Talk:Gun violence/Archive 1

Significant figures
The authors of this table should review the concept of significant figures, especially the section on superfluous precision. Reporting values such as 114.5083 for a given country implies an absurd degree of accuracy, which could only be obtained if there were millions of murders per year that were exactly counted. Reporting 114 (or maybe 114.5) is enough. --Itub 08:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete list?
Why is it that only European and other white countries are listed? Is this not a form a discrimination? I thought ALL countries should be included in this... LOTRrules (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this table. Firstly, not all of the figures given match those in the linked UNODC document, and I'd echo the complaint about the number of decimal places. (Surely this must be original research? The UNODC quotes figures to 2 decimal places.) Secondly, I don't think the UNODC survey itself is entirely clear without an attached explanation of their figures and definitions. For example, the stats for South Africa include homicides and attempted homicides and a "firearms homicide" statistic which presumably includes attempted homicides. So you can't really compare this to (for example) the US, where only "completed homicide" figures are given. Plevyman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From the UN's own study "The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.". This is a fatal flaw in the design of this article. Brontide (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

South Africa's are very suspect, as they are on Nationmaster. Plevyman's theory is probably true that they include firearm homicide attempts. My idea is going to each individual source of the country itself as these studies that cover many cities or countries tend to contain several statistical errors. I prefer just going to the police force or medical institute of each country/city etc. Obviously this means more than one source has to be fitted somewhere on the page but, I would argue, it's more accurate. Power Society (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent definitions
This page uses at least two differeing definitions of the topic at hand.

Gun violence is the broadly defined category of violence and crime committed with the use of a firearm; it does not include the safe lawful use of firearms for sport, hunting, target practice, law enforcement, or self-defense The homicide statistics listed below are for "intentional homicide", which is "death deliberately inflicted on a person by another person",[5] including justifiable homicide and criminal homicide.

These two are very different since one includes all deliberate homicides including law enforcement and self-defense and the other does not. This is on top of the fatal flaw that the UN survey specifically warns against using the data as a point of comparison because each country has differing methods of tallying and legal definitions that are not controlled for this survey. Brontide (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

legal VS illegal guns
please add info comparing homicide cases involving illegal guns and homicide cases with guns that are carried with license (there should be also an attention to the requirements of the weapon owner in every country). 09:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

loose firearm laws
Currently there is a sentence in the article that states: "The United States has the highest rates among developed countries, which some account to the loose firearm laws in the U.S. compared to other developed countries." What does "loose firearm laws" mean? and should that not read "most other developed countries"? --PBS (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these imprecise terms are not helpful. "Loose firearms laws" could just as easily be rewritten as "constitutionally protected right to individual firearm ownership", yet I doubt that either term serves to advance the discussion much. Furthermore, the comparison to "other developed countries" needs citation. I feel the sentence in question therefore violates NPOV and should be amended or deleted. NDM (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is only homicide data mentioned?
Presentation of only homicide data in this article makes it woefully inadequate. This establishes a presumption that all usage of firearms is "evil" and "illegal", which is patently false.

At the very least, this article needs sections on other criminal uses of firearms such as assault, robbery involving firearms, etc, as well as non criminal uses of firearms such as justifiable homicide, non-fatal self defense shootings and self-defense involving the use of a firearm in which the weapon is not discharged. (self defense episodes could also be broken down into civilian and official, i.e. police, uses)  All of these uses clearly involve "violent" use of a weapon, and should be analyzed in the scope of this article. NDM (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the disproportionate focus on criminal gun violence and the underemphasis on suicidal gun violence is a major neutrality bias error. This must be fixed.  In the meantime I am adding a notice to the article to alert readers to this problem.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It may not be intentional, but the focus on crime violence mirrors the gun-rights advocacy that self defensive weapons against criminals is virtuous. Regardless the encyclopedia should avoid the appearance of mirroring the 'party line' that self defensive weapons are good.  Increasing the focus on the suicidal gun violence would help to alleviate this improper POV skewed appearance.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * do you have some reliable sourcing that supports what you are opining above, or is it merely your personal opinion? neither should this article mirror the 'other' party line that self defensive weapons are bad - that should go without saying.Anastrophe (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is about gun violence. Suicides and homicides are just the most easily countable forms of violence because accidents would be very difficult to count. What form of accident is an accident and how could statistics be collected? If we have reliable sources for "justifiable homicides" then they should be included. These should come from official sources such as police records, not repeated from secondary sources such as books unless the original source for that data is given also. I think the claim that the inclusion of the statistics we do have "establishes a presumption that all usage of firearms is "evil" and "illegal" " is wrong. I see nothing in the article that suggests this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * you may wish to spend some time reading WP:RS. your suggestion that primary sources are preferable to secondary sources is the opposite of what WP:RS states.Anastrophe (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"homicide" (in U.S.) is a manner of death, considered separate from accident and suicide - false claim of uniqueness
I deleted the following text, only for User:Yaf to reinstate it.

It should be noted that, in the US, "homicide" is a manner of death, considered separate from accident (even accident with firearm) and suicide.

The reason for deleting it is that the text seems to imply that the U.S. is exceptional for its not considering accidents or suicides as a homicides. User:Yaf has added it back in saying that it is properly referenced, but there is not even any evidence for this claim in the reference! This is just a brief report from one local coroner in the U.S. which makes NO reference to gun violence at all and does not support the claim implied in the text. Please explain in clear and concise English why this text is important to the topic of Gun Violence. In the absence of a suitable explanation the text will be deleted again. And provide WP:RS to support the claim that the police outside the U.S. count accidents or suicides as homicides --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The US and the UK do count homicides differently. As noted by Joyce Lee Malcolm,"“The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police 'massage down' the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.”"


