Talk:Mass shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Do Not Add Fringe Theory Statements or References—they will be removed

Fellow Editors, I will do my best to WP:AGF, but any edit that makes or supports the claim that the US can somehow be statistically demonstrated not to lead the world in mass shootings, will be removed per WP:UNDUE. The evidence is clear in established, reliable, verifiable sources that the US does, in fact, lead the world in mass shootings by any reasonable metric. Claims to the contrary are pushing a politically-motivated Fringe Theory, the likes of which are 1) not required to be included per WP policy, and 2) will be removed per WP:UNDUE. Darkest Tree Talk 17:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need this article?

I just saw this edit by Jumplike23 at the Mass murder article, which led me to this Mass shooting article that Jumplike23 created. I also see that this article was recently the subject of a WP:AfD that involved Arthistorian1977, VQuakr and Davey2010.

Jumplike23 and/or others, why is this article needed? I mean, keeping WP:Spinout and WP:No split in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This was a redirection to Mass_murder for years, until recently the new article was created. So, I think it has to be a section in Mass_murder. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I didn't see any point to the article which Is why I BOLDly redirected it back to Mass Murder where it seemed better off, I disagree with it being an article but wasn't gonna war over it. –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for your interest in the article. My response to why we need a separate article: 1) the article on mass murder is really not very well done 2) mass shooting is a notable subject both on wiki (see number of different article on mass shooting incidents) and beyond (see google search and scholar) 3) I, with other editors on the Charleston church shooting talk page, do not see some of these events as murder until they have been convicted in court of law. Murder is a legal term. Thus, it is confusing when you have someone accused of a crime (and a general wiki policy of not calling him a murderer until he is convicted) yet the first sentence redirects to mass murder 4) look at the mass murder page itself, mentioning the repeated criticism of that term. thanks again. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed explanation. I see now why the different article is better :). Regards Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of misunderstandings floating around on this talk page. @Flyer22: the onus is on you and others who think this content should be removed to demonstrate why this content is better merged into another article or deleted, not the article creator (or anyone else) to defend why an article is "needed." There is no particularly tight parent/daughter relationship between this article and mass murder (though they obviously are related concepts), so linking WP:SPLIT and related articles is not very germane. @Arthistorian1977: whether this article existed as a redirect before its creation as an article is completely irrelevant. See Template:Redirect with possibilities for more on the concept. @Davey2010: your AfD closure was a supervote, not a bold redirect. No big deal - everyone makes mistakes, but you have not presented any actual reasoning for your opinion that this article should be merged, redirected, or deleted. @Jumplike23: the article quality of mass murder is not relevant to whether this article should be kept. I find your argument #2 convincing, and since we disagree on #3 but agree that no policy-based reasoning for removing this article has been presented, I will stop at 2. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nope I hold my hands up I did perhaps make a mistake, I simply assumed Redirecting was the best course of action judging not only by the article but its sources and as it was previously redirected there I thought it was the best idea for it, Although perhaps it looked like it it wasn't intended as a supervote just a bold redirect, –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, it's not often that I disagree with you. But I agree to disagree about the onus in this case; the onus is on both sides (the side thinking that this content should be merged and the side thinking this content should be split). Just like it is on both sides during a WP:AfD. In this case, my argument is that mass shooting is an aspect of mass murder, and the Mass murder article is not a big article; there is no WP:SIZE issue that would warrant this separate article. And we shouldn't be needlessly creating spin-off articles. JumpLike23's argument that "the article on mass murder is really not very well done" is a poor reason to have this spin-off article. A solution would be to improve the Mass murder article and adequately cover the topic of mass shooting there. That stated, JumpLike23 does have a point that "mass shooting" does not always mean "mass murder"; well, I disagree with his assertion that "some of these events [are not] murder until [the shooters] have been convicted in court of law." However, with regard to distinguishing mass shooting from mass murder, a mass shooting might have multiple people who are injured...but one murder. And because of that, I see validity in keeping this Mass shooting article. I wanted to know JumpLike23's or others' reasons for keeping this article, and JumpLike23 politely obliged. Thank you, JumpLike23. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AfDs default to keep. That's a verifiable fact, so if you disagree we must be talking about something else. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your point on the matter, since the nominator of an article for deletion has the onus of arguing why an article should be deleted, and since those arguing for keep have the onus of validly arguing why the article should be kept. I've seen articles deleted because the editors arguing "keep" did not do their jobs in showing why the article should be kept. In these cases, either the nominator didn't do a good WP:Before job or the nominator lacked access to the sources that show that the topic is WP:Notable and can sustain a Wikipedia article. And in these cases, because the "keep" arguments were poor, both the nominator and the "keep" arguments failed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article, needs developing further

