Talk:Mass shootings in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Conflicting information is needed in the Lankford report (undated)

I won't try to sound progun or anything, but while the Adam Lankford report which states that America has 31 percent of the worlds mass shootings despite only 5 percent of the worlds population size which, has been well cited by both the media and Wikipedia it by itself has not escaped it's fair share of critics. Gary Kleck, along with Trinity College economics professor Ed Stringham has criticized Adam's report for relaying on NYPD data on mass shootings, which even Lankford himself states misses international cases. Violence and Victims Association, who published his paper and it's Editor-in-Chief Roland Maiuro said that Lankford’s paper was approved by anonymous independent researchers.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/28/critics-shoot-holes-in-widely-cited-gun-study.html

One flaw in his study is that Lankford does not provide a comprehensive list of these massacres which makes hard to clearify. His study is here. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2016/00000031/00000002/art00001;jsessionid=20nejrgfs0m72.x-ic-live-03#

One other source that could be referenced along with the Lankford study is a Snopes article which debates if America has a lower per capita number of victims. The article says that the answer to this question is a bit of yes and a bit of no. Sounds worth a glance. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

Frequency (undated)

I removed several pieces of WP:SYN which appear to have been calculated by an editor, but the Differing Sources section is still little more than a list of seemingly conflicting statistics. How should we report the frequency when reliable sources use different criteria and time periods which result in wildly different numbers?

Expanding the scope

Since this article started, the chart has been 20 deadliest incidents. Today it was changed to "10 or more" (and up to 26 incidents) without any discussion about expanding the list. I reverted it and started this discussion. I feel like 20 is a good number for a table in the article. It provides a number of incidents and highlights the top ones. An endless list belongs in a "list of...." setting. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with scope. An enlarged list can easily be hatted (or whatever works). This is the proper article to keep track of this subject for posterity. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• The scope of the table. It went from 20 deadliest to anything 10 or more. That certainly changes the scope of the table. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, indeed it does. Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that mass shootings with ten or more fatalities is a good criteria for this chart, as it contains a relatively manageable, non-excessive list of incidents, and any incident with less that ten fatalities can go in Category:Lists of massacres by country. --Undescribed (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ten or more shooting fatalities is a reasonable cardinal number dividing line for whether a mass shooting event should be included here. The list will grow over time, which is fine (we'd still have to make changes down the road in its current format anyway, as new events displace old ones). Also, a "Top 20" format may seem to some more like a scoreboard for these gruesome events, while a list based on 10 or more fatalities is more of an accounting over time and provides better detail for those doing research. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Why would that be a reasonable cardinal number? You're making a case for a List, not for the table being expanded. The article about serial killers doesn't list them all, there's a separate list. 20 is a good number and the table doesn't keep growing and growing. You show the top here and then a longer list in a stand-alone list of mass shooting instead of turning this article into a directory. This is a perfect topic for a stand alone list. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ten is a reasonable cardinal number that is used across many similar lists such as Terrorism in the United States#Deadliest attacks, Terrorism in Europe#List of incidents, List of rampage killers, etc. Its not like there are a huge number of incidents with ten or more deaths, to the point where it is unmanageable, and even if it does get to that point we can always just increase the inclusion criteria.--Undescribed (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Notice that one of those you linked is a List of...., which is exactly what I'm suggesting would be the better option. Those 2 terrorism article tables are already getting to look like a mess. Neither of you have given a real reason for the arbitrary 10 other than your personal feeling that it's "reasonable". Again, top 20 stays more manageable. Even with some ties, the size of the table will stay fairly stable. Can you tell me why you're resisting a stand alone list so much? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone here have an idea of whether the "10 or more" list would be significantly larger (maybe 2-3 times) than what we have, or only add 5-10 more incidents? If it's the latter, let's do it here, otherwise a separate list makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• There was a 25% increase immediately. The "new additions" brought the list to 26. I say new because they were from the 70's and 80's, indicating that there are probably more that have occured that aren't shown on the table, let alone future ones. I think a separate list now will keep the table here more manageable in the future. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• To answer your earlier question, the primary reason as to why I would prefer that we don't create a whole new article with a separate list is because it would be basically identical to List of rampage killers (Americas), except that it would exclude non-gun related incidents, and wouldn't contain details about the perpetrator. It just seems redundant. Undescribed (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Which begs the question of why we need a list or article of mass killings separated by method of choice of the perpetrator? Mass murders, with a description of the method seems more appropriate. For example, there is a Serial Killer article and a separate List of serial killers by number of victims. There are not separate articles for serial killers who used poison, serial killers who used blunt objects, etc. This will not be popular, but consistency and WP:NPOV argue strongly in favor of changing this article to "Mass Murders in the United States" and including incidents currently excluded. TXGRunner (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

• A stand alone list is exactly what this needs. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• It seems like the objections to changing the scope to 10+ fatalities are not major, apart from Niteshift. "Top 20" shootings also seems like a random and "top 20"-like setup. I will restore the previous version.

