Talk:Uzi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Actual photograph

So I'm browsing this fine article and click on the old photo; to my horror I see it's an airsoft/replica/toy/whatever. I've replaced the image with one of my Uzi SMG (with green furniture and the .22 kit). I'll try to get a picture of it in a more traditional configuration. --Cortland 03:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - that was a photo of a softair replica...I was kind of surprised it took so long for someone to notice. The original photo was deleted as a copyvio about a year ago, so i took a quick snapshot of my softair Uzi because I figured it was better than having no photo at all :P. Your photo is way better than mine (not only because it shows the real thing, but because it's actually a way better photo), so you won't hear me complaining :) -- Ferkelparade π 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have a query in with Vector Arms, who produce Uzis in the US. They have agreed to provide a bunch of images; we're working out the details. Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vector is good people -- I bought my full auto IMI and some suppressors from them. If you want photos of a Mini or a Micro I'm sure there are folks on Uzitalk who would gladly give you permission. Note that Vector doesn't produce Micros. If you're looking for photos of a specific configuration of the full size full auto let me know -- I've got IMI fixed buttstocks, IMI vertical foregrip, BFAs, suppressors, several caliber conversion kits, shoulder carry rig, top covers with red dot sights, etc. etc. In some ways I think less is more here, as the Uzitalk.com reference library has more info and photos than you could ever hope (or want) to amass on Wikipedia. Cortland 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Scorpion redesign

Is the Uzi really a redesign of the Scorpion? Ashmoo 03:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No. The Uzi was designed in 1950. The Scorpion was designed in 1959.

Games/Films?

Is the section that lists games/films that the Uzi has appeared in really a good idea? The Uzi (and its likeness) has been in hundreds of games and movies over the years. This list is going to get really long if it continues. Will anyone who comes this article gain anything by a list such as this?

I think only including works that mention it by name or where it plays a significant role in the plot should be included. Regards, Ashmoo 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

These are accepted part of firearm articles, and when they get to long they are just moved to a sub-page. Ve3 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, I agree that asking whether the section is a good idea is a good question (one that I had been asking myself, and was wondering where to ask in general, about all gun articles). But I wouldn't have just deleted it... Better to ask first, if it's a major change like that, of content going away.

You might look at the discussion on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FN P90 in popular culture

Georgewilliamherbert 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone remove the "Invasion USA" picture, those are Ingram Mac-10s or 11s, NOT IMI Uzis.

merge mini UZI stub into article

merge - the mini UZI stub is redundant. --Shuki 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just boldly redirected the stub to here. It's not worth a merge; the info on the stub was incorrect anyways. Mini Uzi is the compact submachinegun, not the machinepistol Micro Uzi which became the Uzi Pistol as a semi-auto import. Georgewilliamherbert 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To be technical it was the "semi-auto import" Uzi pistol that became the machine pistol Micro Uzi. IMI introduced the Uzi Pistol in 1984 basically for the American market. They didn't start making Micro Uzis until 1986. But whatever. Check the Uzitalk reference library ;) --Cortland 06:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

All my friends in the business had played with fully auto Micros in 84, but they may well not have produced any for series production until 86. Anyways, the details in the stub were wrong, and the level of detail we're discussing now is below notability ;-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, people starting converting Uzi pistols as soon as they were introduced in the America, but IMI didn't start producing factory Micro Uzis until 86. Below notability!? For Wikipedia, maybe :-) --70.160.160.175 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Uzi and the MAC-10

Right now we have a stub on the article that the MAC-10 is dubbed an "American Uzi". After removing a game in the list that was erroneously put there (James Bond 007: Agent Under Fire has a MAC-10, which is called Ingalls inname, a simple renaming of "Ingram"), I was thinking that there should be a section or larger mention on how the two are seperate weapons and should not be confused for one another. -TonicBH 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Micro Uzi/Uzi pistol

I was reading the Micro Uzi and Uzi pistol articles. They were stubs and the wording was nearly identical to the Variants bit of this one. I saw someone redirected Mini Uzi at one point, so I went ahead and redirected Micro and Pistol, as well as added a pic of the pistol to this article. No objections I hope. I expect someone will revert me if they feel I'm out of line. Thernlund 10:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture section deletion