 * Also, it is worth noting that:"“Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was 'in startling free-fall.' We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.”"


 * So, it is important to be clear about the differences among various jurisdictions regarding definitions of what counts as a homicide, lest we mislead readers. Incidentally, concealed carry first became legal in many states commencing in 1986, and has spread to most states, concurrent with the large drop in homicide rates.  Yet, 20% of the homicides in the US occur among 6% of the population in 4 cities where guns are banned.  Is the change in concealed carry laws the reason for the large drop in the US homicide rate, while the UK has seen a rapidly rising rate with the banning of private firearms for self defense? Not clear, but correlation seems evident. Yaf (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On every point that Joyce Lee Malcolm makes, she gives no supporting evidence. Its also interesting to note that she is associated with George Mason University which is a hotbed of academics with extreme right wing views with many academics holding right wing positions and the university itself is funded by right wing sponsors such as Richard Mellon Scaife with. Hardly a normal academic background then. This is not a normal academic institution.


 * On the one case I am familiar with, the Martin case, Joyce Lee Malcolm does not reveal the reason Martin was found guilty. This was that he clearly shot the intruder in the back. He had no reason to shoot to defend himself because his alleged assailant was on his way out of the premises. What's more, Martin knew he had done wrong and tried to pretend that he wasn't even there at the time. Which reinforces my suspicion that Joyce Lee Malcolm may not be a reliable source, as she does not tell the full story. I have looked for the original "The Mirror" story but cannot find it. Where do these statistics come from? I think we should verify them. I am particularly concerned to check out the US/UK classification statistic and am puzzled by the reference to the FBI. Where can this be checked? The FBI surely does not investigate most murders in the U.S. and neither would it collate data from police in the individual states. Thats a DoJ function. It seems a little odd to me for her to refer to the FBI.


 * Notwithstanding anything you have claimed, the article reference you added back simply has no relevence to gun violence and you have not established a connection even between the claim you make above and the content of the referenced article. I am therefore going to delete it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have added the new reference that I mentioned above, as it more clearly makes the point than the Manner of Death paper from California that shows the effect of the FBI policy, in categorizing homicides, accidents, and suicides. As for George Mason University and Joyce Lee Malcolm, GMU is well respected university, judging from the numbers of published peer-reviewed papers coming out from there, and Joyce Lee Malcolm is a well respected historian, cited in numerous Federal court cases in court transcripts.  More details are available from her numerous published books, if we need more cites and verification.  As for your insults on a great university and professor, that is your opinion, but constitutes Original Resarch.  It has no relevance here.  Please stick to what reliable sources properly cited say, rather than make up stuff.  OK?  Yaf (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the FBI does collect homicide and other assorted data in their annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs). These are available online, going back a number of years.  Older ones are not online, existing in hard copy only, but even they are available in most any large library in the US. For more on these, look here. Yaf (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I remembered in talking with other academics that Professor Malcolm had taught at Cambridge, and I was right. A quick check shows she has previously taught at Princeton University, Bentley College, Boston University, Northeastern University and Cambridge University.  She was also a Senior Advisor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, a Visiting Scholar at Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and is a Bye Fellow at Robinson College, Cambridge University.  So, I presume you now include Cambridge University, Bentley College, Boston University, and Northeastern University as being similarly extreme right wing view universities, too, and lest we forget, those Bye Fellow scholars must be extreme right wing types, too.  The paranoia needs to stop.  Yaf (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I continue to challenge your edits. I am working on the claim that British police "massage" down statistics as they follow cases thru the courts. I have read this evening read the guidance to police in England and Wales on the collation of crime statistics. There is no provision in the guidance to reclassify recorded crime as the case progresses thru the courts which Malcolm claims. However, just to be sure, I have therefore fired off an enquiry to determine if the claim Malcolm makes is true. If it is not true, we will have to either remove the claim or highlight her error to the reader.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to throw in my 2c - because it seems kind of necessary - can anybody find examples of times when a murder/manslaughter was changed to accidental killing in the UK given that there are very few legal reasons why a civilian should own a firearm? Sure maybe it works like that, but where are the examples of it happening in reality. People in the UK don't shoot themselves because they don't have easy access to firearms. When it does happen it's often farmers with shotguns, and even that is rare. What I'm saying is - maybe the numbers aren't as absurd as the way the article is worded suggests they are - being as there's no evidence any of the recording differences are statistically relevant --Streaky (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

UNODC data is way out of date
the article relies upon UNODC data from 2000 - but the most recent results are for 2005-2006 ( http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Tenth-CTS-annotated.html ). the chart should probably be updated. yes, yes, i'm the one mentioning it, i'm the one who should do it. if only i had the time right now. if some other intrepid editor has the inclination, it would certainly be worthy of a 'good on ya'. i'll have more time in a month or so, if it's not done by then maybe i'll have a go at it. Anastrophe (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the data shows some to be missing.. If anyone does compile a new table it will have to have data from other years for some sub-sets. This should be OK as long as it is properly annotated. Some big countries such as France are not shown!--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