Also, Niteshift's edits removed details from the weapons column which are being discussed above. It looks to me that there's support for the material being more detailed than in Niteshift's version: diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• This doesn't look like consensus to me. Niteshift opened the discussion with clear reasons why the table should be left the way it was with a reference to another list that could include more events. Niteshift repeatedly asked for others to explain their preference for "10 or more" as the appropriate number. I believe the US Department of Justice uses "four or more" in their definition of a "mass shooting" for official statistics. As this is an article about the US, arbitrarily choosing a different standard is confusing and only hampers communication. If we must have an article and list dedicated to the murderer's weapon of choice (see above), then this article should include the top 10 (the number favored by others) and there should be a separate list of all mass shooting in the US using the criteria specified by the USDOJ. TXGRunner (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
• 3 days and you declare consensus? Without any of you giving anything more substantial than "10 sounds like a good number". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem I see with "top 20" is that incidents which are notable end up being rolled off the list. Seems like there ought to be a policy against that. Cinteotl (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is that really a problem? The list of top-grossing films in the US only shows the top 100. Every time one comes on the list, a notable film rolls off. And that is a stand alone list. I'm talking about a table in an article. Why would having a stand alone list for those past the top 20 be a bad idea? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Lists of top grossing films are no more relevant to the discussion here than are lists of most popular dog breeds. Let's stick to policy-based arguments.

A "top 20" list of deadliest shootings has a fundamental problem: someone has to decide the rankings for shootings with the same numbers of fatalities. Which makes the list a synthesis. If, however, we list mass shootings with X or more fatalities, there is no synthesis required. The choice to set X to 10 does not conflict with any standards defining a mass shooting -- it simply reflects a reasonable cut-off point for the listings, based on what is found in independent sources. We could use 12 or 8 instead, but 10 seems to give us a reasonable size list which includes only shootings which meet WP's notability criteria. Cinteotl (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• There's no SYNTH problem, just as there is no SYNTH problem with a "List of highest grossing films" or "NFL Rushing leaders". Facts/rankings change and if we have reliable sourcing about the numbers, the list changes. I suppose we'll call putting things in alphabetical order "synth" next. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is a table, not a "list of...". If someone is looking to create a lengthier, more detailed list, then they should go and do just that... create a list, on another page, and leave this table be.
• This article was stable for some time until this dispute arose. It was the correct move to restore it to it's previous, status quo version. No changes should be made until there is a clear consensus supporting them, and certainly not made while the discussion trying to determine such consensus is still taking place.
• The 20 deadliest mass-shootings is not just sufficient, but a proven basis for this table.
• Switching to "10 and up" with no limit does belong here, it belongs on a stand-alone list.
• Shootings with the same number of fatalities is not a "fundamental problem". There is plenty of way to determine order; total number of victims (fatalities + injured), or chronologically being two examples right there. Problem solved.
• Does anyone have a better reason to support this change, other than "10 is nice cardinal number" and wp:ose?
• jhmo - ^theWOLFchild 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Niteshift's reasoning is persuasive. 10 or more as a criteria would be more appropriate for a standalone List WP:STAND. For an embedded table we should keep Top 20 WP:ListFormat.– Lionel^(talk) 03:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you get past the synthesis problem with a top 20 table? Cinteotl (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is no SYNTH problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the premise that we have reliable sourcing about the numbers (e.g. the rankings). We don't.

As an example, let's consider this version of the top 20 table [1]. Look at the last, 20th, entry: The source for the entry doesn't say that it is the 20th deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. All it says is that there were 11 fatalities in the shooting. Except for the top few entries, the rankings in this table are not directly cited, but rather are inferred from fatality counts extracted from multiple sources. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH: combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Cinteotl (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• We have reliable sources that the events happened. Once again, we don't see many sources publish a new list of 100 highest grossing films, but when one surpasses #100, as verified by a reliable source, it becomes #100 and the former goes away. That's not SYNTH. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:SYNTH. Especially WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

For argument's sake, let's say that we all decide that you've made your case, and the table in this article should list the 20 deadliest mass shootings in the US. Congratulations. What is your source?

Seriously: we need a reliable source that lists the 20 deadliest mass shootings in the US. The previous version of the top 20 table (see [2]) had no such source. Unless you or one of the other editors wanting to include this content can come up with one, we've all been wasting our time here. Cinteotl (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• The previous table had sources. Each incident had its own article. Everything in the table had a RS. You seem to think that we're not allowed to look at a number and say 25 is bigger than 22. You are incorrect. That is not SYNTH. One more time, for those who are ignoring it, many lists update without a specific source rewriting the entire list for us. When a new incident occurs or is discovered as missing, it takes its numerical place on the list. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In the diff you just referenced, the table is presented with this description: "The following are the twenty deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history (c. 1950 onwards)." This claim has no RS. Can you provide one? Cinteotl (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Again, we evolve as history evolves. We don't necessarily need a new article to tell us that 32 is bigger than 31 and more than we needed a new list to tell us that Black Panther became the X highest grossing film. If 32 is verifiable and it bumps 31 off, then it bumps 31 off. If you have evidence that there are incidents being missed, present them. Stop lawyering. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat my question. Can you provide a RS for "the twenty deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history (c. 1950 onwards)"? Cinteotl (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• And I'll repeat that putting reliably sourced events in numerical order isn't synth and doesn't require a new article stating it each time. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that two different technical points are being made and reiterated here. One is that if you have a sentence in a Wikipedia article to the effect of "the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the history of Country X are..." and then there's a challenge to provide a citation and nobody can provide one, the statement can be removed by other editors at any time because it is not sourced. The other point is that if you have a list of items and you put them in some kind of numerical order (based on year, number of casualties, some other criteria, etc.), then it's okay to do that part without a source. Both of those points, taken individually, are correct. So the real issue here is, which one of them is the relevant point that applies? If the older version of the article with the "top 20" format was still in effect (the one that said "the twenty deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history are...") and an editor added a citation needed tag to that sentence, how would editors who are interested in keeping a top 20 format go about reforming that sentence to comply with sourcing rules? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The first few items in the table are already sourced to a CNN list which has 33 shootings and seems to be updated regularly. Instead of deciding for ourselves, we could let the reliable sources determine which ones to include in a "most notable" or "top #" list. –dlthewave ☎ 23:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you noticed that no reliable sources seem to rank mass shootings? Think about it: If they did so, they'd have to decide whether to include unborn children, the perpetrators' suicides, incidental/related deaths, and non-fatality casualties. Unless we want to walk where angels fear to tread, we too should stay far away from ranking mass shootings.