This is very different to 'Mass murders', and is a good start. However can we add a section 'Mass shootings by country' (not war zones), with world wide data. Nearly 30% of all mass shootings happen in the US, and Obama's speeches on this matter raises the notability of this article, and stresses the importance of comparing the US with other 'civilised' countries. We should also be looking at the availability of guns in those countries. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000 Thank you, sir! I agree we need to further develop this article. Please help! Lots of other related articles have tables that show the shootings with the most deaths. Should we add that? Yes, we should look at the availability of guns in those countries. I have only added gun laws in the UK and Australia.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Is there an official definition of a "mass shooting", other than quoting Mother Jones magazine? DonPMitchell (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@DonPMitchell I think so, don't we deal with it elsewhere in the article? we should probably remove that as the lead sentence. Do you want to do that? --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found a definition in an FBI publication. I'll replace the sentence. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact the article I found was already cited, but its contents were not very clearly discussed. I think the article is straight forward now and leads with that FBI definition of "mass killing". DonPMitchell (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The FBI has not defined a "mass shooting" as "the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period," as erroneously stated in the Definition section. That's the FBI's definition of mass murder, not "mass shooting." The FBI has no official definition for "mass shooting." The cited Mother Jones article does not indicate that this is the FBI's definition of "mass shooting," and specifically states "An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location." For this reason, this line should be removed from the Definition section. Sup3rmark (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This entry is for "mass shootings", not "murder" or "mass murder"

This is the entry for mass shooting, not mass murder. There are no citations in existence that show all mass shootings are mass murders. It doesn’t matter who you cite to: it cannot be the truth that all shootings result in murder. Our job is not to conflate the terms mass shooting with mass murder, but to explain the difference. You would think that obvious, but I will go into detail anyway.

Quick Summary:

Most of this entry, as written, should be moved to the entry “mass murder” on wikipedia. Not all shootings result in murder, so if mass murder is discussed in the context of a mass shooting it should be placed somewhere down the page, and given it’s own heading and discussed as a subset of all mass shootings. I have made some small edits, will create a section for mass shootings that result in mass murder, and added a Controversy section. Anything that relates to mass shootings which result in the mass murder of the people shot should be moved to it’s own section.

Further clarification:

“Shooting”

This is not the page to discuss what a “shooting” is vs what a “murder” is. Wikipedia has entries on both: if need be, please read what a shooting is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting and what a murder is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder. To put an even finer point on it, talking about mass murder on this page is even worse because not all “mass killing” is “mass murder” - murder is the killing of another person without justification or excuse. Therefore, not all mass shootings, which then result in mass killings (remember, not all shootings result in death, let alone murder), are mass murders. If a cop shoots and kills four criminals and the shooting is ruled as justified, then it is a mass shooting *and* a mass killing, *but not* a mass murder.

As for “shooting”, nearly all further controversy on what a “shooting” is should be moved to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting with the very limited exception of the examples in this paragraph that I provide, or that page provides. There really can be no further controversy about what a “shooting” is, because a shooting is a shooting is a shooting. Unless one wants to include what is being shot, like a bow and arrow (which is considered a shooting), or a canon ball, or a spitwad. However, that is likely beyond the scope of this entry. Neither the definition of “shooting” on wikipedia or Merriam Webster mention murder at all. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shooting

Therefore, our definition section should not mention it either. Refer all controversy of what a shooting and murder is to there respective wikipedia pages. It does not belong here.

Some in the press and government may conflate the term “shooting” with “murder”, but wikipedia’s job is not to be *less* accurate but instead is supposed to be *more* accurate in defining things for the public correctly. See the entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting to learn more about “shootings”. If you would like to argue that a shooting is always a murder, please create a controversy section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting because that discussion does not belong here. Wikipedia’s definition looks fine as is, and until that page changes we will accept it on this page.

Alternatively, if you would like to argue that all mass shootings result in all being mass murdered (the definition of “4 shot is 4 murdered”), in other words if when a person is shot they are always absolutely murdered (not killed, even, but specifically murdered as that definition implies), then there are two separate pages where that argument belongs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder. This entry is titled “mass shooting” not “mass murder” etc.

This page will define and discuss mass shootings, and further down it can discuss that subset of mass shootings, when it results in mass killings, when it then results as being mass murder. That is a very, very, narrow subset of the hundreds of mass shootings that take place each year.

“Mass”

However, while no more need to be said about what a “shooting” is, there is a legitimate controversy surrounding what is considered “mass”. The FBI paper on serial killings is entirely misstated as it stands. I read it in its entirety and I encourage all others here to do the same before commenting here. The paper topic was serial killing - a small section of it dealt with the difference between mass murder and serial killings. https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two It was beyond the scope to define either mass murder or mass shooting in it, therefore they expressly chose not to officially define either (actually, the definition of mass shooting was not discussed at all).

Further, the paper names mass murder (specifically not mass killing or mass shooting - the FBI knows the difference between all three) as either being when 2 or more people are killed without a cooling off period (a “spree” but the term “spree” is too ambiguous), or 4 or more people are killed. Therefore, the definition of mass murder is when “2-4 or more people are killed usually without a cooling off period.” Obviously if the FBI finds “2” to be enough, and “4” to be enough, we can assume “3” can be enough to constitute a mass murder.The FBI was addressing all types of mass murder (knives, explosives, etc) and not necessarily limiting it to mass murder by gun. However, it appears some find that definition suitable to define a “mass shooting.” That’s fine, provided we then accurately state what the FBI paper says on the matter.