edit war over suicide research sourcing
I object to the edit warring forcing suppression of naming the sources of research in the text of the article. The National Science Foundation and the New England Journal of Health versus research by gun advocate John Lott and Gary Kleck. The article reads as if these two opposing groups of researchers were in the same league. Come on! The first group have a platinum reputation and the later group much less so, indeed they have a reputation considered by some to be questionable. Reputations matter, and giving them equal billing in the article wrongly deprives the reader of important context. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * can you please explain what a "platinum reputation" is? who bestows this title? Anastrophe (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and if i'm not mistaken, weren't you arguing elsewhere that what mattered is the material itself, not the reputation of the author, in regard to bellisiles? Anastrophe (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there is a HUGE difference in the reputation of Gary Kleck's publisher the Journal of Law and Economics and John Lott's publisher the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency and Kellerman's publisher the New England Journal of Medicine and the report of the executive committee of the National Academy of Science. The article gives them equal billing, and that does a disservice to the reader and is a POV push creating the false impression that there is a equal disagreement about firearm suicide statistics.   Can you tell us if the pro-gun advocacy authors used peer-reviewed journals, or are these vanity press publishers?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency appear to be WP:Fringe sources. Can dispel this appearance?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * you have twice referred to the article 'giving equal billing ' to the sources. what policy is this directed from? i know that WP:RS requires reliable sources, but i'm not aware of a requirement that some sources are so exceptionally good that they are deserving of 'special billing' within the article to show that they're better than others. please note: i am only referring to the contention that you've made that "suppression of naming the sources of research in the text of the article" is somehow contrary to policy. sources are sources, article space is article space. now, as to the latter contention, i do not know what the quality is of the latter sources. i haven't read them. i don't know if they're fringe or vanity press or whatnot. if you have evidence that shows that to be the case, then by all means present it. Anastrophe (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acknowledging that the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency are of unknown reputation. The burden of proof is not on me to show the extent of reliability of these publishers.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * um, all i acknowledge was that I didn't know their reputation. i spent a few seconds researching it: the journal of law and economics is published by the university of chicago; i believe that garners a "platinum reputation". . the journal of research in crime and delinquency is published by Rutgers School of Criminal Justice – Center for Law and Justice, and the abstract is found at the national criminal justice reference service, which is administered by the office of justice programs, US department of justice. i don't think you have a claim for "dubious"; please remove the tag, thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the weight of authority is dubious considering the POV advocacy reputations of the authors. And in the case of John Lott there appears to be a history of questionable ethics.  I do not see evidence of a reputation for peer review.   Do you?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the Lott/Whitney paper seems to be speaking to the efficacy of "safe storage laws" and suicides, not household firearm ownership and suicide. This confusion needs to be cleared up.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither does the Kleck paper speak whether household firearm ownership is correlated with suicide rate, his conclusion seems to be simply that with the existing data, answering that question is not feasible. (see pg 26).  Unless someone else has a better understanding of the dense Kleck paper?  Please let us know.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thailand . erroneous and suspicious data
I have been checking the data in the table for a few countries against the source table. There was a relatively minor error in the table for England and Wales, quite a major one for the USA, both of which I have fixed. I then looked at Thailand. The Thai data looks decidedly suspect in the source document and is wronlgly carried over into the table here. According to the source data there were fewer total homicides reported (5140) than firearm homicides (21635). Clearly a misunderstanding by the reporting country because that means that the percentage of homicides carried out with a gun is 421% of the total (and not 79.6 as in the table in our article). Clearly this is nonsensical. Should we just correct the figure as reported (even though it would be nonsensical) or should we just remove the country from the table?

Remove from the table is my own preference. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * it would be better instead to update the entire table from the most recent UNODOC. Anastrophe (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * um, this isn't how wikipedia works. where did you derive the value for thailand? you say the source has this discrepancy, so where's the new value from? your commentary added as a "ref" is also not how wikipedia works - talk page discussion is not, and never is, a "reference". please revert yourself. if you have another source for these figures, then you must provide it. altering the table to conform to your interpretation of the data simply won't fly. yes, errors in the source are a shame. but doing your own OR and altering the sourced data isn't acceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The table in this article shows the percentage of all homicides reported as gun homicides. The source table has total homicides and homicides with a firearm. The percentage of total homicides from firearms must be total firearm homicides divided by all homicides and expressed as a percentage. The Thailand figure (and so on further examination does the South Africa data) illogically shows more firearm homicides than total homicides. The percentage therefore is more than 100%. That's why the explanatory note is required. My explanatory note is no different in principle to the explanatory note about using dates from different years. I am sure most WP readers will want to understand why we have included a figure in excess of 100% even if we cannot explain why the source data contains apparently inconsistent data. I have not altered any source data other than to bring it into line with the table in the source. I resent your accusation that I am somehow interpreting the data.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * can we boil this down into clear answers, please? have you altered the data in the table in the article such that it is not exactly as shown in the table in the source? if yes? please revert. if no, then there is no issue. Anastrophe (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Firearms and total homicde rates are taken directly from the table. The Non-Firearm homicide rate is the total homicide rate MINUS the firearm homicide rate (logically) and the % Firearm deaths are the total number of Firearm homicides divided by the total homicides and expressed as a percentage. For England and Wales 62 divided by 766 is 8.09%, for Thalians it is 2032 divided by 3140 or 389.73% (illogical I know, but reflects the statistics presented) and for the US 8259 divided by 12,658 is 65.24%.  I have reinstated these correct figures in the table--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you're welcome to add a note indicating that the source's figures are questionable and the basis; you are not welcome to modify the source's details. i am reverting this change. once more, with feeling: you cannot modify sourced statistics to conform to your calculations derived from same. it's misleading to the reader. the source doesn't contain the values you have derived, thus the article doesn't match the source, wrong as the source may be. i again encourage you to perhaps look to transcribing the statistics from the latest UNODOC, which might not suffer these errors. Anastrophe (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * . You are being ridiculous. I have not modified any statistic. If you believe the derivation is wrong answer these questions. (1) Why is the non-firearm homicide rate not equal to the total homicide rate less the firearm homicide rate and (2) why is the percentage of homicides not equal to the total number of homicides committed with a gun divided by the total number of homicides expressed as a percentage? This is, in effect, what you are arguing. Also, if you have modified the corrections I put in the article, how can you justify the numbers you are adding? Where do they come from? At least I have a source for the data I have added.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009