Change the table from "twenty deadliest mass shootings" to "deadliest mass shootings," sort it by date (to avoid the implied ranking that sorting by fatalities would create), include the CNN list, and we're most of the way there. Cinteotl (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We can use that source to list the first 20. We don't have to say "20 deadliest", but we can limit the number to 20 with an invisible note on the table. Again, my suggestion is a "List of...." article for the more comprehensive list and a hatnote to it here. Since you seem to feel like it's routinely updated enough, that argument is not a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question? This is apparently still being discussed by multiple editors. So why is the expanded version that was restored as "consensus" still the version in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your proposal to limit the table to 20 shootings: unless you also propose a method for choosing those 20, there's not much to discuss. Regarding your proposal to create a "List of" article: Again, not much to discuss. You're free to create that article. (Afterwards, we can discuss hatnoting it here.) Are there any other issues you'd like to discuss here? Cinteotl (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Simple, we use the universally accepted method of putting numbers in order based on their value. Some call it numerical order. We start with the biggest number, then we determine the next largest number using math skills taught to every second grader in the US. We continue until we have 20, then we stop. When the source updates with a new incident that is large than number 20, we repeat the simple ordering exercise. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What value do you propose to use for ordering? Fatalities? Casualties? Would you propose counting victims only, or including perpetrators? How about unborn children? What source do you propose start with for the initial list of shootings? Or would you propose using multiple sources to create a composite list? How would you propose handling inconsistencies between the sources? How would you propose ordering shootings with the same numbers of fatalities? If the 20th and 21st shootings on the list have the same number of fatalities (as is the case on the current list), what method would you propose to decide which one to include?

If you're serious about your proposal, I expect you'll want to address these questions. Cinteotl (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We would use fatalities. Why? Because aside from the original table using fatalities, most of the reliable sources I've seen use the number of fatalities as the measure they rank them by. Personally, I prefer using victims only, but the majority of sources include the shooter, so I'd have to go with that one. As for unborn children....we go with the predominant RS count. Obviously a mass shooting will be covered by a number of reliable sources. If the majority lists the child, we would too. If they don't, we would not. As I already suggest above, we could use the CNN listing as the basis to start with. How would I handle inconsistencies? The same way we do every where else, with a discussion on the talk page. How do we order events with the same number of fatalities? We already have that situation and have had it since the start. To be honest, I feel like this is a tiny issue being used to obstruct the larger one, but I'll play. My suggestion would be putting them in date order since the titles to the corresponding Wikipedia article may take different forms. Dates are going to be consistent. If there are several with the same fatality count, they all show. Yes, that's more than 20, but that is exactly how this has functioned and it's consistent with other tables on Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"most of the reliable sources I've seen use the number of fatalities as the measure they rank them by." Then please provide citations to those sources. I've asked you repeatedly for reliable sources which rank the deadliest mass shootings, yet you've ignored or evaded the question. We need this information to work towards consensus. Please, just cite the sources, so we can use them in the article. Cinteotl (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I answered a number of your questions. You completely ignored that and went back the broken record. How can you contend that I'm not trying to find a solution when you do that? Stop saying that I haven't given you a source. I've stated MORE THAN ONCE that the CNN source presented by others is satisfactory to me. Unless you are contending that CNN isn't a RS???? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I deferred responding to your other answers because, if you actually could cite a reliable source that ranks the deadliest mass shootings, they'd all be moot. We could just use that source in the article. As for CNN: I assume you're referring to [3]. Since you're aware that list includes no rankings, I'm surprised you mentioned it.

At this point, I've asked you at least 4 times for a RS that ranks the deadliest mass shootings, and you've not provided a responsive answer. So, I'm going to assume that you do not know of any reliable source that ranks the deadliest mass shootings. If you don't want me to make this assumption, just tell me. Time to move on.

I agree with you that the CNN article is acceptable as starting point for the table. That article lists victim fatalities separately from perpetrator fatalities, and doesn't include unborn children. I think we are both OK with all of that. I think also, that we can agree to the "death" column in the article table displaying victim fatalities as the primary value, with a note indicating, for example, "plus perp" or "plus 2 perps." We might want to include a note indicating unborn children. I'd suggest that the table be labeled "Deadliest mass shootings in the US since 1949." This gives some wiggle room, by not saying "all" of the deadliest shootings (in case we miss some), and it doesn't beg the question of what is a "notable" shooting. I agree with you that the that the native sorting of the table should be date descending. This gives a historical context, and saves us from having to make any arbitrary choices of order for shootings that have the same number of fatalities. Of course, readers can click on the column heading, and sort the table based on number of fatalities. We can let WP's algorithms handle figuring out the order for shootings with the same number of fatalities. As for the length of the table, I think it's safe to defer to CNN or other reliable sources for this. If this is a sticking point, let's get consensus on everything else before we deal with it. Let me know where we still have disagreements. Cinteotl (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

*So instead of the original 20, or the new table's 26 based on 10 or more fatalities, now you are going to go with 33 because that is what CNN is doing? Wasn't the whole point of this discussion that there was scope creep in the original table and Niteshift's suggestion was to leave the table the way it was with a reference to a list?

