lobby, get over it. 'Civil Rights' activits, get over it. Anti-gun zealouts, get over it. It's fact, it's notable, and it should be in there.--Asams10 09:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that consensus was not reached, but I also didn't complain much because it was suffering from recentism. I pressed for a wide-ranging argument about what events merit inclusion, and I was glad to see that that discussion occurred later in the Firearms project. I would have no problem in including the VT mention if I believed the article met the criteria set forth in the project page. In this case, there was no legislation passed specifically because of this gun, and the gun itself did not become infamous. Therefore, I do not believe it warrants inclusion. It is eBay's internal policies, and therefore should be included in the eBay article and certainly in the VT shooting page, but not on the firearm page--especially since the ban was on all items regardless of any particular firearm (IE: they didn't ban just P22 magazines and it is safe to say that if he had used any other weapon with magazines purchased from eBay, the result would have been the same). In this case, the particular choice of weapon did not affect eBay's decision, and the fact that the P22 was involved in eBay's decision is incidental. And this isn't some conspiracy--I have no personal beef in this fight (I'm not an NRA member or an ACLU member, but I know Jester actually owns a P22, for example), though I'm amused that we reached Godwin's Law on the first post (even better--the title of the first post!).--Dali-Llama 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams, that kind of post is not helpful. Fact is no consensus means do not include. That's just how it is. We have an article on Ebay that this would definitely be worth inclusion on. We could even include it on magazine. However, Ebay's policies in response to the VT massacre have absolutely nothing to do with the P22 or the Glock 19, and we established this (by consensus against inclusion in the glock 19 article, and by lack of consensus to include in this one.)