 * please refrain from personal attacks. see WP:NPA. i don't understand what you are saying. i have restored the values in the chart to what they were a month or so ago, before you started making changes. are you saying that the numbers you entered into the chart are exactly the values found in the source data? that doesn't sound like what you're saying, since you describe "derivation". if you are interpreting how you believe the data should be displayed in order for it to be correct, then you must not do so. having "a" source is not the same as correctly displaying "the" source from which the chart is derived. so which is it? are you restoring the table to the exact data as in the original UNODOC source, or are you modifying the values to something you've derived? if the latter, sorry. that simply won't fly. it's not how wikipedia works. you must present the data exactly as the source provides it. if there are obvious errors, then you may make a note of the errors, but you can't just change the data. Anastrophe (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets take this one a step at a time. If there were 8259 gun homicides in the United States out of a total of 12658 homicides (both figures from the source), how can the percentage of gun homicides in the US be 39% (your figure)? 65.24% is the correct answer. I can justify my figure. This is because 8259 divided by 12658 and multiplied by 100 is 65.24 (the number you deleted). How do you justify your 39%?--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, i'm not going to play another iteration of this game. the chart must reflect the data exactly as it appears in the source. period. that's an incontrovertible wikipedia policy. stop playing calculator-brinksmanship, that's not what the issue is. the chart must reflect exactly the data that's in the source. period. end of discussion. if you dispute that, you're welcome to take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. everything else is just noise. if the changes you are making bring the chart in the article into exact conformance with the source's data, then there is no issue.Anastrophe (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Incontrovertable WP policy? Poppycock! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations. Your editing is showing bias and is totally unacceptable. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i finally understand what the problem is. the table in the article employs columns of data derived from the source via routine calculation ("% homicides with firearms"). as well, the 'non-firearm homicide rate' is derived by subtracting the firearms homicide rate from the total homicide rate columns extant in the source data. so half of the columns in the chart in the article are derivative, and not present in the source data. the difficulty in seeing this was mine, the source data has a plenitude of other statistics within it, making it a bit of a task to figure out just what the heck is what.
 * on that basis, i withdraw my objection, and i apologize for not fully seeing what was at work here. it is questionable having a chart in which half the data is derivative of the source, but not necessarily out of bounds.
 * you're welcome to correct data in the "% homicides with firearms" and "non-firearm homicide rate" columns. Anastrophe (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That table should be moved into a stand alone article Gun violence statistics or some such, it clutters up the flow of the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this! It does not clutter the article at all. What can be more relevent to an article on gun violence than statistics on the rate of gun homicides? It is a crude measure, but one that surely has a better international agreeable definition and reliablity than a degree of injury neasure for example.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * that may or may not be a laudable goal; that said, and keeping on topic: until such time as the stats may be forked to another article, do you support ad hoc modification of the presentment of a source's data in this manner? i don't know how this matches policy in any way. the statistics should be restored, and if a source can be found that shows that they're in error, by all means add it. but modifying the data in the table wily nily cannot stand. Anastrophe (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * forked?!!!! Content forking should not be our aim. --Hauskalainen (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SaltyBoatr that the table should be moved into its own article.
 * I also agree with Anastrophe that in no case should the statistics be "modified." They should be presented exactly they are in the source.  If a source is proven incorrect my one or more other sources, then we can defer to the "more correct" sources.--Hamitr (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Anastrophe; it is OR for an editor to calculate new numbers to replace what is cited, to "correct" a cited source. Yaf (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does the number you added come from? How did you calculate 39%? --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * tHE TABLE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED. iT IS TOTALLY RELEVANT!!--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from shouting your opinion (IN ALL CAPS) with no mention of your rationale. It adds nothing to the discussion and doesn't help to improve the article.  Thanks.  --Hamitr (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I seem to have hit caps lock in error. I have raised the statistics/WP:OR dispute at No original research/noticeboard seeing as we seem to have 3 editors claiming one thing and one claiming another. Lets wait and see what comes out of that.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i withdraw my objections, as it was my error in reading the differences between the chart in the article and the source data. Anastrophe (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than amending the data for Thailand I have simply deleted it from the table. There are many other UN countries mot listed in the table and it avoids the nonsensical inclusion of a statistic that would appear to show that gun homicides are more than 100% of total homicides. I see that in the tenth UN survey, some attempt has been made to confirm the data given by the respondent countries using statistical checks or cross reference data from other sources. However, until someone can incoporate the newest data, this table should stand.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The lead sentence states that gun violence does not include "the safe lawful use of firearms for sport, hunting, target practice, law enforcement, or actions ruled as self-defense." This sentence needs attention for a few reasons. The first of which is that self-defense is considered "safe", as per the sentence. Certainly it is not "safe" for obvious reasons, and this shouldn't be glossed over. Lawful is a much more appropriate explanation, and would also enable the hunting, law enforcement, and self-defense sections to remain unchanged. More importantly, if we include such a stringent definition, even notwithstanding the "safe" part...we must be pretty certain any citations referenced incorporate this definition, or otherwise note it. I think that would be incredibly difficult, especially given cross-border studies. Obviously we should note study distinctions whenever noted, but as a practical matter, this lead sentence is written to suggest the sources in this article are vetted similarly (much like the inclusion criteria on a list would be written), and unless this is strictly followed, we cannot be so distinct. I welcome comments before any changes are implemented. Shadowjams (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a policeman shoots someone in the course of his duties and causes injury or death, why is that not gun violence? It is in my eyes. One could also argue from a definition point of view that gun violence includes the killing of animals. Apart from using guns to start races and other forms of signalling (by show or by firing), the main purpose of a gun is surely to inflict violence. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The gun was not created to inflict violence. Violence is a consequence of using a gun for its intended purposes, but guns were not created to inflict violence.Prussian725 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the gun was not invented to inflict violence, what purpose do you think it was invented for? The Collins dictionary defines violence as "the use of physical force, usually intended to cause injury or destruction" and the gun is a perfect weapon for this. Whether used against animals or people. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have re-ordered the lead sentence structure to clarify its meaning. Law enforcement actions, taken to shoot a criminal trying to murder someone else, for example, is not legally considered gun violence.  On the other hand, criminal acts committed by a rogue policeman with a gun could easily be gun violence, being an illegal use of a gun, but this would be an extreme rarity.  Gun violence is not legally defined as the harvesting of animals for food, either.  In short, the legal definitions of gun violence are what matter here; they are also easily cited.  Yaf (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, could you restate yourself using references to your sources? "not legally considered gun violence", where do you read this?  As if, legal violence is not a subset of violence.  Logically, I question whether legal violence is a type of violence too?  In Peter Squires book ISBN 0415170877  (pg 208) he writes of how the the British Police have both a policy and a culture of the police profession which eschews gun violence, in contrast with other styles of policing which use gun violence and the threat of gun violence as 'legal' tools.   Lets stay away from original research Yaf.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have added another cite for the legal aspect of it. There are many sources that have stated the legal basis for defining gun violence.  "Legal violence" or even "legal gun violence" are simply left-wing catch phrases.  Admittedly, police brutality, describing acts committed illegally, have occurred in the past.  However, to define all actions by police as "legal violence" or "legal gun violence" is simply not the case.  The rule of law prevents this from continuing, once despicable acts become known.  Lets stick to facts here, rather than besmirch the thin blue line out of habit, OK?  (The 2009 Oakland police shootings is a case in point; was it gun violence for police to shoot/kill the cop killer?  No.  Was it gun violence for the cop killer to shoot/kill 4 cops?  Yes.)  Looks rather simple and workable as a definition to me, to focus on the illegal aspects associated with actions with a gun to determine gun violence.  As for Peter Squires' book, I think it is safe to say that all police eschew gun violence, i.e., illegal acts committed with guns.  Lets not twist the meaning of sources, OK?  Yaf (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you include "accidental" and "suicide" giving them top emphasis, considering that those are the two most common forms of gun violence? The article gives far too much emphasis on the criminal form of gun violence which is less common.  This POV push mirrors the pro-gun advocacy work which also seeks to justify the personal carrying of guns to combat crime.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Suicide is a crime in most states, being illegal. Hence, in most states where it is illegal, there is no disconnect with the illegal aspects of suicide with a gun aligning with defining suicide as gun violence, for the percentage of suicides committed with a gun.  However, in those states where suicide or assisted suicide is legal, there are generally proscribed methods mandated for euthanasia that permit only drugs.  To the best of my knowledge, there are no jurisdictions that permit assisted suicide with a gun, or even consider suicide with a gun legal.  So, this is not a problem, either -- still an illegal act, hence suicide with a gun is considered gun violence in all jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge. A reliable source would still be needed for all this, of course, equating suicide assisted with a gun or with a gun as gun violence before considering adding any article text.