Let me summarize the FBI definitions in the paper once again here for clarity “2-4 or more people killed usually without a cooling off period.”

This then, is what they said in the paper. This then, is what should be used to define mass shooting. No more. No less.

So if we are going to use that FBI paper as an example of what a mass shooting is, then we need to cite to what it contains correctly. The definition of mass shooting is therefore precisely stated: “2-4 or more people shot usually without a cooling off period.” If you think about it, the definition can only be 2 or more people shot, 3 or more people shot, 4 or more people shot, etc. So stating it as “2-4 or more people shot people shot usually without a cooling off period” covers all the bases needed. It is not wikipedia’s job to say it is 4 or more, or 2 or more, or 3 or more - that’s for others to decide and for us to cite to. So since the FBI considered 2, 3, or 4 or more as mass killings we may cite to those that use that rationale provided that FBI rationale is accurately *explained* in its entirety.

That is properly what is at “Controversy” here so I will create a section discussing it.

Again, there are no citations in existence that show all mass shootings result in mass murder, therefore anything defining all mass shootings as mass murder is entirely inaccurate. Debates about what constitutes a “murder” should be taken to that wikipedia page. Debates about what constitutes a “mass murder” should be taken to that wikipedia page. Debates about what constitutes a “shooting” should be taken to that wikipedia page.

This page is for “mass shooting”.

Now, for the changes to make this entry accurate. The entry is a huge mess for the above reasons. I’m not going to fix it all. For now I’m going to change:

Intro: Make slight adjustments to clarify it. Definition and creating of a “Controversy” section: Definition - need be only one or two sentences. In fact, there can be only one or two sentences for the definition. The “discussion” of the FBI reference must be nearly completely wiped as it thoroughly misstates the FBI paper, although the citation can remain, to reflect what the FBI definition would be. I have created a Controversy section that *in detail* discusses the FBI paper and how it addresses the term “mass” and moved the rest of the remaining talk about the FBI paper to the section.

Controversy: That controversy only applies to the choice for the reader - does the reader choose 2 or more shot, 3 or more shot, or 4 or more shot? What do you think? Go to controversy and decide for yourself. But the entire definition is easily stated in one sentence: “2-4 or more people are killed usually without a cooling off period.” 3) Moved the victim section to the top, beneath the definition.

This is the entry for mass shooting, not mass murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting <---You are here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder. You are not at this page. Go there to discuss murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting You are not at this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder. You are not at this page.

Again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting <---You are here.

John Brosin (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I don't even know where to begin with this. You made bold radical changes to this article. They will not stand without much debate on this talk page. I believe that your edits are original research; where you rarely take the time to make an assertion that is supported by a source; you makes an assertion that mass shootings cannot be conflated with mass murder when all of the sources do this. I am not going to engage in an edit war. You basically don't believe this article should exist. Editing the entry may not be appropriate based on what you say above. You should probably propose it for deletion which will surely fail, and already has as shown above. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's certainly is a wall of text, no disagreement from me, and this is a pretty big change. But I just spent some time looking over the original and this, and I think, that while flawed and has some cleaning up to do, this might actually be a better place to start from. I think it's a bit off to assume bad faith here, that John is looking to have this page removed as the article is considerably more differentiated than the previous version that constantly referenced the FBI definition of mass murder. What needs to be addressed now is if it's fair, and I think it's best to dig into the changes to find out. Hopefully John can keep things a bit more concise going forward? NotYourForte (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be deleted! This is a great page I'm making it stronger! I just think it is highly illogical and incorrect without those minor changes. And I don't think you did a bad job here or anything. Here is the "gist of the argument" which is then backed up by the 10 new cites I provided which do show the correct definition of "mass shooting" without argument:

1. Numbered list item

This is the entry regarding mass shooting, not mass murder. See the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder. <--I just provided yet two more cites that proves not all shootings result in murder. So not all mass shootings are mass murder. You see where the confusion is?

I provided about 10 new cites broken up across the article which all show that four or more people *shot* is a shooting. (Economist, WaPo, Meet the Press, I have hundreds more I can and will add). This is the whole subset of mass shootings - about a thousand where four or more have been shot - only some of which result in mass murder. So of course, those cites prove what I'm saying. We aren't disagreeing. No one has ever provided a cite that all mass shootings result in murder, and no one can.