Asams, what you are saying is, "I think that everyone was evil and censoring us the first time, and I don't like it so it's ok to include it." God forbid everyone else is right and you are wrong. Ebay bans stuff all the time. Kidney, Liver, Baby.....all things that ebay has banned at one point or another, but they aren't in the article: because they are not notable. As noted above, ebay did not specifically ban P22 mags, they banned ALL mags. You need to relax, and stop attempting to subvert the consensus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not think that the mention belongs. I wrote it up the way it currently reads now just because I didn't want to get into an edit war over it. Against Asams I feel that it would have likely gone that way. So I laid down. That said, if I at some point ever get the feeling that there won't be a war over it, I'll chop out that section myself. It does not belong any more than Lizzy Borden belongs in the Axe article. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I will jump in here, from the trenches as it were. I'm a nobody on Wikipedia, not an editor, not a power user, and I don't even reference the pages that much. I just happen to have contributed a good deal of the technical write up for the P22 in this article, so I pop by here from time-to-time to see what's been added, etc. To my view, the eBay based "justification" for adding the criminal mis-use of this pistol the listing of the pistol, itself, is pretty thin. Consider: There is nothing particular about this pistol that especially facilitated the criminal activity. That is to say, there is nothing you can identify about the P22 itself that would not also be true for the generic "pistol" that resulted in its being chosen and utilized by the criminal here. I do not doubt that there COULD be situations where that was not true. For example, the P22' "quick change" barrel system (except in California) uses a threaded barrel cap, and people have manufactured thread adapters that permit that feature to be exploited by addition of a silence (whether papered and legal or not). If a P22 had been criminally misused with a silencer, say for a "hit" where the ease of adding a silencer was something key to the criminal episode, that would have significance. But the P22 is 10 shot (i.e., not particularly high capacity) handgun using the smallest caliber readily commercially available ammo, and not generally regarded as anything especially high end or low end so far as pistols go. The eBay linkage is interesting only from an eBay perspective (and certainly should get some play on the eBay page). But so far as I can tell, getting magazines for a P22 on eBay was just happenstance, it appears, or at most has something particularly to do with eBay but, again, not with the pistol those magazines fit. After all, the kid could just as easily have purchased the magazines at the gun store, or from 1 or 2 hundred other internet retailers. The fact of the magazine purchase from eBay, in other words, was not a precipitating event as part of the criminal episode. (As an aside, a contrary example, if I must supply one, would be a situation where, for example, someone purchases something from eBay that is not readily available in the commercial channel, from someone utilizing eBay specifically for purposes of letting folks byy the nefarious odds and ends from the comfort of their home or whatever. So, you know, look at sellers peddling pure iodine crystals and making a pretty good business at it. Probably some significant portion of that business, whether the sellers know it or not, is the criminal mis-use of iodine making methamphetamine. Likewise, I recall reading that eBay has already significantly regulated the sale of strong oxidizing salts -- i.e., anything stronger than potassium nitrate -- as the Consumer Product Safety Board had announced the oxidizers they were being misused to make illegal fireworks. Those two examples, however, are also illuminating to the discussion here here because although eBay has restricted sellers from peddling chemicals that have the potential for criminal misuse, the Wikipedia entries for iodine or potassium perchlorate do not have "history" sections detailing specific crimes using illegal flash-powder or meth (including some of the notorious episodes of meth-lab criminality, such as within day care centers or churches, for example). Instead, the Wiki articles properly limit their discussion to the fact there is something particular about the compounds in question that gives rise to potential criminal mis-use (just as the P22 article notes the threaded barrel caused some friction in the State of California). Again, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, there's nothing about the P22 that makes or made it especially prone to the type of criminal misuse that occurred at VA Tech, or would make it especially desirable for someone, like Cho, planning a rampage. The P22 is not a $50 "Saturday night special" that got the deviant over the price-barrier-to-entry (the P22 is reasonably priced, to be sure, but its not a low-cost guh. Also: Its not a 50-round "high capacity" "assault pistol," its not readily convertible to "full auto" and it certainly does not use a caliber/cartridge especially known for lethality, quite the opposite in fact, would have to be said of the .22 rimfire round. (I'll note here, by the way, that no one is clambering for inclusion of Cho's evil deeds in the 9mm luger or .22 long rifle articles). Back to the current situation, I guess my point for non-inclusion in the article about the P22 itself is that there is nothing to suggest that the P22 was a "but-for" element of the VA Tech incident. I.e., that anything about the P22 was such that, had Cho not had access to a P22, or to magazines for it from eBay in particular, the criminal event would not have occurred. Instead, the choice of weapon was of no moment, and it is best narrated within the VA Tech article itself. And, feel free to include it in the eBay article. Finally, a note about the slippery slope a contrary decision would suggest. Cho used a specific brand and model of computer to make his hate-filled suicide videos; he used a particular brand and design of chain to lock the doors of the building shut and trap his victims inside; and he wore clothing and used carrying accessories offered by certain labels and designers during the criminal episode. (I would submit that the size of his backpack tote had even a more instrumental role in the carnage at VA Tech that the P22, by facilitating the large supply of back up magazines, for example). And, of course, he used the United States Postal Service to mail his message of hate. But none of these items (computers, steel chain, clothing, backpacks, or the postal service) have "history" write-ups of Cho's criminal mis-use of their product or service included in them. I'll conclude by saying that, frankly, the initial post of this discussion, above, shows enough hyper-emotional investment by its author that he should not be the one to willy-nilly decide what goes in the article or not. Any reasonable observer can see he clearly has an agenda and the agenda is not NPOV, it seems to me.--216.17.139.240 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I fell asleep halfway through. I'm going to forgoe reading it cuz it's too darned long. I'm out.--Asams10 07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams, you should well know that I was one of the ones who wanted the entry on the page. Your justification is incredibly weak. Worse, your language is not designed to convince people. Remember, you want convince people who don't agree with you. Name calling is the worst way to get these people to agree. You might want to rethink your approach here. Alyeska 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I wasn't trying to get people to agree. I was making the mistake of trying to make a point... and that's against Wikipedia rules... and I was wrong to do it. But I still believe this has a place in the article. Too bad the Wikipedia Cabal doesn't want it here. I'm whipped.--Asams10 03:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams, it's not that Wikipedia is against trying to make a point, but it's one of those things where you can either try to change the policy or fight an uphill battle here. Like I said, I think this is a perfectly valid (and indeed valuable) discussion to have. I also have to echo Alyeska in saying that your tone certainly didn't help the situation. In the end, I still have to give you props for proving Godwin's Law on the title alone. That takes guts. =)--Dali-Llama 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not a very good way to make a point. You are trying to effect change. To do this you need to convince people who currently disagree with you. Openly insulting the people whom disagree with you is more likely to make them defensive and less likely to agree with your commentary. This makes your entire attempt counter productive. Level headed discussion such as this is the best way to get people thinking. Alyeska 05:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, really, I was trying to make a point. Not meaning to be a downer, but it's highly UNLIKELY that any of the current crowd watching this article would EVER let the VT massacre be mentioned in this article, no matter how much the notability were. If a Walther P22 held by George Bush were use to execute Osama Bin Laden in a TV ad paid for by Walther, these folks would still say it was not relevant. They would just raise the bar for what they 'felt' was relevant as they are now doing in this case. "Well, that's not what we MEANT!!!" Assuming I was trying to persuade is probably not very productive as, again, I've given up trying to put relavant facts in this article... it's been hijacked by the VT massacre denial crowd.--Asams10 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think G-Dub wacking Osama with it might be notable (depending on WHY he chose it). But I'd ESPECIALLY agree to the entry if Walther sponsored it. That's sort of a special case. But Cho? Just a loony with a gun. Hardly matters what gun. And I think I might be offended by the "denial" implication. I'm being objective. You are not. Fact is, there was no significant (if any at all?) backlash due to the fact it was a Walther P22. eBay's policy revision is no reason. They banned all gun items. What if Cho used a Ruger MKII and got THOSE mags from eBay. Same outcome. Gun model is moot. No impact. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you missed the part where incidents like VTech have caused the Wiki gun project to create a series of rules to apply towards mentioning notability of a firearm. This is why certain rifles and guns get notability mentions while others do not. This article doesn't meet the notability requirements while others do. So again, you are trying to make a point in the worst way possible. Alyeska 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I did get that part. Maybe you didn't know this, but the eBay actions are NEW and it's my position that they do meet the bar for inclusion. It might have gotten lost in the zeal to persecute me... but it's still my contention.--Asams10 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebay is not a government agency. Whats more, what Ebay did was not specific to this weapon. You still fail the qualifications. And there is no zeal to persecute you. Why on earth would I want to persecute you? I think the current rules for notability are wrong, but am willing to follow them to maintain consensus. You are trying to prove a point I agree with. I just disagree with your methods. Alyeska 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after the Virginia Tech Massacre, there was a big debate on this page about whether to include mention of the massacre at this article. You can read about it in this article's discussion page archive. The debate boiled down to these opposing viewpoint:

• 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?
• The gun itself had nothing to do with the VT Massacre -- it just happened to be the tool the shooter used. Therefore, the gun shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

I, personally, thought that the Walther deserved mentioning here because it was used in the deadlist shooting in United States history, but I was convinced by argument not to include it. These arguments, led by Yaf (whom I respect very much) said that it should be mentioned only if some kind of gun legislation or other change results from the VT massacre. Yaf wrote, "The Columbine Massacre 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... 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." What did receive media attention is that the VT shooter purchased ammunition for is P22 from eBay, and as a result, eBay stopped selling ammunition. By Yaf's criteria, and the criteria agreed to in the conensus on the Talk archive page, eBay's banning of ammo sales belongs in this article because it occurrec as a direct result of the use of the P22 in the VT Tech massacre. This compromise was reached earlier, and I think we should abide by it.

By the way, to equate this with "Revisionist, Nazi Book-Burning, Censorship that's going on," as the person who titled this section suggests, is just shrill nonsense. Let's keep this debate at a civilized level. Griot 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the shooter did not purchase ammunition from ebay. He purchased magazines. Mike Searson 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Also posted to my talk page in response to Griot.

Magazines for the P22 were purchased. Not ammo. But I digress. Did you actually read what Yaf said?

"The Columbine Massacre 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... 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."

The Walther P22 has not received any considerable media attention. The P22 naturally got a few mentions just as a matter of course. But the main media focus was on the fact the Cho bought mags from eBay. I never saw any media outlet ramble on about the P22 and how THIS WEAPON was special, or how THIS WEAPON facilitated Cho. As well, eBay's press release announcing the firearms ban didn't make mention of the P22 by name. In fact, didn't make mention of a firearm at all in relation to VT. Not even a specific firearm part!! Just "...some items purchased on eBay...".