I have been asked to explain why I have removed the pop culture section of this article. My reasons can be found here if anyone cares to actually look at them: WP:MILHIST#POP, and WP:GUNS#Guidelines. I have mentioned these in my edit summary, but I will explain what they state quite plainly, no pop culture sections unless they have a genuine impact on the gun, such as making it more famous. None of the examples in the section I deleted meet that criteria. They also state that lists of appearances in movies, games, and songs should not be included in articles. These fail the acid test of notability, which is, would some random person associate the gun with the game if you asked them about the gun. This works with the Walther PPK, but not with the Uzi. I will wait before I remove the section, and am willing to discuss this before I make any changes.--LWF 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, and WP:GUNS redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, and I cannot find in either a statement about fictional occurrences of real weapons. Anthony Appleyard 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look right at the top of the links. It says it quite plainly.--LWF 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines. But this much use of Uzis in popular fiction would seem noteworthy to many people, even though an army-minded man may not like that sort of use of those weapons, but it happens. Anthony Appleyard 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but most people already know that it is used in lots of games. Do they need to know all of them, especially when there is more useful information that they need? Most people would say no. Also, you should really check the military history guidelines, they are much better, which is why WP:GUNS links to them.

Also, don't use an asterisk for the paragraphs, use a colon, it helps the formatting a great deal.--LWF 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Many people know, but not all, and many people do not know which games use Uzis and would be thankful for a list of which games use Uzis.

That aspect of the military history guidelines sounds as if it was written by an army man who does not like videogames. This point seems to need a policy discussion. Anthony Appleyard 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One question, who really wants to know every game a particular gun has been used in, however inaccurately? The list is huge, and quite frankly has no impact on the gun. Remember the acid test of notability I mentioned earlier? All those games fail it. And just so you know, that policy has been debated numerous times in numerous places. Yet through that it has remained the same, and it is still the policy of the projects that this article falls into. In which case the pop culture should be removed unless the policy is changed after a discussion there. Feel free to discuss this over at the Firearms project or the Weaponry task force of Milhist, since that's the specific task force for guns. Here are the shortcut links: WT:GUNS, WT:WEAPON.--LWF 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please delete the "popular culture" section! It's trivial and useless. The only people who would care about this are video game players, and the readership of Wikipedia is much more diverse than that. --Cortland 03:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be trivial and useless to some readers, same as that when I read the Daily Telegraph newspaper I skip all the football and finance news. I can understand some military types objecting to war videogames. But Wikipedia readers include many videogame players, and to them such context is relevant. As I have no interest in football, by analogy I might say "Most football club news is only of interest to football fans, so call it footballcruft and delete it."; but I know how THAT suggestion would be received. Likewise with details about Pokémon characters with Pokémon fans versus people who want much of it deleting as "Pokécruft". Likewise with much other specialized interest-group matter such as Star Trek stuff. Anthony Appleyard 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what's necessary here is a distinction between the pop culture section and the list of games and movies - on the one hand, the Uzi is undeniably a pop culture (or rather, counterculture) icon in a way very few other weapons are and in a way that has almost no relation to the weapon's actual real-world use - this fact in itself is noteworthy and should be reflected in the article, so a "pop culture" section, in my opinion, is a very good idea in principle. On the other hand, an endless list of movies and games does not convey any information beyond the obvious fact that the Uzi makes appearances in tons of movies and games (which can, and should, be stated in a short sentence). There's nothing wrong with (for example) listing all weapons used in Counterstrike (in the appropriate article), maybe along with some explanation how the portrayals of these weapons in the game differ from their real-world counterparts, but the way it's currently done here looks very much like a list for listing's sake - I don't think anyone ever goes through that list and says "O my gosh! The Uzi appears in GTA! Who would have known?". So in essence, let's keep the pop culture section, but remove the useless list -- Ferkelparade π 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my personal philosophy on it: don't put the reference to the game in the gun's article, put a reference to the gun in the game's article. If a person wants to find out more they can then just follow the wikilink, rather than forcing people interested in the gun to wade through a list of pop culture to find the gun info. Besides, in my experience a pop culture section, no matter how good, inevitably leads to a giant list being formed. Only through constant vigilance and reversion of the article does it not form.--LWF 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

People do not have to "wade through a list of pop culture to find the gun info": the pop culture is in its own section near the end. Anthony Appleyard 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point I will be blunt, I have the consensus of two wikiprojects and their policies saying to delete. Putting the reference back in is going againt consensus and policy. If you disagree with the pop culture policies feel free to discuss it at the appropriate projects, but the fact of the matter is that the pop culture section should be deleted.--LWF 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is what I propose: I propose the removal of the lists of places where the Uzi has appeared while keeping the other portions. The lists don't add much to the article and are usually not very notable, and do not belong per the policies of two projects. Does anyone agree?--LWF 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree - that seems to be the best way to go -- Ferkelparade π 09:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Madness Combat?

It's really hard for me to say this especially because I'm a HUGE fan of Madness Combat, but is it really worth putting here as included? There are probably a billion flash animations that have had Uzis in them. I say if it doesn't even deserve an article, it shouldn't be in this list.--Katana314 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Folding Case Uzi?