Since no one can provide a cite that shows all mass shootings are mass murder and it does not and can never exist, it needs to go in its own section - a subsection of mass shootings that are also mass murder. And that's why I barely deleted anything that has been on the page. It is not *incorrect* but it only deals with a *subset* of shootings. It is only correct when moved to a subsection of this entry, because "Mass murder" is a subset itself. John Brosin (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Mass murder can only be discussed as a subset of mass shootings or on wiki/mass_murder." Where is your source for this very bold assertion? --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted 10 or so new sources that discuss a thousand mass shootings that did not result in murder. I'm going to start pasting new ones around the article to make it more obvious. John Brosin (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is an article on serial murder included in this article?, which makes entirely no mention of mass shootings. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a hold over from previous versions when the FBI definition of mass murder was reference several times. It also appears that many of the references in Victims and Survivors all support the definition. Couldn't this issue could be fixed by updating the citations to those used there? NotYourForte (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

All of those articles that are relied upon - like Mother Jones etc that discuss mass shootings that result in mass murder cite to that *incorrectly* and discuss a narrow subset of mass shootings of four or more who are murdered. There is no official definition, that paper shows that the FBI also considers 2 to be a mass shooting but has not made an official statement one way or another about it. There is a controversy surrounding it: how many victims make up the "mass" in "mass shooting" or "mass murder"? We can cite to the source itself: the FBI is the ultimate expert on its own paper. This paper can also be used to support the 10 or so citations that show the larger subset of mass shootings. But it need not. However, while I believe all of this controversy surrounding "mass murder" should be moved to the wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder page dealing solely with that, I don't want to delete huge chunks here. If you want to discuss mass murder on this page, you must quote the FBI paper in full. John Brosin (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy - Definition of "mass" (new flawed section)

There is no official definition of "mass." (no citation or even logical support) However, the FBI stated in one publication that "[t]he general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period." (user brings in spree murder, which makes no mention of mass shooting in that source)

So "mass" in "mass shooting" can be defined as two or more people shot by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. (this is entirely user John's original research. So much is plain. This is his breaking down mass out of mass shooting and then defining it. No other source does such)

Alternatively, in that same publication the FBI stated "[g]enerally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders." So "mass" can be described as four or more shot. (again this source is on serial murder. Moreover, unclear what he is doing with breaking out "mass." This is his OR)

So a mass shooting may variously be described as when either: two or more, three or more, or four or more people are shot during the same incident, usually with no distinctive time period between the shootings. (his final argument)

Note:both citations are to serial murder.

I think you are right, too much argument and this can use cleaning up. It should basically solely contain only the quotes from the FBI entry. BUT, I highly encourage all of the discussion of what "mass" is in murder be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder so that this entire entry focuses on "mass shootings" - of which there are hundreds. As far as what a spree is? Have you ever heard the term "shooting spree" <--- the FBI is talking about shooting sprees of 2 or more people, and 4 or more people. (Three should be assumed as it falls in the middle). All spree shootings are also mass shootings. All mass shootings are also spree shootings. John Brosin (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Mass shootings that result in mass murder (new flawed section)

Mass shootings (improper bolding) may sometimes, but not always, result in the mass murder of the gun shot victims. (both sources do not support the assertion. The esquire source is about terrorism and mass shootings).

Definition of mass murder:

(here, it is unclear to me why mass murder is being defined) Mass murder is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period. (note how the user defines mass murder with a citation to an article entitled "what exactly is a mass shooting")

While the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, 31% of mass shootings that result in murder occur in the U.S. (mass shooting not being defined so improper placement. This was removed from the lead).

Discussion of definition of mass murder:

In 2014, the FBI published a study on "active shootings". It defined a "mass killing" as three or more killed, not including the shooter if they are also killed. A U.S. congressional research service report excluded, from a study, mass shootings in which terrorist ideology was a motivation. Some have argued for the term to include domestic violence killings. The_Washington_Post states "the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria." According to CNN, a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, and do not include gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members.

(all of these source discuss mass shootings, not mass murder. His heading "that they result in mass murder" is not discussed in the sources. That is his take on it despite the hundreds of sources that refer to them as mass shootings. This belongs in the definition section. The post article explicitly grapples with the definition problem.)

This section definitely can be cleaned up: I didn't write it. It is an amalgam of all of material that purportedly cited to an all inclusive definition of "mass shooting" that isn't contained in ANY of them. Since "all mass shootings do no result in murder" by *sheer force of logic* none of these accurately define "all mass shootings". But you need not rely on me. Look at what these citations are saying. In fact, (all?) the authors of those citations frequently state: 'this is by no means an all inclusive definition, of the term 'mass shooting', we are studying mass murder where four or more people are killed here.' But since these are, in fact, shootings where four or more people are shot, they naturally belong as a small subset to the definition of mass shooting proved in those 10 new citations I added. Since the media pays more attention to this small subset of mass shootings rather than the thousands of others, it of course requires it's own entry farther down the page which is why I did not delete it. Clean it up as much as you want. But, in my opinion, it should be in much more summarized form and the rest moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder And by no means can it or should it be contaminating the definition of "mass shooting" which is in all of those citations I provided. This is the entry regarding mass shooting, not mass murder. See the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder John Brosin (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Sources and assertions

John, you seem like a very kind editor and understanding, and I appreciate that sincerely. IF a user wants to find the definition of a mass shooting, that there are four victims....none of your articles in that long string cite support that, right? So we can't use any of those sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I saw, all of those citations all used the definition of 4 or more shot. 162.153.189.159 (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Frequency article is inaccurate. Must be reverted