*In reading through your (Cinteotl) comments, hundreds of tables and lists would never exist under your interpretation of the policy. For example, how could the list List of serial killers by number of victims exist if we were dependent on a single source that ranked all the killers and following the list order? While WP:SYNTH declares we can't take hypothesis A from one RS and hypothesis B from another RS to argue hypothesis AB, I don't think that extends to simple ordinal organization. We have an article on a given type of vehicle stating the GEN III Dodge Dakota was manufactured for model years 1996 to 2004 and a separate source stating the GEN IV Dodge Dakota was manufactured for model years 2005 through 2010, then a table listing the generations and model years is not synthesis, just a ordinal organization of supported data.

*Now you are agreeing to base everything on the CNN article, as Niteshift suggested, but want to create a table of 33 events since the arbitrarily chosen year of 1949. I think that is unwieldy and lends itself better to a list, as is done in other, less controversial, subjects. Personally, I think the top 10 (by number of fatalities) is sufficient, with a tie listing however many tie for spot 10.

*I don't see any support in this discussion for regurgitating CNN's list as is in total. I see an edit was made without discussion, it was reverted pending discussion, the change was re-inserted and somebody declared consensus over the number to be used for the list, and then there were eight days additional discussion about sourcing, ordering of list, and now the list will be 33.

*If there must be a list at all (there shouldn't; it should be mass murders, not mass murders by a particular weapon), I do agree with you about making the list chronological rather than by number of fatalities. As you state, people can reorder the list how they want, but it should follow a timeline.TXGRunner (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

CNN has updated their article about this: Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History Fast Facts "Here is a list of the deadliest single day mass shootings in US history from 1949 to the present." No it doesn't number them, but it is sated as a list of the deadliest shootings and is ordered from highest to lowest. I strongly oppose changing the order of the chart: its a chart about the deadliest shootings therefore it should be ordered by death toll. There isn't an arbitrary order to those with the same number of deaths; they are ordered by date with the oldest first. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

CNN's order is moot, because the table uses more than just one source. And the other sources don't use the same order as CNN. Cinteotl (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not moot, it is obvious. It states that it is a list and then proceeds to list them in order of most deaths. There are two differences to the table on this page: the CNN numbers exclude the perpetrator if they were killed during the indecent, and ,if the death toll is the same, has the newest incident first. There are multiple sources used in the table because Wikipedia is not about copy and pasting from a single source; we use multiple, reliable sources. From my look through, its only the Palm Sunday massacre that is not included in the CNN article. I don't understand your objection to it? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 02:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, it's a list. And it's ordered in a particular way, which you think is obvious. I'm not seeing where there is a problem. Cinteotl (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cinteotl: "if you actually could cite a reliable source that ranks the deadliest mass shootings, they'd all be moot. We could just use that source in the article. As for CNN: I assume you're referring to [19]. Since you're aware that list includes no rankings, I'm surprised you mentioned it. At this point, I've asked you at least 4 times for a RS that ranks the deadliest mass shootings, and you've not provided a responsive answer. So, I'm going to assume that you do not know of any reliable source that ranks the deadliest mass shootings." = the CNN source. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there some proposal you want to make to improve the article? If you just want to tell me how wrong I am, feel free to post a message on my talk page. Cinteotl (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• At this point, there are at least 2 other editors that understand and seem to support what I've proposed. Some details may seem obscured by the sheer volume of your repeated claim that we need a source to put things in order or to see that one number is larger than another. In fact, you're the only one really actively opposing this. The more relevant question here is whether or not YOU have a proposal to improve the article or if you merely plan to continue to obstruct the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I presented several proposals in my post above, on 22:58, 6 April 2018. Maybe it'd be a good idea to recap what you're proposing, and see what we can find consensus on. Cinteotl (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Crime Prevention Research Center

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CRPC) is not a reliable source. The other changes by User:Elmerrutger were not supported by a reference, added original research, and removed categories. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source and has been removed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The 'Crime Prevention Research Center' (CRPC) lists its cases. The "90 out of 292" statistic comes from a paper by Adam Lankford, who does not list his cases. He has declined to share his data. The CPRC has a distinguished academic advisory board. Elmerrutger (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)— Elmerrutger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

You notice all those books for sale on one of the links you provided? That's a bad sign. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The books include books published by the University of Chicago Press. In response to the prestigous list of academics from Harvard, The Wharton Business School, University of Chicago, and so on your objection is to note that the page lists books on the subjects being discussed so that people can learn more about the issues?

In addition, the CPRC research on mass public shootings has been given coverage on Fox News Sunday, the Los Angeles Times, and Fox's Speical Report. -- ExProfessor (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)— ExProfessor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

Gaia Octavia Agrippa We need more than a naked claim that CRPC is not a reliable source. Yet, you provided no citation. On the other hand, both Elmerrutger and ExProfessor provided compelling citations, showing CRPC's academic bonefides, and use of their research by mainstream media organizations. So, unless you can pull a disqualifying citation out of your pocket, I think there's consensus that they're a reliable source (biased, but reliable.)