I read the whole discussion. It was split. No concensus. For a concensus you need to (sort of) have a majority feeling one way or the other. There was none.

What exactly is the malfunction here? Virgina Tech is not notable for this model of gun. It's not special. It's just another gun. If this was a Ruger MK II or a Browning buckmark you'd all be thumping your chests over those articles. Model is not special. If it really is, then maybe some other things are special too. Maybe VT and Cho need to be mentioned in .22 Long Rifle, Magazine (firearms), 9mm Luger Parabellum, Hollow-point bullet, Virginia, South Korea, ect. You better get to work. Hmph. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Thernlund. And a note on reversions--this is clearly a topic being actively discussed. The long-standing "edit" (right or wrong), was with no inclusion. While we all know that there's no clear-cut policy on this, I'm hoping we can err on the side of not including until all parties have either successfully reached a consensus or at least acknowledged that it will not be reached. --Dali-Llama 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Griot you are so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

Fact: There was never a consensus to include it in the article. This has not changed. This was the original "lack of consensus" that you and Yaf were involved in that split right down the middle.

Fact: There is a consensus that the Ebay information should NOT be included. This is the current consensus on the article.

Fact: It was magazines, not ammo, purchased from ebay. See above.

Fact: The consensus has not changed at all since then See above.

You cannot simply make broad negative changes like this, and claim the consensus backs you up, when part of your edit is explicitly against the consensus (ebay), and part of your edit never had a consensus to begin with though it was leaning to consensus against, and defaulted to "exclude" (the VT shooting). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of eBay is not "negative" or "broad." Griot 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

These articles all mention the Walther P22, eBay, and the VT massacre by name:

1. Ammo Clips from eBay? Officials Probe Killer's Account, ABC News
2. Va. Tech shooter bought ammo clips on eBay, MSNBC
3. Internet key in probe of Va. Tech gunman, USA Today
4. Cho bought empty ammo clips on eBay, Denver Post
5. Killer may have bought on eBay, Boston Globe
6. Virginia Tech Gunman Purchased Magazines on eBay, Fox News
7. Va. Tech gunman used eBay account used to buy ammo clips, NC Times
8. Investigators Probe Va. Tech Killer's eBay Account, CBS News
9. Va. Tech killer's online activity linked to tragedy, Cleveland Plain Dealer
10. Virginia Gunman Bought Ammunition on eBay, Huffington Post

Obviously, eBay was alarmed enough about this to change its selling policies, and the P22 played a role in that. It did receive considerable media attention. MSNBC, Fox, etc. -- these are major media. I think including eBay in this article meets Yaf's criteria. Griot 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good lord man! Look at the byline! All but the first two are the SAME AP STORY! Pfff. As well, NONE OF THEM focus on the P22. They all center around eBay purchases with a casual mention of P22 magazines. So I suppose we should add every press mention of every brand-name item ever to all articles now? Just knock it off. This is so fantasically ridiculous. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord man yourself! The point is, all these major news sources went with the story. Did you expect each one to send a reporter around to eBay headquarters to follow up? A glance at any newspaper in America tells you it isn't done that way. eBay's not selling ammunition -- done because the magazines were purchased online for the P22 -- was a big story. Griot 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wha? eBay hasn't sold ammo for near 10 years. eBay tighened their policy because someone bought mags for A gun. eBay never even said anything about this gun. Also, right-o you are about reporters. Smaller news outlets pick up stories from Reuters and AP. They do so to get eyeballs on their websites and papers which raises the price of ad space. But I'm saying that you pointed to the same story 8 times as proof of widespread mention. All it was was proof of widespread use of Associated Press.

Answer all of these questions:

• How is the P22 significant?
• Why specifically not a Ruger MKII or MKIII (they're cheaper and more accurate)?
• If VT or Cho should be mentioned here, why not in any of these: .22 Long Rifle, Magazine (firearms), 9mm Luger Parabellum, Hollow-point bullet, Virginia, South Korea. What's the difference in each case?

—Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Straw poll

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

Support Inclusion

• Griot 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• --Asams10 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Inclusion

• Dali-Llama 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thernlund 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Mike Searson
• Arthurrh 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Georgewilliamherbert 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Swatjester 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

---

Discussion continued

Griot, in response to your points above, I think Thernlund and Jester had previously made good points, which have not been responded to by you yet (I'm not so sure Asams even tried). Let me try to sinthesize them:

• The shooter acquired magazines and (maybe) ammunition on eBay. In the case of the ammunition, that is a generic product which can be bought in a number of places, for different firearms. In the case of the magazine, that is not a particular feature of this weapon (many firearms have magazines), and the fact that the magazine bought on eBay was for the P22 was incidental--IE, the particular model of firearm the magazines was used for was not the deciding factor, the the overarching fact that it was used in a firearm.

• eBay's decision was to ban all firearm components and accessories, not just for the the P22, again making the model of firearm used incidental. If they had banned just the P22 and its components, it would absolutely make sense to include it here.

• (This is more my point) The media response to the eBay purchases were to the fact they were purchased online--not that this particular firearm's accessories/ammunition were available from eBay. After the incident, people weren't asking "Why on earth is eBay selling accessories for the P22?"--they were asking "Why on earth is eBay selling accessories for any firearm?" So when you say that the "P22 played a role in that", it seems to me clear that the role it played was incidental, and could have been played by any other firearm.

--Dali-Llama 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget this one (to quote myself, a second time)... "What if Cho used a Ruger MKII and got THOSE mags from eBay. Same outcome. Gun model is moot. No impact." —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. You did mention model. My bad. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

None of those articles state the killer bought ammunition on ebay (although the headlines may lead an uninformed reader to believe so). As a matter of fact, ammunition has not been allowed on ebay for many years, at the very least since 1999. Standard capacity magazines banned in California for holding more than 10 rounds were not allowed to be sold on ebay when california passed it's ridiculous and illegal so-called assault weapon ban in 1999. Mike Searson 20:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

They did mention it here, however, but not the Walther: http://www2.ebay.com/aw/core/200707301000452.html eBay --Mike Searson 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I knew what you meant :), but that policy is old and in 1997-1998 you could buy firearms on Ebay, as they got more "corporate" they tailored their guidelines to follow california state law. I hope someone feels safer keeping all those Thompson/Center Contender barrels out of the hands of middle-aged Sillhouette shooters. Mike Searson 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I just want to mention to the participants of this debate that I've requested the protection of the page, and Reedy Boy granted it. In a matter of four hours we had 5 different users reverting back and forth. That gives us 72 hours to try to resolve the matter without worrying about the status quo of the page.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, uh, you had the page protected after you got the section in question removed. Hmmmm.--Asams10 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right to you? It's disputed content. For good or bad, it gets disappeared until a resolution is formulated. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I filed a RFPP as well, since I obviously would not have been ok to protect the page myself. Simply put there is a consensus against including the Ebay link. Only asams and griot want it. Nobody else thinks it is proper. It simply does not belong. The consensus regarding the including of the virginia tech articles did not change; there is still no consensus for it to be included. There was a failed attempt from Asams to change the consensus on the talk page, but no attempt from Griot. So what could possibly make you guys think that it has changed to allow the inclusion now?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, no concensus was reached. Who wrote the 'concensus' wrote it thinking nothing else would happen. It DID happen and now it's suddenly up for debate. You're trying to use the old debate as fodder for this one and it isn't... none of that should matter as a significant change has occurred.--Asams10 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only change, if any, is that MORE people agree that it shouldn't be included. What happened has nothing to do with the Walther P22. That is blindingly, obviously clear to anyone with an open mind. What happened was a result of Ebay limiting their liability in result of the Virginia Tech shooting. If it was a M1911, or an AR15 that he had bought magazines for on ebay, they would have banned magazine sales just the same. That means that the P22 is IRRELEVANT TO EBAY'S ACTIONS. As I've said multiple times over, this is worthy of inclusion on the Magazine (firearms) article, and on the Virginia Tech massacre article, and obviously on the Ebay article. But not on the Walther P22. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