The fold out brief case machine gun used in RoboCop 2 is supposedly a specially designed Uzi although this may be wrong! -- Awar 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not related to the Uzi at all - it's an Ares FMG. Georgewilliamherbert 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about the author's references to "...the Uzi is notorious for slam-firing when dropped or exposed to sudden shocks" and, "Though the Uzi's receiver is equipped with pressed reinforcing ridges to accept accumulated dirt and sand, the weapon may jam with heavy accumulations of sand in desert combat conditions when not cleaned regularly."

I have done a fair amount of research on the (standard) Uzi, and have yet to see any mention of slam-fire problems except in this article. Anecdotally, after mentioning this concern to an Uzi-owning friend he proceeded to take his cocked (but unloaded) Uzi and repeatedly slam it butt-first onto a carpeted floor with extreme force without the bolt releasing. In contrast, my AR-15 bolt will release when set down on its butt in anything but the gentlest manner (of course, being a closed-bolt action it's not nearly as susceptable to slam firing as an Uzi).

<<the slam fire issue is unique to some open bolt 1930s to 1960s era submachineguns. Slam the entire weapon down on the ground with the barrel up and the buttstock (or grip) hitting the ground. You will notice that the bolt will retract due to inertial force. Realize that the sear mechanism on the Uzi and nearly all open bolt submachineguns only engages after the bolt has cleared the magazine well, and it must clear back far enough that when the bolt is released, it gets a "running start" to overcome the spring loaded force holding the first round against the feed lips in the magazine. It is possible to drop/slam an uncocked Uzi in such a way that the bolt will retract to the rear far enough to clear the magazine and potentially load (and thus fire since it has a fixed firing pin) a round without engaging the sear. The thing is the grip safety should prevent this problem as it was known by Uziel Gal as an issue on Sten guns and MP38/40s previously used by the IDF and its predecessor organizations in British controlled Palestine. It has been a while since I have personally been issued an Uzi, but I seem to remember this being the reason why some directives circulated around prohibiting soldiers from using electrical tape to "tape down" the grip safety, a practice that at one time had been common.>>

To the second point, my research has specifically praised the ribbed receiver design for its contribution to keeping Uzis running in the most inhospitable desert conditions. It's my impression that the Uzi has earned a reputation perhaps only second to the AK-47 in its ability to just keep firing. To say, "...the weapon may jam with heavy accumulations of sand in desert combat conditions when not cleaned regularly" strikes me as a tautology that could be applied to virtually ANY weapon (except perhaps the AK).

I think the author would do well to delete these statements or include citations in their support.

<<maybe, maybe not, since the article is written at least in part by original military users of the Uzi. I would argue, however, that the Uzi is more tolerant of abuse and dirt than just about any AK variant. Part of the issue though is that lazy troops will take that as an excuse not to perform any basic maintenance, but the original statement should also remain (perhaps modified) so that NCOs would recognize that the Uzi is a low maintenance weapon, not a no maintenance weapon. Remember that there were lies circulated early in the Vietnam conflict that the M16 did not require any maintenance or cleaning, so many US troops were found dead with jammed weapons, sometimes found dead with cleaning rods that had been cobbled together in a futile attempt at maintenance that was too little and too late in the course of an active firefight.

In popular culture

I have restored Uzi submachine gun#In popular culture. It is of interest to many people. Someone deleted it as "crufty", but often cruftyness is relative: e.g. to some people football matter is relevant and important, and to other people it is "footballcruft" to be skipped over. Anthony Appleyard 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that by restoring it you have ignored the policies of several projects, and several separate consensuses. This is a very bad thing. Besides the list isn't even accurate. For example, the ZMG 9 mm isn't an Uzi, even an amateur can tell that. It is a Steyr TMP but someone thought they looked similar. Get my drift? Besides, remember the acid test of notability? The list fails it.--LWF 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are mistakes in the list, then please correct them. As I said above, what is not notable to one reader may be notable to another. Lots of pages about real things have sections about their appearances in popular culture fiction. Anthony Appleyard 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy and consensus still remain. Even if you disagree with them.--LWF 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to refer you to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture. This AfD lists all of the firearms pop culture articles that were deleted. It waas decided by a large number of people that these references didn't belong on WikiPedia. This consensus still stands, as it became the policy of two WikiProjects which have already been listed.--LWF 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, I have commented out most of it. Anthony Appleyard 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am saitisfied with what remains. Thank you for listening to what I had to say.--LWF 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Croatian Uzis

The article makes no mention of the Uzis made without a license by Koncar Arma in Croatia. There are only very minor dimensional differences, and have developed their own version, a more compact version, the Mini-ERO. It is closer to the Micro-Uzi then the Mini-Uzi in size and apperance, but is equipped with a sliding metal retractable stock. I am not sure if the Croatian military or security forces have adopted it yet. If anyone can help contribute to more on the ERO, I will start working on it adding a section for it soon. Feel free to add to it.SAWGunner89 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Safety