 * As for accidental deaths, these are often a failure to secure a gun against access by children or other unresponsible parties. Again, this is a crime in many US jurisdictions, so there is no real disconnect here, either.  An illegal act by someone to fail to secure a gun properly, resulting in a death, would be gun violence, too.  I do take issue with your claim that the criminal form of gun violence is possibly less common than suicide.  It rather looks like you are simply confusing homicide statistics with suicide statistics, for all "successful" offings.  A better measure would be homicide statistics + gun crime injuries + gun crime acts vs. gun-assisted suicides.  I doubt seriously that suicides would figure high in this at all, equating to somewhere around 13K to 15K deaths 17K a year by suicide in the US with guns, depending on the year .  As for accidents, for cases where a responsible firearm owner has an accident (dropping a hunting rifle from a tree stand while deer hunting, failing to unload a shotgun before crossing a fence and snagging the trigger, etc.), these are not illegal acts.  This is the reason they are not generally categorized as gun violence. Ascribing the title of "gun violence" to an accident seems rather improper, being no illegal act occurred.  So, no, your proposal for the categories of "accidental" and "suicide", giving them top emphasis, seems out of proportion to the majority of acts of gun violence, being one is not illegal, and the other (suicide) is a very small percentage of the total incidents of illegal gun usages.  You are certainly welcome to look for cited sources that support alternative claims, if such exist, but I rather suspect that no such sources exist.  Yaf (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Yaf (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How does this solve the problem of POV push? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf - Where is the legal definition of gun violence you're referring to? Title 18 § 921 of US code defines most federal firearms terms, and the term gun violence is not among them. States also have other definitions, as do other nations, but I can't find a source, at least in the US code. Shadowjams (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outindent) Violent crime in the US is specifically defined to include  just rape, robbery, aggravated  and simple assault, and  homicide. Gun violence in the US at the federal and state level is usually associated just with these violent crimes, including woundings, that would fall under assault, of course.

However, there is no precise legal definition of gun violence, being it is not a US CFR or FBI UCR term, but, rather, being just a political term used by politicians  and various  advocacy groups. Everyone is for “apple pie” and everyone is against “gun violence”. But the definitions of gun violence do run the gamut from violent crime  associated acts with a gun (most common, and mainstream)  to a slightly more simplified set of acts, while neglecting crime, and focusing on hoplophobia.