You said "the other changes by Elmerrutger were not supported by a reference, added original research, and removed categories." Again, we need more than naked claims. Would you please be specific? Cinteotl (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff In your edit summary, you wrote "Not only is the source questionable, including no author listed for the piece, but many entries on the list are of terrorist attacks carried out by groups of militants from ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.)"

Feel free to try and impeach the source. Elmerrutger and ExProfessor have already made a pretty strong case that it is reliable. As for no author being listed: I can't find any RS policy against that. As for entries in this list being terrorist attacks carried out by groups of militants: What's your point? Were the November 2015 Paris attacks not mass shootings for this reason? Cinteotl (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• A little history lesson about the University of Chicago Press and being on staff at prestigious school... John Lott was a professor at U of Chicago, Yale and other name schools. He published More Guns, Less Crime via the U of Chicago press. The gun control crowd has disputed his findings for 2 decades. Regarding the question about terrorist attacks. Yes, I do believe there's a good argument to be made against including terror attacks. I'm not making it at this point, but there is one that can be made. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

So, is there consensus that CPRC is reliable? (With the proviso that they be handled in the same way that any reliable but biased source would be?) Regards terrorists: if we get to that discussion, I imagine we'll defer to reliable sources. Cinteotl (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, there is not consensus that they are reliable. It is essentially John Lott's personal blog where he sells his pro-gun books [4] wherein which just loading the page automatically triggers a "please subscribe or donate" button --- regarding the material that was formerly in the lede [5] it does not fall within the scope of this article as it contains terrorist attacks by groups of people, mainly Boko Haram, as well as some other Islamist groups. Regarding the LA Times opinion piece, I would consider having that in the article, but attribution would be required ("According to an op-ed by John R. Lott Jr."), one sentence at most, and the material would go somewhere in the body, not the lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff -- Remember yesterday, when I said, of John Lott, "Feel free to try and impeach the source?" What I meant was "provide citations that explicitly impeach his reliability." I was going to say you needed a smoking gun. I didn't, but if I had, that smoking gun might have looked like these: [6] [7] [8] [9] (TL,DR: They allege Lott has falsified research, and provide citations to substantiate the claims.) Also, CPRC has already been to the reliable source noticeboard, with a "not reliable" verdict.[10] So, I revise initial view, I can't support Lott as a reliable source, even for a minority viewpoint. Cinteotl (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you surprised me. Thank you for your comment and looking into it further. Cheers. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Are User:Elmerrutger and User:ExProfessor the same person?

They both have less than 10 edits on Wikipedia [11] [12] and if they are the same person it needs to be transparent. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• CU shows that it is unlikely they are related. Katie^talk 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lankford report statistic

I made a change detailing that 292 *known* public mass shootings occurred across the world between 1966 and 2012. The statistic comes from research by Adam Lankford, who states in his paper, "This study will attempt to answer these questions and more, based on its quantitative analysis of all known public mass shooters who attacked anywhere on the globe from 1966 to 2012 and killed a minimum of four victims (N = 292)." Lankford himself uses the word "known". It is not certain that there were exactly 292 public mass shootings worldwide from 1966 to 2012, and Lankford acknowledges this.Elmerrutger (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Discussion Notice

A discussion regarding this article has been opened at the No original research Noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Too bad you wasted everyone's time by going there with only half the story. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

@Waleswatcher: what policy do you believe supports your removal of reliable sourced content, that with its opposing view brought neutrality to article. -72bikers (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What kind of "opposing view" was that supposed to represent? Why does it bring neutrality? As far as I see it does not represent an opposing view at all, rather describes at excessive length a specific theory about why mass shooters choose AR-15s, and then some completely irrelevant (to this article) information about police and military users.Waleswatcher (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your views are yours to have. The content most definitely belongs here and balance the statements right before it. It offers a opposing view. I believe any attempt to deny this is a attempt to deny NPOV. The content is not written in stone and can be reworked but it can not be denied. -72bikers (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

An opposing view to what? Be specific, please. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am more than happy to lend a hand and guide you to understand.72bikers (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lets start with this, "In contrast to the rest of the world, where the perpetrator typically has only one gun, more than half of US mass shootings are committed with multiple weapons." Exactly what is the significance of this to the article? This statement would seem to imply that the US mass murders are some how more deadly. The fact that the US trails many European countries per capita with mass murders, let alone the rest of the world would refute this. If this content is to stay it should be balanced with this fact, I have sources to confirm.

