Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01 Walther P22

Who are the involved parties?
About 15 different people. See Talk page at the article.

What's going on?
Recently, the Virginia Tech massacre was in the news. The shooter in Virginia used two guns, according to police, a Walther P22 and a Glock 19. Some editors wanted to place a link on the Walther P22 and the Glock 19 article to the Virginia Tech massacre article; other editors disagreed, believing that such a link is superfulous and contrary to their notion of what an encyclopedia is.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like disinterested third parties to take this under consideration. The discussion (which has been pretty civil) has not been able to resolve this question. Thank you in advance for looking into this.

Mediator response

 * In reference to both the Walther P22 and Glock 19
 * Preliminary Response:

This seems like a clear example of the ongoing battle of WP:CONTEXT vs. WP:BTW. On one hand the desire to create a dichotomy of interconnected articles makes Wikipedia all the better, but the context in which these links are placed is a crucial for the logical and efficient layout of Wikipedia articles. There are obvious arguments for both sides of this particular discussion: The VT killer used these weapons to commit his crimes, so it might seem logical that these weapons include links to the killer from these pages; on the other hand guns are made to intimidate/hurt/kill, and hundreds of people have undoubtedly been shot and killed using these weapons, surely linking to all of those related to these crimes would be an impossible task. That being said, I tried to find some precedent to help in the mediation and I found two great examples: That said, I think it is highly impractical to include links to (even infamous) gun users on the specific gun's article page, and I think the Texas shooter example provides a good precedent. But again, this is an unofficial mediation, and my recommendations are simply that- recommendations. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center were carried out in Boeing 767s. Both the Boeing article and the 9/11 article interlink. This is a great example of when a "weapon's" article should link to a specific incident in which it was employed. However, obviously airplanes are not intended to be used as weapons, so there are very few specific incidents in which it has happened and it is easy to list all/most of these events (as they are almost without a doubt notable events). See also Nail bomb, Mail bomb (again, rather rare occurrences).
 * In the case of the Texas Tower Shootings, in which the shooter used an M1 carbine and a Remington 700 to snipe victims from the school's tower, there are no links to the shooter in the rifles' articles. There are relevant links to the weapons in the shooter's article however.

'''Do NOT consider this case-closed... I have asked other mediators to voice their opinion as well.'''


 * Please, let me reiterate, the basic question that we're trying to answer here is:
 * Will this link help readers to understand the current article (the guns) more fully?
 * There are two things to consider when answering this question:
 * Is there any benefit to a reader of the gun's article in including an infamous description (however brief) of the gun's use in a crime?
 * If yes, then:
 * Does information on a crime with the gun's use provide a valid background on the actual gun used?

I would like to hear some responses from both sides. Please answer in the space provided - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Respond to Questions Here

 * There are in fact three possibilities here:
 * Mention Virginia Tech in the text of the article. This was one of the sides in the original revert war; and it had been somewhat clumsily stuck in the text of the article. There are parallels for this; for a chief example, Carcano mentions Lee Harvey Oswald not merely in text, but in the lead.
 * Mention as a See Also. I am somewhat attached to this compromise, since I suggested it; but it satisfies the general condition that if Article A links to Article B, readers of Article B may well be interested in Article A. See also sections are for links that have no natural context in the article, but may still be interesting to the reader.
 * Omit entirely. I see no arguments for this, except a claim (unsupported by any guideline) that the article must be only a list of technical specifications; WP:POINTing about the Port Arthur massacre, as here; ahnd the claim that any inclusion would be implicitly a gun-control argument - made repeatedly in the top section of the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Carcano article is disputed as well and currently mentions the Kennedy shooting as a See Also link to Oswald's rifle's own article at John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. K1ng l0v3 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A change done by King10v3 today. It seems to have been quite stable before that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I removed the mention entirely.  The current inclusion is a proposed compromise. K1ng l0v3 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My response to the question "Will this link help readers to understand the current article (the guns) more fully?"
 * No. To come to this conclusion, I ask myself these things...
 * Does mention of Lizzy Borden in the Axe article help me understand the axe better. It does not.
 * Does mention of James Bond in the Walther PPK article help me understand the Walther PPK better? It does in the context of history.  Bond made the gun famous.
 * Did Cho make the Walther P22 famous? No.  He might have used any hand gun for his crime.  Just so happens he had this one available to him.  A Ruger MK II would have been just as effective.
 * What, to me, would be the criteria that would push me to the inculsion camp? If Cho had used the weapon in such a way as to explot a special or unique feature of the weapon, I might be convinced.  But he didn't do this.  He got a gun and pulled the trigger.  Didn't seem to matter to him what kind of gun it was.
 * If I were in the inclusion camp, what would I expect to see in the gun article? I would expect to see something to the effect that he used this gun BECAUSE...  But there is no because.  Again, he got a gun and pulled the trigger.  He didn't seem to care what gun it was, only that it fired bullets.
 * Finally, if I were talking about the VT shootings with a group of people, would the mention of the brand of gun(s) Cho used be absolutely crucial to discussing him or Virginia Tech? No.  It wouldn't.  I doubt it would even come up as to what his choice in firearms was.