For example, some fringe advocacy groups do include suicide and accidents as being a form of gun violence, primarily for political purposes, while ignoring the definitions of violent crime that include many more violent acts, but this is not generally done except by just a few small fringe advocacy groups., e.g., Wounded in America, who for example states, “Gun violence is defined as gun suicides and attempts, gun assaults and homicides, and gun accidents.”  Note the total omission of “crime” here, and criminals, with instead the focus on “guns” themselves being bad. It is worth noting that this is not a reliable and verifiable source, being but a self-published private website. Yaf (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why focus just on "legal definition". Except, I am guessing, that it mirrors the hypothesis that persons carrying their own guns is a good thing in society to defend against crime.  Calling suicide a crime is laughable, and appears to be a contrived argument by you to suppress coverage of the true weight of suicide gun violence.  When has a suicide victim been prosecuted for a crime?


 * I welcome your question about sources, will you agree to an open discussion of this? Your lead sentence seems to be researched by doing Google searches repeatedly until you find one that matches the point of view you want to push.  Are your sources really a defunct website from an obscure Michigan gun violence organization visible only at archive.org and The Beaver County Times?  Come on!  Lets use some more or less neutral mainstream reliable sourcing while writing this article, scholarly works published by well respected publishing houses, ideally from major universities.  Let us first read the sources, and then craft an article that matches the sourcing.  You appear to put your personal opinion first, then you search Google for sourcing that matches your advocacy for your POV.


 * As a start, lets look at some books. Perhaps Gun Violence by Philip Cook ISBN 9780195153842 published 2002 by Oxford University Press?  Will you agree to read that book with me and then lets get together and write an article based on neutrality balance found in mainstream quality reliable sourcing?   SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly a laughable matter. Suicide is a punishable felony crime in North and South Dakota. (They are unique, to the best of my knowledge, in this.  Don't ask me how they actually prosecute this felony crime, though :-)  Suicide is a misdemeanor crime, although not a felony, in most states.  Assisted suicide is a crime in most states. Suicide is also a mortal sin in many religions, and is the equivalent of a felony in many areas where religious law is the law of the land. Yaf (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf are you willing to approach this article by reading a book together, like the Philip Cook book published by Oxford University Press, and patterning the POV balance roughly based on the book? I see that that book 'ex library' sells for $1 on the used book market, (just mailed ordered away for my own shelf copy).  This would be vastly preferable to taking our own personal POV and then doing Google searches to find cites which match a personal POV advocacy position.   Do you agree?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a very good book, the authors being caught up in pushing a false factoid throughout the book. There is a good reason it only costs $1 on the used market :-) Still, it has some interesting points. A more mainstream book, one not pushing the extreme gun control viewpoint, would be much better for you to read, if you really are interested in a balanced approach.  Yaf (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'False factoid' being published by Oxford University Press. OK, and you cite this as 'fact' based on an opinion piece written by Paul Blackman who works for the National Rifle Association.  No wonder this article has NPOV problems!  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it wasn't considered reliable and verifiable. Only that it is extremely biased to the pro-gun control side of the ledger. If that is what you consider to be balanced, read it.   But, this is clearly another example of you pushing a mainstream point of view out of the article, while focusing yet again on extreme anti-gun rights viewpoints.  This is clearly not the right book for you to read if you truly are interested in a balanced point of view.  Would you think I were proposing a balanced treatment if I proposed you read a book by Wayne LaPierre for representing a balanced point of view?  You undoubtedly could easily find a Paul Helmke piece critical of every book that Wayne has published, too.  No wonder this article is perceived by you to have NPOV problems.  You only read books from one side of the ledger.  Yaf (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the difference. You conclude that the book "is extremely biased" after reading an opinion piece published by Paul Blackman who works for the National Rifle Association.  I am willing to first read the book, (coming now in the mail), and read a few other books yet to be chosen and then form an opinion whether the book is biased.  I am willing to read books across the spectrum of POVs.  Yaf, can you suggest a reading list of books which span the full spectrum of POV's on this topic?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a difference, in that I read this book once, back when it first came out, and I haven't tried to push its one factoid or its extremely biased POV into articles on Wikipedia while portraying it as "balanced". (I don't currently have a copy, having seen no need to keep a copy, much the same as the libraries that are getting rid of theirs for $1 each seem to be following as well.) I added a cite to a reference in my comment, above, showing a similar opinion to what I had felt while reading it, knowing full well your tendency to assume bad faith and accuse others of quoting gun-blogs for their opinions and presumably being unable to read books.  (There are lots of fairly well-read editors here on Wikipedia, contrary to your continued accusations.)  I, too, have read books across the spectrum, probably most of the books that have been in print on this topic at some time in the last 20 years, as well as many if not most of the books on the topic back through the early 1900's, along with court case transcripts dating back to before the mid-1830's.  If an editor wishes to become more informed, he should read a wide range of books and sources, not just the books from one side of the issue such as this one.  (And, you really should stop trying to portray books from just one side of the divide as representing the "bulk of the reliable sources".)  Yaf (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Asking again: Yaf, can you suggest a reading list of books which span the full spectrum of POV's on this topic?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about the book by Alexander DeConde, Gun violence in America, published 2001 by Northeastern University Press ISBN 1555534864 ?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's but another book from the same point of view, but additionally containing much support for the fraudulent Michael Bellesiles and his book, Arming America.   The books you have proposed are hardly from a broad spectrum :-)  But, if you haven't read it, it is worth a quick read, too, to understand the one side of the ledger better.  And, knowing your preferences/bias, you probably will enjoy it!  (I didn't, though.)  Yaf (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This book is biased too, based on the opinion piece published by the www.sacfla.org political advocacy blog. OK.  Can you please suggest a specific list of reliable sources span both sides of the ledger?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And, yet again, you assume bad faith. As I said previously, I didn't enjoy this book.  And, I didn't enjoy reading the Arming America book by Bellesiles when it came out, either, being it was obviously full of statements that went counter to my own readings of historical records.    As for suggesting a summer reading list, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and this includes talk pages.  Read 'em all, I would suggest, or as many as you can find, buy, borrow, etc..  But, be sure to read books from across the spectrum, not just more books from the anti-gun side of the ledger as you seem so wont to do.  Yaf (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you misunderstood me. I am trying to negotiate with you a list of the prominent reliable sources representing fairly the full spectrum of opinion on this topic.  This is needed in order to properly represent the balance of opinion found in reliable sources. See NPOV which requires us to write neutrally "in proportion to prominence".  The first step of that process is to survey the sources.  Hence my question of you to describe the available reliable sourcing.  Until we answer that question we cannot do the work needed to remove the NPOV warning tag on the article.  So, I ask again:  Can you please suggest a specific list of reliable sources spanning both sides of the POV ledger?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf? Will you answer my question?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There remains huge POV push problems with the lede sentence and lede paragraph. Contrast the article lede paragraph with the definition of the term "gun violence" given by Greg Lee Carter on page 262 of the book Guns in American Society ISBN 9781576072684. Greg Carter attempts to define the term, and takes the bull by the horns by declaring loud and clear that the term "gun violence" is used politically by gun control advocates "politically speaking" to summarize the harm caused by gun misuse. We should stop dancing around this key point. The definition of the term is central to the politics. Any attempt we make to hide that axiom is skirting the central issue of this topic. The other side of the coin is that gun-rights advocates seek to emphasis the issue of criminal use of guns, because it bolsters their preferred hypothesis (see the published work by Gary Kleck, and others) that carrying of guns by law abiding citizens is good for society because it deters crime. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objection, and being WP:BOLD, I just floated a rewritten opening paragraph based on the Carter summary definition, and added a POV balancing sentence drawn from Hemenway to paragraph two. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * while i didn't perform the revert of your BRD new text, i support it, if only because it was very carelessly written, with a number of mispelled words, and bad grammar. please use greater care when publishing to the public article.
 * further, your text made characterizations which i'm not sure are in the sources used (not sure simply because i haven't read the sources). did the sources actually claim that it was only gun rights advocates who hold these opinions? talk-page OR here, but i've heard people who were certainly not gun rights advocates also take issue with the 'gun violence' term, along with the rampant news reporting jingo "so and so was killed by a gun". it's not only gun rights advocates who are bothered by such nomenclature.Anastrophe (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