This statement "While pistols are still the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings, AR-15 style rifles have been used in six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in recent American history. and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." This statement would also imply that the AR is some how a super superior deadly weapon, this needs to balanced with reliable relevant views as I had provided. -72bikers (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That statement implies nothing more than you read into it - it's just a statement of fact. If someone said "AR-15 rifles are the weapon of choice because they are the most deadly weapon available" or something, your comment would make some sense. But there is no statement in there like that. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Waleswatcher, we can mention the fact that something is popular even if the reason for its popularity is unknown, disputed or illogical. Like most purchasing decisions there are a number of factors that explain its popularity besides "deadliness". –dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• First, 5 of the top 10 used an AR. The Pulse shooting was not an AR. Different operating system. Second, why are we focused on just the 10? If we expand this list merely to the top 15, the ratio drops markedly from 50% to 33% (6 of 18). This starts to look like the scope of the statement is being limited to make a point. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the expand, currently it looks a little cheery-picked. The article is about mass shootings not just one weapon. -72bikers (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The rifle used in Pulse has been described in several sources as an AR. I actually agree with you that's not exactly right, but the whole notion of "AR-15 style" is pretty much ill-defined. So if you want we can add a source disputing that, if there is one. As for six/ten, that's what the source picked, and "top ten" is completely standard and common. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Several sources call Justin Bieber a great singer, but it doesn't make it so. The WaPo even gave us this: [13] "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles." They go on to quote someone who actually understands the firearm to say "otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.” An uneducated reporter misusing the term doesn't mean it is correct. I even saw reports that the Santa Fe shooting involved an AR15....and then it turned out there was no rifle at all. Since you're in favor of a "top 10", I think we should revisit the discussion about expanding the scope of the table. That was never actually resolved. Again, 5 of 10, but still misleading. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you think is "misleading". There's lots of detailed information in the article about which weapons were used in which shootings. The fact is, a disproportionate fraction of the most deadly ones used ARs. Why that is is up for debate, but one plausible possibility is it's because ARs are better at killing lots of people than the other weapons shooters have used. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, AR's aren't better at killing. That's not the primary reason for choosing them in the first place for the military or for most shooters. To this day, we still haven't had a count of how many fatalities at Las Vegas were from AR15's. We just presume that the lion's share were without actual evidence. And when you say a "disproportionate fraction" used AR15's you are incorrect. 5 of 10 did. That's not disproportionate. 7 of 10 also used pistols. That's closer to disproportionate.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If they aren't better at killing, why are they the weapon used in some many very deadly shootings? As for disproportionate, are you sure you know what that means? It quite clearly is disproportionate - most shootings with handguns outnumber those with ARs by a large factor, and yet 5 or 6/10 of the most deadly are with ARs. Or if you don't like the top ten way of counting, consider the average deaths from shootings involving ARs vs those not involving ARs (it will be higher with ARs), or any number of other stats.Waleswatcher (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you even understand the question you are asking? #3 on the list is a shooting event that used solely handguns, including a .22. One of the deadliest shootings using one of the most under-powered firearms around. There's a reason the US military is lobbying to go to heavier calibers. The answer is availability, not "deadliness". And yes, I know what disproportionate means, but I'm not sure you do. You're trying to mix uses without taking into account which firearms did what. And in many cases, you don't even know what firearm was used to what extent. You're simply guessing. And don't tell me to "find a source to the contrary", because you haven't produced a source that tells us how many fatalities at LV were from the AR15, but you're pretending like all of them were. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, it quite obviously is disproportionate, and you've said nothing that disputes that. In any case, plenty of reliable sources agree, which is what matters here. As for "you haven't produced a source that tells us how many fatalities at LV were from the AR15, but you're pretending like all of them were" - I've never said anything about that, actually. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have disputed it, although you make that difficult when you keep changing what you claim is disproportionate. You are pretending like the LV fatalities were from AR15. Your latest edit was very POV, making a point rather than simply discussing the issue. Either talk about the AR15 or talk about "assault weapons", but don't mix your points about them. And you should discuss it here before trying to force in more of your point. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We can discuss the accuracy of the 6/10 figure, but we certainly cannot change the article text to 5/10 unless it is supported by a source that says 5/10. Your edit was OR. The "AR-15 style rifle or other assault weapon" phrasing neatly sidesteps potential inaccuracy without adding OR. Reliable sources, not wiki editors, are the ones making all of these claims. –dlthewave ☎ 13:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit isn't OR. I'm tired of people who don't know what they're talking about claiming that anything they don't like is OR. I provided a source that the Pulse shooting doesn't involve an AR15. I could provide more. But somehow, you've decided that the Washington Post isn't reliable enough to say that it was not an AR15? 5 of 10. Prove otherwise. As for the tap dance about "or other assault weapons", A single reporter making a comparison of his own doesn't make it encyclopedic. Pretending that a random statement by a random reporter is now some gold standard isn't even close to the intent of DUE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Niteshift36, my edit accurately summarized what was in that source. Do you dispute that? If not, on what basis did you revert it? If you feel that source does not accurately represent the mainstream view, what exactly do you think the mainstream view is, and what are your sources for it? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You're taking a single source that is trying to make a single point and calling it encyclopedic. Are you going to talk about AW's, AR15's or just any random stat someone spews? Pick a lane and get in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Good, so you don't dispute it's an accurate summary of the source. You also haven't provided any sources (or arguments or anything else) showing it's not representative of the mainstream view (and I'm happy to add more sources to that one, if you think it's necessary). If you think there are other (non-mainstream) views that should be represented, you can always add them. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything with you is proving a negative. You expect a perfectly worded refutation of some random stuff a reporter said. That's not how this works. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The reporter states "But in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Conn., in 2012; San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015; Orlando, Fla., in 2016; Las Vegas, 2017; Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles." That is factually incorrect. The Washington Post [14], Business Insider [15], CNBC [16] and Tampa Bay Times[17] contradict this incorrect assertion. First you started this about the AR15, then you tried skirting your source being incorrect by saying "assault weapons". This really looks more like you trying to make a point than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The LA Times source has been shown to be refuted by numerous RS's. It does not make the statement "AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifle". It says AR15. Stop. We don't get to alter what the source says simply because we want to use it and we have to fix the fact that the the author is simply wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hazen quote

A recent edit added the following quote:

Quoted expert Dean Hazen said, "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle, it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Perhaps they choose the AR-15 based on the rep it has received from other shootings or it is the "weapon of choice" for police. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments.