"The weapon also features a grip safety, making it difficult to fire accidentally. Despite the grip safety, the Uzi is notorious for slam-firing when dropped or exposed to sudden shocks.[citation needed]"

I'm fairly sure that it cannot be both "difficult to fire accidentally" and "notorious for slam-firing". Any ideas?--THobern 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It could, say the trigger acidently snags on a pole or like a nail it wont go off but if you slam it, it will.(ForeverDEAD 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Or we could source something a little less on the inane-side.--THobern 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Not so sure about slam firing; during my time in the Dutch Army (434 van Heutz), in the field in action Uzi's were required to be stored with the bayonet fitted and stuck in the ground due to their habit of unpredictable self-discharge, unlike the FAL's which were safely tucked with us in our sleeping bags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.116.84 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with MAC-10

This section seems to not very notable or encyclopediac and I think it should be removed. Many firearms look like other firearms to someone who doesn't know much about them. Sources are needed for all the assertions in the section to prove its notability. Ashmoo 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought i cant provide any sources its extremely common for people to confuse the two. Mostly the fact that many movies portray them incorrectly along with TV shows will defiantly confuse the semi trained and untrained eye. Also because this is an encyclopedia it should be here to educate people of the differences ForeverDEAD 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ashmoo 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously original research but I have owned firearms for 30 years and been reading gun magazines just as long and I have never heard anyone confuse a MAC-10 with an UZI. I've also owned both and the UZI rocks and the MAC-10 does not :-) Angry Christian (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard plenty of people mistaking a Mac for an UZI. The Macs are rather similar to the Micro Uzi...But they do have quite big differences as well.Halofanatic333 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

naming

I reverted the capitalization, it is not an acronym, it is a foreshortening of the creator's first name. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an acronym. And it is capitalized in most literature and marketing material. Koalorka (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia policies for such things do state that only acronyms should be capitalized in their entirety. And personally, I consider the name Uzi to be more of a homage, than an actual abbreviation.--LWF (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then looks like the MINIMI and CETME AMELI are incorrect too. Good to know.Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus comes from Talk:Glock/GLOCK vs. Glock debate and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).--LWF (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with both and none seem to address this problem. GLOCK was simply a marketing tool. Uzi is an abbreviation for its designer. Koalorka (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that it's an abbreviation, but I will say that I've never seen an abbreviation that is capitalized just because it's an abbreviation.--LWF (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but here's the source of confusion, say we have two firearms:

The Minimi/MINIMI which is an abbreviated form for Minimitrailleuse and FN's insistence to call it the MINIMI.

And we have the FN MAG or Mitrailleuse d'Appui General, and an undisputed title - MAG, not Mag, worldwide. Which one is correct?Koalorka (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, MAG is not an abbreviation, it's an acronym, which Wikipedia policy does say should be capitalized. In the case of Minimi/MINIMI, I believe it should be Minimi, as existing policy states,

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".

So I would support the current article title Uzi submachine gun, and I would support the decapitalization of FN MINIMI and CETME AMELI.--LWF (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the simplest solution holds true. I will de-capitalize those articles either today or tomorrow. Koalorka (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that someone went ahead and changed the article name without advising the community. If I'm not mistaken, it should follow the standard format: manufacturer, name, type of gun, i.e. IMI Uzi submachine gun or simply IMI Uzi. Uzi alone seems incorrect. Koalorka (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article titles are not meant to reflect a subject's full or proper title - they're meant to be the simplest or most common way that a subject is referred to, unless there is significant reason to believe there may be ambiguity. In most cases, weapon articles follow the Manufacturer-name-type convention because the root article is ambiguous (PPK, P90, M60). In this case, nothing else listed at Uzi (disambiguation) is anywhere near as commonly-used as this subject, as adequately indicated by the inbound links, so our naming conventions say that it should be located here. For details, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a potentially catastrophic precedent. The M3 submachine gun is known to most as the "Grease gun" and the MG42 - "Hitler's buzzsaw", wouldn't that be fun. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost, please remember that. Koalorka (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that "Uzi" is unacceptable, as those titles are. As such, we defer to the Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Variant Photos

I think the variant photos are all mislabeled. I'm not an expert, but from left to right I believe they're the Micro-Uzi, Uzi, Mini-Uzi, and Uzi again. The 18" barrel carbine version isn't shown at all; you can see from this Google image search that its barrel extends from the sleeve almost as far as the length of the rest of the weapon! Can anyone confirm my IDs? Kaleja (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're almost right. The first is an Uzi pistol, as evidenced by the fire selector which only has safe and fire; the second is a full-size Uzi, the next is a Mini-Uzi, and the next is once again a full-size. Good catch.--LWF (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Variants info