Some time ago the frequency article was changed to reflect the FBI definition of a mass shooting to avoid inflating statistics. The Mass Shooting tracker website is an outright inaccurate source that inflates statistics for political gain. 42 percent of the incidents involved zero deaths and 29 percent involved two or more deaths as mentioned here. https://www.rt.com/usa/324079-usa-mass-shootings-per-day/ I said this once and i'll say it again. Mass Shooting Tracker is not a legitimate source. It arbitrarily defines mass shootings in their own term in an attempt to seek attention. I'm going to wait a bit before reverting it back to it's original definition so that we can talk about this, but Wikipedia sources need to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore it is outright inaccurate to state that the United States has more mass shootings than any other country. The US state department states incidents where 10 or more are killed world wide which shows in the hundreds. These are mass killings that occur all over the world. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/195768.pdf

Sidenote:Sorry about the youtube video I accidently posted in my previous post. I really ment to post a news report.

British Media View

The BBC in the UK are reporting that there has been 355 Mass Shootings in the U.S.A in 2015 up until 3rd December 2015. This does not accord with the definition above and local interpretations of the definition need to be considered when employing the term. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34424385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fengureek (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Fengureek (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing

Apparently this page is now being targeted by pro-gun edits, it should be monitored for bias. John Brosin (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Brosin (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't intend to feel like i'm vandalizing anything or make this sound like a pro-gun article. All i'm doing is trying to boost this article up to Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a political organization and is not meant to take sides in the debate. The key to making a good article relies mainly on finding rare information that media downplays. I understand that I have made a few edits that the moderator disagreed with and I was able to talk them over. I'm willing for there to be a frequency article on mass shootings. But if we are going to include a source such as mass shooting tracker we need to include the criticism that it has received.

New information on mass shootings I found

There's a few more things I found on mass shootings that I think might be worth looking at. The first two are articles regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the United States compared to it's population size along with mass shootings from other countries. The United States is one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population of 320 million people which is the main factor that influences all these mass shootings. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

Compared with India which has a population of 1.2 billion I believe that India has more mass shootings because of it's population size, but since India's homicide rate is only 3.5 where the United States is 4.5.

The Crime Prevention Center is where I discovered the US State Department report on mass killings around the world. I understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to accept sources that side with either side of the debate, but much of the statistics could be used to create a list on the frequency of attacks. Sadly I don't know how to make a group on Wikipedia. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings.

Aside from that I also found some articles from politifact on Mass Shooting Tracker that you might be interested in reading. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/01/david-cicilline/david-cicilline-mixes-shooting-data-call-stronger-/ http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Found a new article on the debate on the frequency of mass shootings: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458492474/how-many-mass-shootings-this-year-theres-no-consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack and removal of summary in lead

mandruss wrote: rv what I consider to be hijacking of this article's lead for political purposes, without references, by one user -- per WP:BRD, WP:DUE, and WP:NOR)--in removing the following paragraph from the lead "A mass shooting may be committed by individuals or organizations in public or non-public places. Many terrorist groups in recent times have used the tactic of mass shootings to fulfill their political aims. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), for instance, carried out a mass shooting in a public place, the Bataclan theatre, during the November 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130 people. Individuals who commit mass shootings may fall into any of a number of categories, including killers of family, of coworkers, of students, and of random strangers. Individuals' motives for shooting vary."

Let's look past the personal attack on my highjacking this article for political purposes, assuming good faith, something that was not afforded to me.

For the record, I am the creator of this article and other users have noted to me and thanked me for not taking sides. I have made attempts to internationalize the article and not give undue weight to the recent events in the United States.

First point, the distinction between public and non-public shootings is discussed in the body. [1] [2] (discussing public aspect of many mass shootings) The USA Today discusses the family aspect of many mass shootings also referred to as the mass killings. I will refrain from personal attacks but I am already frustrated with the first part. We can go one at a time. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Second point, the connection between mass shootings and terror is clear, discussed in sources and wiki pages. How do you want to word that? --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The part on motive has a section in the article and there are articles dedicated to it. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting change to frequency article

I'm sorry to keep mentioning this. It's just that I don't seem to be getting a response about it. It's just that the frequency section claims that the United States has 33 percent of the worlds mass shootings despite the State Department report i've mentioned proving otherwise. While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings. In addition to the State Department report I was also able to find reports on mass shootings in other developed countries that debunks the claim that the US has the most: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/ http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/85391-international-mass-shooting-fatalities-continue-to-climb

In the rampage shooting index included in the two links above the United States is ranked at number 6 at the per capital number of mass shootings. If America had 33 percent of the worlds mass shootings it would be far higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The United Kingdom, the United States and Australia all keep detailed statistics on workplace shooting and other workplace violence incidents, while other countries suppress information regarding details of workplace violence incidents as mentioned here: http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/85364-top-5-recommendations-for-international-active-shooter-risk-mitigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Change in "See Also"

I added "active shooter". Why? It's an FBI (etc) euphemism for mass shooting.