References

Only the parts which I've put in bold are directly attributable to Hazen; the rest simply quotes the source's paraphrasing of Hazen's comments. The paragraph should be rephrased to reflect this but I wanted to discuss it here first. Additionally, the first two USAToday sources are nearly identical and one of them should be removed. –dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Pinging 72bikers who wrote the paragraph.

• Agree a rewrite is needed that includes the material later added by Waleswatcher. Both sets of new material aren't summaries of their sources rather just quotes taken from the source. The "balance" material added by WW has issues in that it includes quotes but doesn't attribute them. It doesn't have a lead in to tell the user who is making the claim or why they are reliable. As an aside, the 6 of 10 claim isn't accurate and either needs to be addressed via some type of notation that the source incorrectly attributes one of the shootings to an "AR-15" or it should be removed as an inaccurate claim. It should not stand as it's provably incorrect based on other RSs. Springee (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 6/10, it's unclear if it's correct or not. Multiple sources make that claim, including one of the ones brought up to refute it (which says "all but removes it from the AR-15 family...", that is, it's in that family). The real issue is what exactly an AR-15 style rifle is. The best way to deal with this is probably to replace "AR-15" with "AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifle" or something. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The LA Times article is wrong. Yes, the guns are similar in operation just as a Ford and Chevy pickup are similar in operation. That doesn't mean they are the same nor that we can include Chevy trucks when we say "Ford pickup". I'm OK with your "AR-15 or similar..." modification so long as we include a footnote explaining why that language was included. Springee (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not agree with ""AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifle". If you're going to single out AR15's, then talk about AR15's. If you're going to talk about semi-auto rifles, then talk about them. But don't mix the two so that you can make 2 separate statements to make the issue sound different. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have addressed issues raised. I don't see how WW edit such as this "They are also "very customizable — most average people can figure out how to install accessories like forward trigger grips that let you hold the gun at waist height and spray bullets while stabilizing the gun, laser sights," is relevant to the article. It is not a gun article and the experts have stated that the killers are not doing this to there guns. Claiming the lack of this is proof these killers have little knowledge of guns. This content that is repeated "They carry high-capacity magazines," also seems out of place. As well as other issues. -72bikers (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't think features like that - which very likely are important for why mass shooters choose it - are relevant to this article, but you consider information about how the police think about its wall-penetrating properties to be relevant? I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense at all. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Who is making the claim, are they qualified to make the claim and why is it presented in Wiki voice vs as an attributed claim. For example the claim you added includes a statement about "forward trigger grips". What the hell are "forward trigger grips"? I've heard of vertical forward grips but none with integrated triggers. Beyond the "trigger" part, the description of what a forward vertical grip is good for is wrong (for that matter the reason why a vertical rear grip is useful is also not for firing from the hip). Since these are claims of functionality they should be supportable by firearms experts. Springee (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A press release, written by an anonymous person from an activist group that has every reason in the world to frame their statement in the most horrible sounding way possible.... or an actual expert on the topic? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a group that specializes in gun violence, versus an expert in the guns themselves. The former is more expert than the latter for an article on mass shootings. Anyway, we don't have to choose one or the other, we can include both or alternate sources, there is certainly no lack. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they are an advocacy group. It's no more reasonable to quote them in wikivoice than it would be to quote the NRA. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, except that the NRA actually understands the firearms. The Brady org may claim to "specialize in gun violence", but not so much about guns. That's why they use nonsense terms like "forward trigger grips", which don't even exist. Or talk about "laser sights" as a reason to choose, while ignoring the fact that lasers can be put on everything from .22 revolvers to bolt action .50 rifles. They simply don't know what they're talking about and it doesn't matter to them if they do. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for a re-write of the section? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would propose removing the limited and questionable information you added. Sorry, I don't think anything can be done to save it nor do I think it adds value to the article. It's not even a contrary POV to the 72bikers' material. Why AR-15's are picked shouldn't have contrary points of view. It should simply have summaries of what experts think. As for 72biker's material, I would suggest putting it in a more summary form, perhaps dropping the direct quotes since I think we can reliably summarize. I would also try to find at least one more expert. That would bring the total to three. Springee (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Niteshift removed some, which is OK with me (I left that quote out, and just added "highly customizable", which is indisputable I think). Waleswatcher (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the updated "AR-15 or ..." edit from earlier today needs a footnote to indicate the source incorrectly says 6 AR-15 style rifles. The MCX is not an AR-15 any more than an AK-74 modified to use STANAG magazines and 5.56 ammo would be. Since this is an encyclopedia we should endeavor to be technically correct. Niteshift36 removed part of the USA Today sourced material [[18]]. I would also remove this sentence or rework this one as well, " They carry high-capacity magazines, a feature that "makes them attractive to people looking to commit mass murder", and are accurate, lightweight, and have low recoil." That is a claim that needs to be attributed. We shouldn't make such a claim in Wiki voice. There is no reason why that claim would be assumed correct but the claims following it need to be attributed. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a footnote regarding Orlando and the MCX, even though I don't think it's really necessary with the current phrasing. For the high-capacity magazine etc, I don't mind looking for yet another source. Before I do that though, can you point me to the wiki policy that explains under what circumstances such quotes need to be attributed to an expert individual, rather than to a journalist? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think if you remove the LA Times article it would address the sourcing concern. At this time I don't want to weigh in on the NPOV/WEIGHT issue. It's not clear why this particular stat is needed vs just wanted in the article. Regardless, the problem with retaining the LA Times sources is, as is, the source contains a significant factual error related to the claim it's being used to support. It doesn't say "AR-15/semi-auto rifle", it only says AR-15. The other source also has an error in that it says AR-15 or semiautomatic but doesn't stipulate rifle. Well, many of the other mass shootings have used semi-auto pistols. I understand that isn't what they mean and the wiki text does keep that clear. Springee (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 11 edits

