Jump to content

Talk:Mass shootings in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ducktapeonmydesk (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 18 November 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misleading citations: "The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country"

"The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country" has multiple citations, making it appear to be a rock solid assertion. If you look closer at these citations, they are all varying news media referencing the same study by Adam Lankford at University of Alabama. There should just be one citation, sourcing this one study. Recently this study has been brought into question, and Lankford will not share his data for it to be verified, but a separate study by the Crime Prevention Research Study disputes his results. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/29/john-lott-jr-adam-lankford-botched-study-claiming-/ Given how politically sensitive this topic is, I can't comment on the motivations of either Lankford or John Lott and if they really did academically rigorous research, but we will never know about Lankford if he refuses to share his dataset.

I haven't edited an article before, and I didn't want to go through and delete a bunch of citations someone else looked up, but I thought I'd mention this here because the current article appears biased in the treatment of the quoted statement.

It should be noticed that while the number of shootings in the US is higher than other countries, the death toll per Capita from mass shootings is much lower on the list. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armed civilians, not civilians?

We had text which says

Shooters generally either die by suicide afterward, or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or civilians.

It cites this source, which doesn't limit the claim to armed civilians and in fact explicitly mentions unarmed civilians.

Th78blue inserted "armed" before civilians, which I reverted because, again, the source is clear that it's not just armed civilians. Th78blue has now reinserted it, with an odd justification that makes it sound like they're removing "unarmed" to allow for the possibility of armed civilians, rather than restricting the claim to armed civilians. I'd rather not revert again so bringing it here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your PDF source. I believe this is a primary source, so there is that, but thanks for sharing. I was looking at the subsequent one with was PBS and therefore secondary. I have added an additional source from the RS list (Washington Post) now as well. Thank you. Th78blue (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo source, which is an opinion piece by the way, doesn't verify your change. It only verifies that there have been instances of armed civilians stopping shootings. The sentence as it was already covered both armed and unarmed civilians by specifying neither. All you've done is make it seem like only armed civilians stop shootings, and unarmed civilians do not, which is verified by neither and contradicted by one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where @Th78blue is coming from and I also understand your concerns @Rhododendrites. Perhaps a potential solution could be to change the sentence to be as follows:
Shooters generally either die by suicide afterward, or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or armed/unarmed civilians.
This way, it clarifies that civilians that stop shooters are not always armed or unarmed when they stop or kill shooters. As it currently reads, it seems as though only unarmed civilians are the ones that stop shooters since there is an assumption that most citizens are unarmed (unlike law enforcement). This change will make it clear that it is armed and unarmed civilians that stop/kill shooters. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. In the interest of BRD, I added, with some minor copy editing. Th78blue (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously saying "armed/unarmed civilians" is better than the blatantly POV/misleading version which just says "armed," but it's awkward wording for the sake of a compromise where no compromise is actually needed. The change to armed was because of a claim that "civilian" means "unarmed civilian," which it simply doesn't, except if we're taking at face value the "it takes good guy with a gun" slogan. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Headings (Columns)

I believe it would be helpful if a column was added to the main chart stating the general type of LOCATION of the shootings: SCHOOL, CHURCH, Gov't Building, City Streets, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecw4w44 (talkcontribs) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the lede

With regard to the implication of OR, VERIFY and REALTIME objections, I have some questions. I'd also like to examine the citations to try and get some clarification, if anyone thinks that might help. Considering this number tends to change on a daily basis, how does this work? Is this number updated automatically? DN (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table: Deadliest mass shootings since 1949 reads like a highscore board

The table "Deadliest mass shootings since 1949" currently reads like a high score board. While the table currently accurately provides the information about mass shootings and casualties, in my opinion the current presentation is highly problematic. Ordering the table according to date and disabling ordering according to casualties (e.g. by adding them in text form) would also provide the necessary information without the high score board appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwule (talkcontribs) 18:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I do not think at its core, that sorting by casualities or rather the immediate impact of a battle, war, shooting, etc. is inappropriate. However, the current section heavily focuses on "deadliest", and reads a bit like a competition/highscore board. I will do some work on this section.Cxmplex (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rand meta analysis

What about the following source?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075800/ Mikeschaerer (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality Sources

There is obviously strong bias on this subject. However, edits should not be reverted under the guise of citing "low quality sources." If a party feels that the quality of a source is not up to par, it merits a discussion on the talk page. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to November 3 as this new editor has been making dramatic changes to the article removing respected sources and replacing them mostly by one controversial source (Gary Kleck) whose stats vastly disagree with most respected sources. Possibly, the source could be included as a counterpoint. But, they most certainly should not be stated as verifiable data in Wikivoice. Onus is on you to justify this massive change. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massive changes have not been made. Gary Kleck was not cited. The controversial John Lott was cited which I since reverted. Grant Duwe was cited in the published book The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings, from one of the world's leading publishers: Wiley. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You think changing High-capacity magazines were used in 50% to 0.33% is not major -- as one example. And yes, it is Gary Kleck that you cited and the Washington Post that you removed. Your massive changes to this article have been challenged. I strongly suggest you revert your last revert as per WP:BRD. I realize that you are a new editor, But. this article is under discretionary sanctions and must be treated accordingly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted, per BRD policy. Please show me where I cited Gary Kleck, as I definitely missed it and am not aware of who this individual is.