The FBI uses phrases like "active shooter event" when they really mean mass shooting. On an fbi.gov page - FBI — Run, Hide, Fight Video - there's this embedded Youtube video: RUN. HIDE. FIGHT.® Surviving an Active Shooter Event.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What are your qualifications to say that the FBI is using an incorrect definition vs "Mass shooting" which has no recognized or standardized legal definition? Active shooter refers to the perpetrator of an ongoing event.96.28.38.56 (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting change to perpetrators section

The perpetrators section claims that these mass shooters had a criminal record that was supposed to bar them from owning a gun, but that's not the case with most of these people. Take a look: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/19/mass_shootings_in_america_northeastern_criminologists_james_alan_fox_monica.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC) I've updated the perpetrators section to include the above link. I took care not to remove the New York Times article since it does have some good points regarding the warning signs these shooters display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Some changes i'm going to make towards Wikipedia pages on mass shootings

There's been quite a few articles on some notable mass shootings that are lacking the details to make it complete. I wanted to give you guys the heads up to see if your ok with that. He are the changes.

I'm going to be adding a picture of the location of the shooting complete with a map of where the shooting took place. I'm going to start with the Stockton Schoolyard shooting, the 101 California street shooting, and the Luby's shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

I'm also going to try and rename some of the articles for the more high profile shootings since right now their pages are oddly named after the perpetrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

As for the Stockton Schoolyard shooting and the San Ysidro Mcdonalds massarce, I honestly think that the perpetrators to those event's should have their own article seperate from the shootings since both of those are extremely I profile incidents much like the Virginia Tech Shooting and the Charleston shooting have a lot more notoriety. On the other hand i'm not shure of the details that require the perpetrator to have his own wikipedia page seperate from the shooting article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre#Perpetrator Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting is three or more dead

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 page 7

If a mass killing is 3 or more dead excluding the perp according to federal agencies, logically 3 or more dead via gun would be a mass shooting

Under this definition Australia has had multiple since Port Arthur:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29137726

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/wedderburn-man-ian-francis-jamieson-charged-over-triple-murder-20141023-11axdx.html

The Monash shooting also comes to mind but it was technically two dead and five wounded. Nonetheless itnwould certainly be described as a mass shooting by the media in America.

Please edit article accordingly 2607:FB90:2208:7CBD:0:1E:3F7D:9301 (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Aside from incidents where 3 or more are killed, there have been several mass killings that don't involve firearms since Port Author. I think it's only fair to mention them. The media constantly states that it's gun laws have stopped these incidents althogether, but even if they've be decreased, it doesn't mean they've stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:4103:CB50:1C86:C349:B28B:F7AD (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Response to Mass Shootings

"After experiencing several deadly mass shootings, the United Kingdom enacted tough gun laws.[48]"

Actually the laws were rewritten after Hungerford, and tightened after Dumblaine. It did not take "several deadly mass shootings" for the UK to respond - it took one.

I suggest this line should be rewritten to reflect that.

Orlando Night Club Shooting vs Wounded Knee

Lets try to develop a consensus here. It's my opinion that Wounded Knee wouldn't be considered a mass shooting, but a state actioned genocide or a battle. That would leave yesterday's Orlando Night Club shooting the mass shooting with the largest death toll in the united states. What are everyone else's opinions? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Pinging @75.155.187.151:, @76.26.164.106:, @Ceptthoths:, @170.160.96.1:, @84.203.37.105:, @76.4.154.255: and @Julesd: who have edited the article section recently to generate a consensus. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Wounded Knee counts as a mass shooting. While the definition of mass shooting is pretty vague, I'm not sure of any definition that says that mass shootings can only be precipitated by one person (if this were the definition, it wouldn't include the Columbine massacre, for instance). I also don't know of any definition that states that mass shootings aren't state sanctioned. If there is a definition that would preclude Wounded Knee, the definition section of the mass shooting page would need to be changed. Ceptthoths (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it doesn't include action committed by the state. Otherwise the world wars would be "mass shootings"--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Tulsa race riot be considered a mass shooting, not state sanctioned action, perpetrated by individuals and some members of a domestic terrorist group (kkk)? A staff journalist of the Christian Science Monitor covered this and references other sources in debating the Tulsa riot and Wounded Knee. Obviously The Pulse incident is the largest by a single shooter. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit towards the frequency section

I found a couple articles that are worth adding to the frequency section for the United States. Politifact made an article debunking Obama's claim that the united states per capita has the highest mass shooting rate. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

Aside from that Independent Journal did an article using statistics from the Rampage Shooting Index by OECD.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/85391-international-mass-shooting-fatalities-continue-to-climb

The list is here: http://archive.is/f4gbv

I'm only editing this to show expand the variety of sources this article has. If we're going to reference a report that claims America has more mass shootings per capita it's only fair to include contradicting information so people can do their own research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Found something I would like to add

Alright everybody. I just dig up an article criticizing the Adam Lankford study that the united states has 33 percent of the worlds mass shooting shootings. Once again, i'm not advocating to remove the Adam Lankford study. I just want to include the article I dig up to balance the frequency section out more. I'm not going to change the frequency article right now. I'd like to first wait incase anyone wants to debate with me. The article I found is here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/28/critics-shoot-holes-in-widely-cited-gun-study.html