Where'd the info on the Uzi Pistol and Micro-Uzi go? And the Mini Carbine, for that matter? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalker. Kaleja (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What? El_C 06:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit sentence

"As the Uzi is designed to be used in one hand if its user loses the use of a hand in battle"

I think this is bull so I'm removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.169.224 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Name meaning

Is Uzi named after the Akkadian word for "power" ? 83.30.166.197 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's named after the designer, Uziel Gal. Koalorka (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Firearms#Pop_culture

"In popular culture" section

The Uzi and its variants are some of the most popular and recognizable submachine guns in the world. Along with the MP5 and MAC-10, they have appeared in many films, TV series, music videos, and video games. Fictional characters and videogame characters are sometimes shown wielding two Uzis "akimbo style", with one in each hand.

--Technopat (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

Why not keep this section? Some people want to know about fictional usages of whatever an article is about, some do not. This seems to be yet another case of "one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter", not of something being trivia absolutely. For example, I have no interest in football, and to me football matter is footballcruft, but I do not going about deleting football matter, as I know that it is important to many people. I see no point in a jihad against "fictional uses of this [real] item" sections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning is laid out in detail at WP:V and WP:GUNS. Your addition is not only trivia, it's also completely unsourced original research. Do not keep adding the text back to the article unless you achieve consensus beforehand to do so. Your addition conflicts with the firearms project guidelines at WP:GUNS, and with Wikipedia policy at WP:V. ROG5728 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Bayonet lug

The article mentions the Norinco clone lacking a bayonet lug, but this is the only indication anywhere in the article that the original model has one. Anybody not already knowledgeable about the Uzi who reads this article would get to that point and think "what bayonet lug?" For the sake of clarity we should mention the provision for a bayonet somewhere earlier in the article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Uzi derivatives

I propose to create a separate article on Uzi derivatives, since there are quite a lot and an overview would be helpful. Either a list like here: List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design or (even better) a list with short descriptions. DrunkSquirrel (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unit cost.

This is something kinda lacking in a lot of firearms-related articles, but why is there very little to no mention of the unit cost of the Uzi 9mm + variants? Would be useful to have it listed in USD+New Shekel :P --Τασουλα (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Uzi production

I heard that no more uzis are bieng made. Is thius true?

Yes its true. but that is only for the regular uzi. i guess that they will still manufacture the micro uzi etc. (ive read it in an article about uzi)

I doubt it...I'm pretty sure they are still making semi-auto uzis in limited edition for US buyers. I'm not sure about standard millitary automatic UZIs though. It's a very profitable weapon for IMI, so I doubt they would stop producing it all together. You probably just heard that the IDF and Israeli military is finished using it. Elysianfields 02:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The importation of Uzis into the U.S. was halted in 1989 based on the sporting use provision of the GCA. When Vector Arms acquired a mass of registered, pre-86 transferable full-auto Uzi receivers in the mid-90s, they had a hell of a time finding Uzi parts. Vector contacted IMI in 1996, but IMI had shut down their Uzi line a few years earlier when they moved to Tel Aviv. Presumably IMI has the ability to resume production if they wanted. FN (an Uzi licensee) stopped producing Uzis in the 80s and no longer has the tooling and equipment to support Uzi production. The other IMI licensee, Lyttleton Engineering, made Uzis for South Africa during the Rhodesian war, but it too has obviously ceased manufacture. There are likely unlicensed copies still being made in some parts of the world (Croatia, China), but it appears likely that no more legitimate Uzis are being made. Vector Arms continues to manufacture semi-auto Uzis domestically using pre-1989 IMI receivers and Group Industries receivers. It remains to be seen what will happen when this supply of receivers is exhausted. --68.10.180.135 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the supply of semi-receivers will ever be exhausted. In addition to the full-auto receivers Vector bought at the Group Industries bankruptcy auction, they also bought over 15,000 semi-auto receivers at something like 4 cents each. He probably bought GI's stamping dies, too. --128.82.56.36 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Vector also bought other tooling from the Group Industries auction and has gone on to make most of the rest of the other Uzi parts. Remember, we are talking about a mechanically simple weapon that was originally engineered to be easy to produce using 1950s technology. Several small shop manufacturers openly advertise new production parts fro the Uzi within the United States, although most of the parts are fort the semiauto configuration or the various hybrid configurations. One notable difference between the semiauto configuration and the military version was a different feed ramp arrangement, so post-Israeli production semiauto Uzis may or may not have the ring shaped feed ramp as opposed to the half moon shaped feed ramp found on IDF Uzis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone include the fact that the IDF isn't using Uzis anymore? Any proof for that? Jossejonathan (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

one each hand?