And no, changing one line is not a major change. Changing an entire paragraph would be a major change. Regardless, the statistics are what the statistics are.

However, the Washington Post is hardly unbiased when it comes to gun politics, hence my citations of a neutral party, Grant Duwe. Furthermore, citations I removed were citing a study by Langford, a study which is widely regarded as dubious.

I am challenging the existing rhetoric on this article. When does it become "decided" that one source is right or one source is wrong, so I may update or refrain, accordingly? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard about the Gary Kleck, I see where I cited him. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that cited Gary Kleck have been removed. Edits that listed Grant Duwe have been reinstated. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to gain consensus for these several changes which appear to have a major impact on the article "rhetoric" (current consensus). Sources used by WP follow WP:RS. If you have a problem with WaPo as a source, you can argue this at WP:RSN. You will lose. WP policies and guidelines may appear arcane and complex. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia -- not a forum. Takes some time to get used to. But, such policies are required in such a massive effort.
I now see that you have reapplied edits without consensus. I again strongly suggest that you self-revert as you have no consensus for these edits. Consensus WP:CON is a major part of this project. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had consensus on removing anything with Gary Kleck? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to bring changes to bring the article into a neutral point of view. (see WP:NPOV).

While consensus is encouraged, it is not necessary. I made bold edits that moved the discussion towards a neutral point of view. If you disagree, that's fine, revert it back. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is necessary and your posts move this towards your POV, not neutral POV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reading through this it would seem that the new sources are simply a different perspective on the topic. I don't think they should replace the old sources but it would be reasonable to say that many of the statistics depend on how the information is parsed. I think adding vs replacing makes sense here. I will note that I haven't verified the claims in the sources, I'm only looking at the edits. Springee (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites include papers written by Grant Duwe. Our article on him includes 16 cites. 12 of the 16 are to papers written by Grant Duwe. Obviously improper. 3 of the 4 cites that are not to his own papers are dead links. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are these white papers or reviewed? Springee (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like four links were added to an essay in the book The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ducktapeonmydesk, I think w we should discuss your sources before adding them. It may be good content but let's discuss it here first. Springee (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair. What aspects would you like to discuss? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to establish of these are good academic sources. Springee (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the sources, but what needs to be done to establish that Wiley and Duwe are good academic sources? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand the relevancy of another Wikipedia article to this one. Genuine question, no ill intentions. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for sources about the author of the essay you cited multiple times. The WP article is about this person. The article will likely be deleted as it is a WP:stub and its sources are the person himself added by an IP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thank you. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reset to last post by Acroterion during discussion. Editor added four cites to an essay removing cites by CNN, WSJ, LATimes, & WaPo. Also reverted an admin twice to force in a change. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the five articles cited in the statement "The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country." point to a study done by Lankford. One reference to his study should suffice. However, I personally raise issue with the fact that studies by John Lott and Gary Kleck are being removed but studies by Adam Lankford are okay to leave up. One group is pro gun rights, one is pro gun control. Seems that if one side is being shown, the other should as well, no? Or, better yet, both removed? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to push this to a right leaning point of view, I am trying to push it towards a neutral POV. I cited work by Lott and Kleck. Once I discovered that people had issue with them due to bias, I removed them. I did not add back sources referencing Lankford due to the same concern. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you remove a cite by WaPo, a highly respected source, stating that LCMs were used in more than half of mass shootings over the four decades up to 2018, when adding a cite to Kleck stating less than 1% over a smaller period (starting the same year the assault weapons ban was enacted)? And while were at it, why did you make a change three times that Acroterion, an administrator, reverted twice? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed what I wrote, sir. I removed the references to Kleck after discovery of bias. I removed WaPo for the same reasons, particularly those pointing to Langford's study.

Furthermore, I didn't undo a revert by Acroterion 3 times. I changed "died by suicide" to "committed suicide," thought my changes didn't stick (didn't realize they were changed back, new to this, after all), so made the change again. Then I also changed "high capacity" to "standard capacity" to neutralize the language, which he reverted back. He informed me that the source stated "high capacity" so the article reads "high capacity."

Again, all consistent with my narrative of neutrality. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A narrative of neutrality demands that you read and respect the sources. which at least in the case of the magazine business, you did not. Also, "died by suicide" is typically preferred over "committed suicide," or at least is emerging as a consensus on how suicide should be treated on Wikipedia. See MOS:SUICIDE Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which was corrected and you and I talked. And you told me that Wikipedia articles are to state what the sources say, so I when I updated the sources, which said, "commit suicide," I updated the wikipedia article to state, "commit suicide."

I, myself, have a preference for "commit suicide" over "die by suicide." The latter is unnatural, awkward, and feels forced. It also downplays the the travesty that is the taking of one's own life. Irrespective, the source stated "committed suicide" so I wrote "committed suicide." Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]