 * I do not think any mention of Cho or VT should be included in any gun article. Articles on Cho and VT might be well served to include metion of the guns though.  —Thernlund (Talk 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cho managed to fire 170 rounds atan average of one every three seconds, while chasing fleeing victims; that would have been much harder with guns with smaller loads, without magazines, or with any appreciable tendency to misfire; he therefore used three features characteristic of this weapon, and of the Glock (although not, of course, unique to them). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? I did say unique.  Characteristic is irrelevant.  Such features are characteristic of so many firearms that it becomes a totally insignificant fact.  Nearly every semi-automatic pistol ever made has a mag that holds 10 or more rounds.  Come to think of it, less than 10 rounds in a semi-auto pistol is the exception rather than the rule.  The only one I can think of right off with less than 10 is a single stack 1911 in .45 (7 to 8 rounds).  And one round every three seconds???  Pffff.  My daughter could probably average that with a five round revolver over a period of a few minutes.  I mean really, say BANG!, count to three, and say BANG! again.  Not too fast.  You're obviously not a gun person.  Maybe if they were shooting back it would have further hindered his already slow rate of fire, but they weren't (unfortunately).    —Thernlund (Talk 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my first merit badge was in Rifle. You mistake my point: at some time in that nine minutes, he presumably had no targets; therefore his rate of fire at a target would have been even faster than 1 shot/3 secs. You also said 'special or unique'; I decline to argue the difference between "special" and "characteristic". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Mediation

 * However, numerous articles about guns DO link to shootings. For example, see Intratec TEC-DC9, which links to Columbine High School massacre; and Browning Hi-Power, which links to San Ysidro McDonald's massacre. There are many other examples. Remember: We're talking about the biggest mass shooting in American history, which, I think, deserves a mention in the article about the gun used. Astruc 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The Hi-power article clearly should not link to the San Ysidro incident, that goes against WP:CONTEXT, while the TEC-9 article arguably should include its use in crime because the firearm is famous for its controversy. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The premise here seems to be that these gun articles should confine themselves to narrow discussions of the guns' technical qualities, history of production, and so on. We should be discussing this premise. Why confine these articles to such a narrow purlieu? The object of an encyclopedia is to provide information. I'm not suggesting that every murder conducted with a Walther P22 should be listed in the article, but the Virginia Tech massacre was extraordinary (let's hope it remains extraordinary and doesn't get eclipsed by another massacre or become one of many massacres). Given the extraordinary nature of the massacre, shouldn't it be listed in the Walther P22 article? The article about the gun that killed President Kennedy gets a mention of the Kennedy assasination not because there was something special about the gun or because the gun was regulated or outlawed after the assassination; it gets mentioned because the Kennedy assassination was an extraordinary historical event. The Virginia Tech massacre was an extraordinary event, too. Griot 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The high profile criminal use of the Tec-9 resulted in it, and many other assault weapons being banned, even though they are used in a tiny, tiny fraction of homicides, so there is a bi-directional relation in that case--the shooting also resulted in a strong crackdown on straw purchases, which is how the firearms were (illegally) obtained. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, Oswald used a military surplus rifle purchased through the mail; purchase of firearms through the mail was banned by the GCA of 1968, again, a causal relationship of the crime impacting the firearms industry, and thus the firearm.   scot 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you are asking us to explain why an article about Subject X should confine itself to Subject X? K1ng l0v3 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on King, let's not get testy. Read my argument, which is about the scope of these gun articles. It's too narrow, I believe. Can you address that? Griot 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Griot, I was just pulling your leg. Sarcasm doesn't translate so well into print, I meant no offence. As to your point about the scope of the article, here is what WP:CONTEXT has to say: In general, do create links to:

There is nothing about the use of an individual firearm in a crime that will help readers to understand the article on a type of firearm more fully. There is nothing about an article on a crime that adds more information to an article on an entire model or class of firearm. If the use of the individual firearm is central enough to the crime then perhaps the INDIVIDUAL FIREARM should have its own article (see John F. Kennedy assassination rifle.) Remember, a firearms article covers an entire class or model of weapon. With production running into the thousands and in some cases millions of pieces; we can not and should not be trying to insert information applicable only to one specific, individual firearm into an article covering such a broad topic. K1ng l0v3 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
 * References to a page with more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series." Linking items in a list of examples makes them easier to reference as well.