" The grip-mounted magazine gives the Uzi a highly distinctive, instantly-recognizeable profile, and as such it is often seen in TV shows, movies and computer games. In such portrayals, the weapon is often fired one-handed (especially the Mini- and Micro-Uzis) and in some cases even as a pair of weapons, one in each hand. While theoretically possible, such a method of use would be nothing short of wasting ammunition."

can someone put in why it would be wasting ammunition. it presumes knowledge.

There are a couple of factors at work. First, don't expect to hit anything with a firearm without using the sights (i.e., aiming). Human vision would tend to preclude looking down the sights of two separate guns at the same time. The second factor is controlability. The Uzi is surprisingly controlable in full-auto (from the shoulder anyway -- I've never tried one-handed), but controlability would certainly suffer in offhand full-auto due to muzzle rise. With respect to the Micro Uzi, that puppy has a much higher rate of fire than the full-size making one-handed controllability truly impossible.

I think explaining the two-handed thing would be misguided. Hollywood movies/TV/computer games portray everything inaccurately. If we explain every stupid thing seen in a movie, it would be a very long article. Personally, I think the whole bit should be removed. Is two-Uzi use really common enough in these media to justify being mentioned? Ashmoo 03:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Although it is theoretically possible to hold and fire a pair of weapons in this manner, the inadequate recoil control of each weapon by the user contributes to extremely poor accuracy, as well as the possibility of hand or wrist injury."

Now someone tried to explain it, but this is inaccurate for the Uzi. I fired it when I was in the Bundeswehr and it practically has no recoil since it is open-bolt. It would be possible to fire two Uzis if there wasn't the problem of aiming. OnisanT 11:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't that statement removed? Uzi recoil is minimal, so one handed firing of the 9mm Uzi is actually more controllable than one handed firing of a common 1911 .45 automatic, if a person is strong enough to hold the weapon up without any significant fatigue. Arnold Schwarzenegger has used the Uzi one handed in several films, but most notably "Commando" where the weapon was a real Uzi firing blank ammunition of sufficient power to cycle the action using a movie prop type blank firing device inside the barrel, likewise, Chuck Norris used a modified Desantis shoulder rig holding dual Micro-Uzis in several films as a "signature weapon" of sorts, early in "Invasion USA" and more lately in "The Expendables 2". The weapons are for extremely short range suppressive fire.

On the Desantis shoulder rig used by Chuck Norris in the movies, and by the Secret Service (strongly rumored but not verified), the rig is engineered and advertised to enhance accuracy on fast one handed deployment of the Uzi in a somewhat "quick draw" fashion, although the original IDF sling sufficiently serves this purpose for right handed users. This feature is again, a significant advantage for armored vehicle personnel and troops deploying from or on armored vehicles or bodyguards who must ride standing on the running boards of a vehicle and be capable of firing with one hand while using the other hand to hold their balance on the vehicle they are riding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually tried firing it one-handed? It's a little different... I don't recommend it. Georgewilliamherbert 05:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's anything like the Mac-10 then it might turn around in one hand causing the shooter to harm themselves. Anyone know if it applies to the Uzi? Angrynight 06:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be a party pooper, but personal experiences with Uzis count as Original Research and as such are irrevelant to discussions of this article. You'd be better off having this discussion on an internet forum. Regards, Ashmoo 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm.....no. No more than personal experience as an engineer designing bridges counts as Original Research and makes editing the Bridge article based on being a professional bridge design engineer against policy. Georgewilliamherbert 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that an engineer can point to the primary literature to prove an edit. Editors cannot use their own experiences as Primary Sources. See WP:NOR The role of expert editors Ashmoo 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are overextending the intent of WP:NOR. It is intended to avoid unverifyable sources. Experts are not supposed to use unpublished, otherwise unavailable personal knowledge for articles which is not part of the general body of knowledge of experts in the field. This is a quality control check on expertise; you can't verify a personal unpublished result, or reliably reproduce it.

In cases like this, the specific knowledge refers to an easily replicatable specific test. Most actual professionals that use firearms have tried this at home... once. the results are stray bullets all over the range, typically. This specific knowledge is common among professionals with SMG experience. It is easily verifyable; find a gun range that rents submachineguns for target practice (some countries don't have any, and some states in the US don't have any, but there are a bunch in Las Vegas and in other locations), and rent an Uzi. You'll understand within a few rounds fired.

In any case, it's been referred to in magazine publications and training manuals on firearms before anyways, so it's not even OR in that sense. It's not widely published ... because anyone who's serious or professionally trained knows how bad an idea it is and has probably demonstrated it to themselves once to make the point clear. But it is published.