Gary Kleck who is a high profile criminologist points out the holes in the article. If you can debunk his claim i'll stand down, but if I change the frequency article and any of you want to undo my changes, i'd like you to first discuss with me before doing so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting removal of frequency article

The frequency article which claims that America had over 200 mass shootings in one year alone uses active shooter incidents to inflate these numbers. Federal law defines a mass shooting as the murder of 4 or more people while most active shooters only kill 1 or 2 people. http://time.com/3432950/fbi-mass-shooting-report-misleading/ http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2014/09/the-fbi-says-active-shooter-incidents-are-on-the-rise-what-does-that-mean-2580478.html

Also I think that we should remove the Mother Jones reference in the definition section an replace it with the federal definition of a mass shooting which involves 4 deaths or more. Mother Jones has been criticized for it's own fabrication such as claiming that not one mass shooting has ever been stop by a concealed weapons holder. This report by the Crime Prevention Center which actually has sources claims otherwise. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

Mother Jones is a left leaning organization anyways. I think that if we're going to use a media we should use a source that doesn't have a political agenda. I know that the Crime Prevention Center has an agenda, but at least it's information is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No one's responding to this message. Might aswell remove it. Mass shooting tracker doesn't understand the difference between a mass shooting and an active shooter incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you discussing the removal before you did it. However, I am not sure I agree because the sources make clear that there is no general consensus on definition for what a mass shooting as mentioned in the lead. Thus, no clear test for frequency and we can include the Post articles.--JumpLike23 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, there are a number of articles just on the frequency, particularly in the US. what do you think? --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

definition

this section was almost entirely gutted by John. He adds a cite to serial murder which makes no mention of mass shootings. This isn't even synthesis; it is entirely misguided. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

John did not appear to add this citation, it appears to be a hold over when the definition of Mass murder was referenced. Many of the references used in Victims and Survivors stats support this definition, so it looks as if we could update the references to this definition. I replied above as well, but should've just replied here. I suggest we keep the discussion on the definition here for focus and clarity. NotYourForte (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is exactly it. I should have put more citations in the proper places. Hence the confusion, I think. John Brosin (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by the link supporting the claimed FBI definition; it's an article that doesn't tell where they got that information, and I haven't been able to confirm it with any other source. Dismalscholar (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting edit towards Austrailia response section

While Austrailia hasn't had a public mass shooting since Port Arthur there have been three public arson attacks with rate high casualty numbers. I think it's rather more fair to reference them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that there's any causal link? Mass deaths in fires could happen in a lot of countries, irrespective of gun laws.GliderMaven (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting

I believe this topic needs to be taken in and truly seen as a high importance to learn about. Many people here in America think they are safe and they will never be involved in a shooting. But unfortunately shootings have happened in schools, malls, and movie theaters. People need to be educated more on what signs to look out for and help if they believe someone is asking for it. Many of the shooters are not criminals nor have any background of committing any crimes. Many have mental issues and seeking attention. This a quick easy way for becoming famous and the media is proud to show off what these killers have done. It seems like the more people who die, the more damage, and the most evil someone can be they will receive more attention.

Arianna

The subsection "Media"

This subsection requires substantial expansion, since it does not fully summarizes current studies about Columbine effect, or contagion effect due to media's improper coverage of mass shootings, and some people and organizations' call for regulation or self-regulation of media coverage of such events. The fact that some news media choose to avoid or minimize the mention of the real name(s) of the victimizer(s) of a mass shooting to prevent contagion is not mentioned. Hope that other Wikipedians can address this issue a.s.a.p.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"The news media and other types of media cover mass shootings extensively, and, often, sensationally, and the effect of that coverage has been examined."

What does this sentence mean? Maybe it needs clarification or a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.180.61 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

scope

"Several mass shootings have occurred in Europe, ..." that seems rather an understatement. How far back can this list go. Are we only including mass shootings that involved murder as defined by a state? Do extrajudicial killings by stats count? Do shootings with bows and cross bows count?

In civil wars within a European country the winning side often declares their enemies to be murderers. In which case are incidents where government soldier killed when defending or storming a building victims of a mass shooting?

The Srebrenica massacre involved the mass murder by shooting of about 8,000 men and boys. Almost certainly most of them killed in groups greater than "three or more people". Should that be included? What about war crimes killing eg Malmedy massacre? Both these mass killings involved the mass murder under international law of "three or more people".

It seems to me that this article is article is riddled with POV assumptions. It would be far better if the list was to be restricted to mass shooting since a certain date. We do that with many articles of this nature because the further one goes back in time the more difficult it is to use modern definitions. For example the list of War Crimes only lists war crimes after 1907 and the modern international treaty definition of what is now accepted as a war crime.

The the editors of this article ought to tackle the POV issues in this article, a good place to start is to look at the various mass shootings in the Bloody Sunday list and decide which of such incidents ought to be included in this list, and give reasons for and against the inclusion of each one that involved mass shootings. -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are overlooking that mass shootings are considered a subcategory of mass murder. Deaths in combat are not usually considered murders. For them, see Killed in action. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Section "North America/United States" and trustworthiness of source

This is regarding the following paragraph:

"However, when adjusting for different population sizes, analysing data between 2009 and 2015 (therefore excluding shootings like the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting), the US falls to 12th in a comparison between the US and Europe."