False and misleading claim in "Homicides by country" section
The pre-amble to the data in the "Homicides by country" section includes the following claim:
 * "Unlike the practice seen in the US, homicide rates in the UK are ultimately a manner of ruling, rather than death, such that a death initially recorded as a homicide may subsequently be ruled as being other than a homicide. This methodology tends to lower the homicide rate from the rates initially estimated as more accurate details come out on deaths in most cases."

Going back to the UN source data, the numbers of homicides quoted for England and Wales are:
 * 1998 - 750
 * 1999 - 766
 * 2000 - 850

The 2001/02 Home Office statistical bulletin on Homicide and Firearms Crime (page 7, Table 1.01) states that the offences "initially recorded as homicide" for financial years were:
 * 1998/99 - 744
 * 1999/00 - 763
 * 2000/01 - 849

The same table shows that the offences "currently recorded as homicide" for the same years were:
 * 1998/99 - 652
 * 1999/00 - 682
 * 2000/01 - 783

It is self-evident that the data used by the UN is far more closely based on the "initially recorded" figures (in fact, slightly higher) and not the adjusted "currently recorded" ones, so it is highly misleading to cover the issue in the pre-amble as it is. I am therefore deleting the misleading text. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is Original Research to dispute cited data using original sources, as above. This "false and misleading claim" statement is cited.  Do you have another source that claims a different practice is followed in the UK?  Yaf (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not need "another source," since the Home Office statistical bulletins clearly publish both "initially recorded" and "currently recorded" figures, and the UN data we use for the table is clearly based on the former, not the latter. In fact, as they are actually slightly higher, it is a nonsense to include text which suggests that the E&W figures have been reduced by some sort of statistical sleight-of-hand. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But, the "currently recorded as homicide" numbers are noticeably lower than the "initially recorded as homicide" numbers. This exactly follows the cited article text that you removed.  Looks like the cited article text you removed is more accurate than your Original Research interpretation of the data. Yaf (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "currently recorded" are lower than the "initially recorded," but both are published in parallel. More importantly, it is clear that the UN-sourced data is based on the "initially recorded" data, so it is misleading to have text in the pre-amble which has a high potential for misleading the reader into thinking that the figures that follow are so adjusted "currently recorded" ones. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the real question is whether we have the right sourced data in the table. If the "massaged" data are the real data, shouldn't we find another source for the tabular data, that reflects actual UK historical data ("massaged" down and all)?  Why should we go with the initial, inaccurate data?  Yaf (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming from the Third Opinion page: I agree with Nick Cooper here. The previous text was definitely misleading. At some point we must ask ourselves, do we want to be factual and accurate to the truth, or do we want to mislead people with technically acceptable, but misleading information. I think sanity, fairness, and reality overrule any other argument here. Todavia no se (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

definition of "gun violence"
This revert by Yaf 23:27, 12 April 2009 with the edit summary "rv per WP:BRD cycle; law enforcement, hunting, and legal gun uses are not gun violence" seems wildly off base.

1) rv per WP:BRD cycle? - Yaf's revert was a wholesale revert versus an incremental revert and was not accompanied by or followed up by any discussion.  How is this WP:BRD?  Rather, it has appearance of edit warring.