This edit adding a claim about the use of high capacity magazines should be reviewed [[19]]. The problem with such a claim is that "high capacity" magazines are often standard capacity for typical guns. The definition of "high capacity" is typically 10 rounds. Many common pistols including most Glocks carried by police officers have magazines that carry more than 10 rounds (12-15 are common). This issue has been discussed by sources that noted the alarmist nature of claims such as the one added above.

As a side note, I noticed the "Weapon of choice" statement includes a citation to the Brady Campaign. That one should probably be removed as the Brady Campaign is not a reliable source any more than we would consider the NRA a reliable source. There are enough other sources that I don't think this removal would cause any issues. Springee (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of sources regarding the use of high-capacity magazines in mass shootings. From what I've seen the definition is usually "more than 10 rounds", not 10 rounds or more. Whether or not that is "alarmist" depends entirely on your perspective, but it is factual, well-sourced, and notable (there is extensive coverage and it's frequently discussed in the context of possible bans in response to mass shootings).

Regarding the Brady campaign reference, I object to removing it and I do not agree it is not a reliable source in this context (see e.g. WP:BIASED). Waleswatcher (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, I meant to say more than 10 as 10 is typically the cut off. However, we should make it clear that many of the "high capacity" magazines are simply the standard magazine that comes with the gun. There are a number of articles that make that point. As for the Brady Campaign's reliability, remember as an advocacy group that tries to drive the conversation on gun control they are not independent, 3rd party players. They aren't an independent source. They certainly are biased. You might agree with their bias but they aren't neutral with regards to this subject. You can't reasonably argue they are any more neutral than the NRA or other gun rights groups. Springee (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to including more information on magazine sizes. As for Brady, I suggest you take a look at WP:BIASED. I haven't said anything about the NRA or whether I agree with anyone's bias. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As for Brady see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Springee (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it, thanks. Why is it relevant? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a reliable impartial source -72bikers (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

"Unbiased" is not a requirement for a reliable source (on the contrary, in fact), per WP:BIASED. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Unbiased is always good per WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides". Using highly biased sources is a NPOV issue. The Brady Campaign is material is also self published so per WP:RS we shouldn't use it for controversial claims. Since we already have other sources making the claim we don't change the article with this removal. Springee (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not wiki policy. The policy actually states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So, on what grounds are you edit warring to remove this source? What is your justification? "The source is biased" isn't a justification (especially when it agrees with many other sources, as you yourself admitted). Waleswatcher (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from the summary. The grounds for removal are described above. "The source is biased" isn't the justification so please stop pretending that was the reason. Springee (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If "the source is biased" isn't the justification, why did you just say " Using highly biased sources is a NPOV issue"? It's not an issue, it's actually sometimes necessary. As for self-published, a press release by an organization is not "self-published" per wiki. So, you have not presented any valid grounds for removal of this source. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the policy of self-published sources: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Nothing in that applies to a press release by an organization. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 (UTC)

If you are going to edit war at least you should know why the other person is removing the material. It's being removed as unreliable per WP:RS. It's a self published source making a controversial claim. Before you claim it's not controversial, if it wasn't controversial why would we need so many sources to back the statement? The Brady Campaign is an advocacy group, not a subject matter expert. Please stop falsely claiming it was removed as "biased". Springee (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not self-published, as you can see in the quote above. So that claim is out the window. It's not clear it's biased, but even if it is that's not a valid reason. So that's out the window. So what precisely in WP:RS are you referring to? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This really isn't controversial. Who is making the claim? A Brady spokesperson. Where is the claim being published? The Brady Campaign website. That is pretty much the definition of self published. Now lets go a step further. The self published section you quoted is meant to provide an example of what is considered self published. It doesn't say "these are the only things that are considered self published". Furthermore, consider this section WP:QS, "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] " So does Brady have an independent, reliable editorial board? Would the fact that they advocate against types of firearms suggest they might have a conflict of interest when offering opinions on the subject (ie they won't be neutral but instead will offer opinions that support their POV). I would also suggest looking at [[20]]. "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." No remember we are trying to support a controversial opinion/claim. That means we should be careful about using lower quality sources or sources that may have bias and thus their opinion regarding the question at hand wouldn't be considered reliable. That's what we have here. This should be self evident. Springee (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Press releases are explicitly defined as self-published sources per our policy at WP:SPS. If you disagree, pursue changing the policy. VQuakr (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)