That I have personal experience on this point does not make the result original research. If I were the only person to have ever done it, and I'd never written it up for publication in a gun magazine or Uzi training manual, that would be OR. But it's silly to think that I'm the only person to have ever test-fired an Uzi one handed. Claiming this was OR is ridiculous... Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That an editor has had personal experience doesn't make it OR, that is true. But Verifiability states we need a 3rd party source. It may well be common knowledge amongst professionals, but this common knowledge needs to be verified. Requiring readers to go out and rent uzis doesn't count as verifiable, doing this is an experient which is the height of OR.

Having said that if it is documented by 3rd party magazines and Uzi training manuals then there is no problem. I was never arguing the actual facts of this particular case, but merely noting that personal experiences alone do not count as verifiable. Regards, Ashmoo 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed. This fixation on one-handed firing is asinine. But regarding the MAC-10, keep in mind that it's chambered in a heavier recoiling cartridge and has close to TWICE to ROF as the Uzi. --70.160.160.175 07:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you people joking? There are plenty of videos out there where people demonstrate one handed firing of submachineguns and the balance of the Uzi was always recognized as being particularly suited for firing one handed, while the balance of older weapons like the Sten, MP-38/40 or Thompson were not good for one handed use. The person saying that it can turn around in the hand is being ridiculous. While the weapon has reduced accuracy when being used one handed, at close range or under emergency circumstances, it may not matter nearly as much as keeping the other hand on a handhold or to steady oneself while riding on a vehicle. This is of particular importance for some crew served vehicle and weapons operators who need a personal weapon for immediate suppressive fire just in case they get caught up close or rushed by multiple opponents. Highly skilled users can use the weapon one handed often with more efficiency than lower skilled users using both hands. The purpose of the PDW is to offer the user more firepower than they would get with a handgun, but with more portability than a rifle. The Uzi is a particularly heavy weapon for the most common cartridge it uses (9mm NATO) so recoil is negligible.

It has been shown on programs on Discovery Channel and National Geograpic several times. That you in fact Can fire a Uzi, even the full sized one, at Full Auto with no real problems. Of course your aim gets much worse. But at the relativly short ranges a Uzi is normaly used, I dont think that is much of a problem. Its sort of like taking a snapshop with a normal Assault rifle. You just line up the barrel and shot. The marksmen on the show dident have much problems hitting the target either, albiet with a spread formation. But again, not realy a problem. If you realy want to do it..... Keaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.54.165 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

.40 S&W

I've read of a small run of IMI factory Uzi's in .40S&W. Can anyone confirm this?

Negativeon that, however there were semiauto variants made in .41 AE which had performance levels very similar to the .40 S&W and was invented at about the same time, however never clearly adopted by any government agencies and fell out of production. It is possible that either someone mistook a rare .41AE Uzi for one in .40, or someone cobbled together some workshop samples of a .40 Uzi using some .41AE components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sten gun?

I have read that the Uzi was the result of looking for an improved Sten gun. The sten gun might be worth mentioning as inspiration for the Uzi are similar.Geo8rge (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Uzi was inspired more by the Czech VZ-23 series guns (CZ Model 25) than anything else. The Design has no Sten heritage and isn't similiar in a design concept sense. Its layout is similar to the Vz-23 but the design details were all completely different. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stens were commonly available to the early IDF and used extensively by the various Hebrew guerrilla groups in British Palestine. Some of the Sten guns were purchased from corrupt and or sympathetic sources within the British forces, obtained on the relatively open black markets of post WW2 Europe and the Middle East, and then strongly rumored to have been manufactured locally by clandestine workshops that had originally been set up to support the predecessors to the IDF. The Sten was effectively Israel's first government issued military submachinegun and finding a replacement was a fairly high priority for the early nation-state of Israel. A big part of the reason for the development of locally produced small arms rather than the simple purchase of more WW2 surplus weapons was to assert the national identity of Israel with a "signature weapon". Submachineguns are traditionally the easiest of military small arms to produce under circumstances where machine shop resources are limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bolt

"the bolt wraps around the barrel, allowing a heavier, slower-firing bolt in a shorter, better-balanced weapon"

Shorter and better-balanced, sure, but shouldn't that be "lighter, quicker-firing bolt", precisely because it does not contain nearly as much metal as, say, the 9mm Sterling SMG used by British forces until the late 1980's?