The source cited, the Crime Prevention Research Center, raises questions of objectivity, as it is an anti-gun control organization, not an actual research body. It seems like an improper source to make this kind of statement, and a more objective source should be sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.253.18 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Section North America United States - Neutral Point of View and Undue Weight on fringe source

The first claim in the section "The US has more mass shootings than any other country." has an impressive 4 citations, but all reference that same source, Adam Lankford and his publication, albeit from different publishers, a study which already takes up the bulk of the section. Instead of additional sources for the claim I found an article about another study that contradicts the claim. I have removed the claim and included a paragraph the other study. Additionally I am not sure Adam Lankfords study is a reliable source. I'm not sure how to deal with this, which is why I'm not touching it, but it all seems very Andrew Wakefield-y. While it has been wide reported on, the author has been criticized for his refusal to share the data and methodology he used, meaning his study isn't verifiable, and later studies have failed to reproduce its findings. 98.179.186.73 (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The Subsection "Motives"

Not entirely sure how long that citation needed tag has been next to "left-wing beliefs", but it should probably be deleted already, as it's obviously a non-neutral viewpoint. 71.188.51.163 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Rip

"The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Yeah I'm pretty sure any topic related to weapons being used for manslaughter doesn't have much of a worldwide view, and if it did it would be incredibly short. It feels like sometimes there are topics that are just too sensitive for people to even fathom a total neutral point from all sides. (Not saying to remove it) Elitematterman (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Social science and family structure.

Regarding this paragraph: "Harvard sociologist Robert J. Sampson writes: "Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States. The close empirical connection between family breakdown and crime suggests that increased spending on crime-fighting, imprisonment, and criminal justice in the United States over the last 40 years is largely the direct or indirect consequence of marital breakdown."[68] His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that "such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates."[69]" This article isn't about urban violence or crime in general. Its about mass shootings in particular. Mass Shooting prevelance is known to vary independently of other forms of homicide. https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lankford-Violence-Victims-paper.pdf. So, this sounds like WP:Synth. Sewblon (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient Victims and survivors section

Just a thought: As it currently stands, that particular section, though it should be arguably one of the most crucial in any encyclopedic article on this topic, is woefully brief. It's almost invisible within the article. I'd like to speak up in favour of expanding it in the near future, ideally with help from an actual psychologist who has experience in this area, including the necessary sociological and psychological research. That section deserves to be expanded, particularly because victims of these crimes and massacres often end up overlooked by the media and the public, or are even abused for sensationalist news, despite the obvious trauma. That section needs expansion. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A possible problem within the introuction.

Hello, everybody. Farseer1995 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope I am not making a mistake but I have found a possible error in the introduction (the last sentences about the Congressional Research Service's definition of a public mass shooting).

"[...] defines a “public mass shooting”[1] as an event where someone selects four or more people and kills them in an indiscriminate manner, echoing the FBI’s definition of the term "mass murder." But adding the indiscriminate factor.[2]

However, I have referred to the 2013 article by the CRS, and only there does it mention the "somewhat" indiscriminate factor. They even state that this definition was for that report written in 2013 (here is the link )

The newer article, written in 2015, defines a “mass public shooting” as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations, such as, a workplace, school, restaurant, house of worship, neighborhood, or other public setting."

As you can see, the definition in this report has no mention of the "indiscriminate factor", and it is just two years apart from the one wrongly quoted in the Wikipedia article.

Thus, to further add to the confusion of there not being a standard textbook definition, it is vital to show both sources defining the very same thing from CRS.

Have a good day.

References

Removed listing of killers

I've removed the lengthy inline text listing of killers from the article as (a) it is already available in much more detail in tabular form elsewhere (at List of rampage killers, linked from this article in the "Perpetrators" section, and its associated per-country sub-lists), (b) a structured list format is better for this than a huge unstructured wall-of-text, and (c) this article should describe its subject, not act as a hall-of-infamy for killers. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

IP editor reverting any changes to this article

As far as I can see, 89.74.178.122 (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account, with no agenda other than to revert any and all edits to this article to what is presumably their preferred version. This includes bad reverts such as this, which only serves to re-introduce syntax errors corrected by another editor. In spite of my attempt to contact them, they seem unwilling to engage in conversation on this talk page. Short of engaging in an endless revert war, is there any way this impasse can be addressed? -- The Anome (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: The IP has not stopped. I've taken it to the edit warring noticeboard. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 19:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: IP has been blocked for 24 hours, after that it'll be WP:ROPE. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 20:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@NonsensicalSystem: Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass shootings in the Russian Empire ?

...occured during pogroms ? No incident mentioned. Poor reliability for this claim. Assume, that most victims were not even shot in single cases, but otherwise massacred without firearm (beaten to death, burned in houses etc.) --2001:A61:2B09:B901:1D27:F5BA:5F28:A4A (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)