 * Some observations from a previously uninvolved editor: I think it's self-evident and beyond contention that a page on a gun shouldn't confine itself exclusively to that gun's technical and legal specifications. The article is an encyclopedia entry, not a manual; cultural and historical context can and should be included when significant. AK-47 rightly notes, for example, that particular weapon's wide-ranging historical influence and its presence in Hollywood movies. The question is whether this contextual information is actually sufficiently significant to warrant a mention in the article. I'm currently leaning towards inclusion; keep in mind that my personal inclination in most situations to lean toward inclusion of information absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. Certainly the VTech incident is of an order of magnitude greater than most gun-related incidents. However, I do think there is a valid point to be made that the use of these two particular weapons in the VTech shootings does not actually reveal any particular information about the models in the same way that the AK47's use in Hollywood movies reveals something about that particular weapon's ubiquity and reputation - there's no evidence that there was anything specifically remarkable about the Walther P22 that led to its use in this case. Interesting question. W/r/t some of the discussion below; I'd also like to point out that bringing a situation like this to the attention of the broader community is a perfectly valid step for article editors who can't get consensus support for their edits at article talk pages; there are obvious selection biases at work for discussions held at talk pages. Of course it may very well be that the consensus established at the talk page is in fact, a perfect sample of the consensus of the Wikipedia community, but if that is the case then expanding the discussion will merely reveal and affirm this. A consensus that evaporates when the venue of a discussion is expanded isn't representative consensus at all. Orphic 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
This should probably be merged with the Glock 19 case rather than treating them separately. Georgewilliamherbert 01:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This situation has been resolved for both the Glock 19 and the Walther P22 articles by community decision. A mediation request is simply an "end around" by editors to make a WP:POINT. I should mention also that Griot is one of the most vocal advocates for inclusion, yet the majority of the community is against inclusion, and the result of the community's review was that there was no consensus for inclusion of the reference: thus it defaults back to the pre-inclusion state. Griot is against this, and is using the Mediation Cabal to try and dodge consensus. He's done the same thing with the Glock 19 case, where there were 15 editors against inclusion, and 6 for inclusion, that is almost a 3:1 ratio, which is CLEAR consensus. Yet he's trying to pull an "end around" to dodge it. That is the definition of tendentious and disruptive editing, and is a WP:POINT violation. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, this was not resolved for either the Glock 19 or Walther P22 articles. And this mediation request was made in good faith, not as an "end around." Moreover, there are many besides me in favor of inclusion. Let's leave this to a mediator, shall we, and not use this space to attack others. Griot 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The minority should not be ignored simply because there are less of them. Although certain dictionaries may disagree, my view of "consensus" is one in which all parties leave happy, or at least with the feeling that their points have been heard. That said, my opinion seems to fall in line with the majority. I just want to make sure it remains a civil majority. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm attacking nobody. I'm stating my viewpoint, as I interpret the facts. That's what mediation's do. The minority are not being ignored: we're all acknowleding there is NO consensus on the Walther P22 page. Thing is, when there is no consensus, the correct action is to default back to the original state: in an AFD, that defaults to "leave the article the way it was before nomination, i.e. keep"; in DRV it is "leave the article the way it was before the DRV, i.e. deleted". In an RFA that defaults to "leave the permissions the way they were before the RFA, i.e. not promoted". In this article that defaults to "leave the article the way it was before the virginia tech shootings, i.e. excluded". &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me further clarify, as I did on Griot's talk page, that referring to it as an End Around is a comment on how mediation works compared to consensus, not on Griot's intentions. I'm sure his intentions are good. That's what good faith is for. However, consensus is supposed to be final, superceded only by the 5 pillars. It is not intended to be bypassed by mediations. That is what I mean by an endaround. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus; if there were, there would have been no request for mediation. Furthermore, I deeply resent this attempt by a participant in the discussion to claim resolution when there isn't one.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. An objection does not overrule consensus. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  04:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could this case be closed now? Addhoc 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose it can be closed, since no one is commenting anymore. As the person who opened this "case," I would like to thank all who gave their opinions here. I would also like to say that I am disappointed that more disinterested parties didn't comment. Most of the commenters here came from discussions at the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles. I was hoping for some fresh faces who could look at this more objectively. I remain convinced that mentioning the Virginia Tech massacre on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles isn't contrary to the spirit or goals of an online encyclopedia. I wish more disinterested people would've participated. Griot 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Closed? I was still waiting for the whole process to begin.  As a biased party, I can't contribute much, but I thought there were going to be more unbiased mediators here. Nfitz 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel like there is anything more that I can personally add to this discussion as a mediator. I had hoped that more mediators would jump on board, and I'm sorry that they didn't. Personally I feel like this case suffers from a lot of Recentism, and as time goes by the argument will probably settle itself. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are still looking for moderators then, why is the case being closed? This seems to make the entire Wikipedia  moderation a bit of a joke, doesn't it? Nfitz 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Call it what you will. I tried to get a few more people on board to help out with the mediation, but there were no takers. The mediation cabal might seem like more of a joke than say the WP:AC, but this is only because the cabals decisions are only considered suggestions. Believe me, I'm sure that most Cabal mediators wish that their rulings would be the end-all, but unfortunatelly for them they are not. Personally, I feel that once a mediator has issued a ruling they have to make a conscience effort to remain unbiased. In this particular case, I didn't feel that I could get more involved without revealing some of my personal opinions, and for that reason I have pulled myself away from this one. As for your interest here, you could personally solicit other mediators from the Cabal lists and ask them to voice their opinion. Additionally, you could always bring this case before the serious arbitrators. Also, if you have a problem with this system, then do something about it! Leave suggestions on the projects talk page about how the system could be improved...  - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)