The telescoping bolt allows for a heavier bolt than a non-telescoping bolt would in a weapon of the same given length. The design goal in small full-auto weapons such as this is usually to keep the cyclic rate down as much as possible, not increase it. Riddley 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the bolt described as "telescoping" in a lot of literature, but it actually does not "telescope" in the sense like the Portuguese FPB or German MP38/40 series. Just the chamber end of the bolt and thus the bolt face is located roughly in the center of the bolt instead of the very front. This places a lot of the weight of the bolt over and in front of the chamber at the moment of firing and is one of the contributing factors to the low recoil vs the size of the Uzi. The sheer weight of the bolt often absorbs the majority of the recoil impulse before the bolt impacts on the buffer, which is one of the reasons the Uzis have lasted so long in service in various African countries. Very few of the metal parts are under enough stress to cause wear in ways that will greatly reduce performance or stop the weapon from functioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

UZI in SAS service

I believe the UZI was evaluated and used by the SAS in the early-mid 70s. Does anyone have a source to verify that? Then it can be added to users. Irondome (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

UZI in Iraq

Parts of the Iraqi military and security services use the polish made PM-98, the PM-98 looks quite similar to the UZI and for the non-expert or non-trained eye could be mistaken for an UZI. Iraqi military and security do not use UZI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superammar (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Uzi in current use with USAF?

Does anyone know why the Uzi is listed as being currently in use with the United States Air Force? Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Incident

"This is the variant used in an August 2014 accidental shooting of a range instructor by a nine year-old girl in Arizona, as well as an accidental self-inflicted gunshot death of an eight year-old boy in Massachusetts in 2008. Both deaths were likely contributed to by the lack of weight, especially forward, that would dampen recoil forces and suppress muzzle climb, something a longer, heavier weapon would be less prone toward; a further shortcoming is the lack of a forward stock to allow the shooter purchase to help control the muzzle climb forces or allow an instructor to grasp the weapon without sustaining thermal or gunshot injuries."

Though these incidents in particular are heard of, citations would be good, but it's also very poorly written, what is a "forward stock" and in what was meant with "thermal injury"? It seems like this is added by someone without quite a firm grasp of the English language, or that it was direct translated with a tool. I'd personally also say that it was poor judgment and negligence on part of both the parents and the instructor. 95.109.103.15 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Uzi

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Uzi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Jones":

From FN MAG: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009-2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 896–898. ISBN 0-7106-2869-2.
From Beretta Model 38: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009-2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 894–905. ISBN 0-7106-2869-2.
From M14 rifle: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 893–901. ISBN 0-7106-2869-2.
From Military equipment of Israel: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009-2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 36, 380, 897. ISBN 0-7106-2869-2.
From Malta: Jones, Huw R. (1973). "Modern emigration from Malta". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 60: 101–119. JSTOR 621508.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Uzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110055039/http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/ipi/ipi0312.shtml to http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/ipi/ipi0312.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Use by US Secret Service

In the article Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, the fourth photo in the lede photo montage definitely depicts a person holding an Uzi -- See here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Reagan_assassination_attempt_montage.jpg 24.51.217.118 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Vacca gun

@Mike Searson: Vacca gun was not a military weapon, it was a Post-86 Dealer Sample converted from a semiautomatic rifle. Thanks for correcting that. Is there a reliable source we can use for that? Aside from Vacca's shooting, the conversion of civilian versions to full auto is a worthwhile topic. Felsic2 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A specific source stating that? Probably not. According to the Mother Jones piece, a transfer tax was paid, meaning it was not a dealer sample (where no tax is paid), so I may have misspoke about it being a postie, in that it is (or was) transferable. Every transferable Full Auto Uzi in the US (and that includes minis and micros) are conversion guns made from semiautomatic rifles imported by Action Arms/IMI/KY Imports etc. GCA 68 prohibited importation of machineguns with the exception of military and police use (aka a pre-May dealer sample). FOPA 86 prohibited new conversions/manufacture with the exception of military and police use. The mini was not imported as a machinegun with the exception of a few for police military evaluation, these would not be able to be owned by a civilian on a form 4. To give an example on pricing: a pre-May Dealer sample IMI marked factory made subgun would be quite expensive ($14K and up) a postie would be worth maybe 1/5 of that and a pre-86 conversion gun would probably push toward $20K. It would probably be more useful as a subsection in an NFA article than here. I will see if this has been published in something like Small Arms Review or a similar NFA publication.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

So would it have been a "Mini-Uzi carbine", which is listed under "Civilian variants"? Felsic2 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but one that had been legally converted to a machine gun prior to May 18, 1986, if what that source is reporting is true.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What sources? Felsic2 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be the Mother Jones piece: [1].--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they're referring to the specific gun in question. They seem to be discussing the issue of obtaining automatic weapons in general. Unless there's a specific source contradicting the information, I'll restore the edit. Felsic2 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140124082839/http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/col_yr_bk_english.pdf to http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/col_yr_bk_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Uzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)