An Outside View

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

Fundamentally true, although I will point out that the proper terminology is magazine, not clip.--LWF 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Magazine not clip. Got it.  :) Just out of curiosity and not to be a smart-ass . . . what's the difference? Is clip ever appropriate. Not a gun ethusiast, Into The Fray ^T/C 04:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See Magazine (firearms), and Clip (ammunition) for an explanation.--LWF 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As the most commonly used example for this, the Mannlicher Carcano (sic?) rifle used in the Kennedy murder, is the single biggest source of notability of the rifle, and specifically the fact that it was the "poster child" for mail-order rifle sales. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been uninvolved, and I just wanted to say that as I see it, the gun should certainly be mentioned in the VT massacre article. The reverse, however, seems inappropriate. Why not put something in Nike shoes or Fruit of the Loom about what shoes or underpants he wore? (I realize a gun is an element of the crime, whereas underpants are not, but the fact remains that this information is pertinent to that article, not this one.) --Cheeser1 04:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

+3 Mag Follower

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

Sorry, here's a link to what I'm talking about: [1] --Mijunkin (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the SP22

Should the SP22[2] be included in this article seeing as it is based heavily on the P22 or does it warrant it's own article?
Mullhawk (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you assuming the SP22 is based heavily on the P22 or do you have a reference? It's quite a different gun from what I've seen. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just what I've seen at the local gun shop. From what i understand it's old wine in a new bottle with a match barrel. But seeing as there's still a small amount information available on the Walther SP22 we're going to have to wait for more information before any action can be taken...or not taken
Mullhawk (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is nearly actually no information on the SP22 article other than that it exists, is a semiauto pistol by Walther, and that's it, it's ripe for being merged into this article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a P-22, my roomate has an SP-22, and they are two different firearms. There are significant differences mechanically.173.67.242.229 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kauhajoki massacre

This weapons was used in the Kauhajoki massacre. There is no mention of this in the article and in the SIG Mosquito article omission of the Jokela massacre was explained as there being no law changes due to usage of the weapon in a massacre. As a result of the Kauhajoki and Jokela massacres, the Police Department of the Ministry of Interior of Finland has issued an order (SMDno/2008/1009, dated Sep 29th 2008) to all police departments in Finland instructing them to grant licenses to SIG Mosquito, Walther P22 and similar .22LR pistols made to resemble service calibre weapons, only with special consideration. In Finnish:

Viranomaiskäyttöön tarkoitettujen ampuma-aseiden pienoispistooli-kaliiperisten versioiden ei tulisi katsoa soveltuvan hyvin ampumaurheiluun.

Translation: "Small calibre pistol versions of such firearms, that are intended for use by the authorities, should not be considered to be well suitable for sport shooting." Soveltuu hyvin or is well suitable for the purpose of is the technical requirement for all licensed firearms per section 44 of the Finnish Firearms Act. So in other words this order (whether actually legal to give or not) had the effect of almost outright banning the licensing of Walther P22 Target to new purchasers. Consequently gun shops are selling them at a significant discount to persons who managed to secure their license to purchase before this order from the Ministry of Interior. --85.156.227.17 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the information you have given is accurate, then there is a case for covering the Kauhajoki massacre. The reason why it wasn't covered before was that we had yet to see any effects such as those given as criteria in WP:GUNS#Criminal use, but we now see that there has been an effect as a result of the shooting.--LWF (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh

This link now just goes to the home page: [3]. I found an entry under "Land Warfare/Small Arms/Handguns" for the Walther P22: [4]. However it isn't clear to me that this indicates it's actually part of the Bangladesh military's arsenal. Also, I see there was some question about whether the website is even a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#bdmilitary.com. Rezin (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Operation

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

Notability

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

• @Rezin: The weapon was one used in the Virginia Tech shooting - it meets notability in terms of regulation of .22 firearms (.22 is a calibre usually given lighter regulation in Europe as rimfire weapons are sometimes in different classes and easier to acquire). -- Callinus (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Regardless of any criminal use, the P22 is mentioned in many books. It's plenty notable. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

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