2) The Yaf revert deleted the relevant reliable sourced citation, which shows that gun violence is defined as including governmental, quasi-governmental, law enforcement, hunting, and legal gun uses.  Therefore, just how are then 'not' forms of gun violence?

Yaf, please explain this odd behavior. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing odd at all here. You made a Bold edit, which I Reverted.  Now, we are Discussing.  By definition, this is the essence of WP:BRD.  The primary issue with the Bold proposal you made was that it was representative of but one side of the debate.  Yet, there were cites that established the other side of the debate which were removed in the Bold proposal you made.  The article text should be neutral, not representative of but one side of the divide.  Hence the reason for the Revert.  I did add your cite to the "may include" side of the debate, however.  Yaf (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then. Can you suggest a compromise?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, iF we are going to WP:BRD discuss this, then let us discuss this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * chiming in here: i've never heard the term "gun violence" applied - in common/popular vernacular - to hunting, or to the actions of law enforcement. it is widely and uniformely used - in popular media such as newspapers, television news, magazine articles, etc. - to refer to criminal violence employing guns. without exception. the term, as is pointed out in the article, is a political/social advocacy construct. there is no dictionary definition for it. that one or two authors have conflated hunting and non-criminal employment of firearms with "gun violence" doesn't really validate the suggestion that it has this broader meaning. further, i think it clouds the understanding of the term to use these fringe definitions. Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you dispute that the Carter book is a reliable source? Do you really find the definition that Yaf deleted, taken almost verbatim from Carter: "Gun violence defined literally means the use of a firearm to threaten or inflict violence or harm." to be fringe?  It seems to cover both sides of the POV well.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf also deleted this sentence based on Carter: "The term 'gun violence' is also used politically within context of the debate surrounding gun politics to describe the harm inflicted by gun misuse." Judging from Anastrophe comment "without exception...the term is a political/social construct", I am assuming you favor the the Carter based "used politically within" sentence which Yaf deleted.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * as long as the fringe definition that wraps hunting, law enforcement, and justifiable defensive uses into it is excluded (per wp:fringe) i have no problem with the material. Anastrophe (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Yaf (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to know whether WP:Fringe applies here we need to know if your selection of "newspapers, television news, magazine articles" are representative and reliable.   Which "newspapers, television news, and magazine articles" have you surveyed to make your determination?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One reason I ask is that I suspect that you two are not reading the feminist press. When I look I see a bookshelf full of books discussing the gun violence aspects of hunting in context of societal violence.  As just one example, this book published by Indiana University Press,ISBN 9780253210159, solidly a reliable source and clearly not fringe, makes the strong association that gun violence during hunting as a relevant form of gun violence.  Perhaps you two are systemically biased by your gender, and your subconsciously biased choice of newspapers, TV and magazines?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * perhaps you could avoid personalizing your arguments, making grossly inappropriate suggestions of bias, and dime-store psychoanalyzing of our subconscious? how about avoiding all speculation about your fellow editors, pretty please? it's uncivil to do so, and you violate this policy time and time again. and please - spare me the nth iteration of 'but you haven't answered my question, so all i can do is speculate!'. no, failure to answer your questions is not justification for speculation. speculating about me or other of your fellow editors bias is violative of AGF. simply. don't. do. it. PLEASE.
 * that said, merely being published in a reliable source is but one leg of a structure that's required for the material to be represented within article space, as you well know. this is an obscure anthology, certainly not representative of mainstream POV's. your linked quote doesn't support your argument, by the way.
 * i occasionally watch local and national evening television news, to wit KRON, KTVU, KPIX, KGO, and ABC, NBC, and CBS news. i gave up newspapers years ago, though my wife still reads the local paper. i get my daily news fixes from AP and Reuters. the only paper magazines i read regularly any more are CPU and Wired, betraying my bias for technology. there's your answer. i think it's shockingly free of bias, but what do i know - my brain is all clouded by gender bias, apparently. Anastrophe (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yesterday you based your reasoning as to 'fringe definition' on what you saw in mainstream newspapers. Today you say you gave up newspapers years ago.  Faced with that inconsistency, is very hard to assume good faith.  It is also hard to collaborate to achieve a good article here.  In light of this inconsistency, may I now conclude that what you wrote yesterday is voided by what you wrote today?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * a purely ridiculous claim. please reread exactly - and carefully - what you just linked to. to wit "it is widely and uniformely used - in popular media such as newspapers, television news, magazine articles, etc.". i gave up reading newspapers daily years ago, that doesn't mean that i don't occasionally read newspaper content, nor does it mean that newspaper content isn't available online, nor was my statement predicated on my regular reading of only newspapers. are you familiar with the concept of 'examples'? that's how i phrased it - 'in popular media such as '. can you point to any mainstream media that is referring to hunting when speaking of gun violence? jesus, stop with the tendentious badgering and wikilawyering, it's impossible to collaborate with you. Anastrophe (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i'm sorry, i'm really pissed off about this. salty, this is textbook bad faith on your part. you suggest that because i don't read daily paper media, that my claim is void? even though i provided you with exactly what you requested an answer to, a listing of my mainstream news sources. are you suggesting that AP and Reuters aren't mainstream news sources? that they're unreliable? that the AP and Reuters content online is somehow a direct feed into the evil NRA's byline, while the paper versions of the same information are pure as the driven snow? this is absurd. no, you may not conclude that what i wrote yesterday is void, what you may do is stop bickering, badgering, wikilawyering, personalizing, and displaying bad faith at every juncture, and try to collaborate. you've so far cited one obscure anthology of feminist writings. you're seriously going to claim that this one fringe source (or your other fringe vegan and feminist sources) trump the near daily vernacular usage of the term 'gun violence' to refer to people criminally harming other people with guns? this isn't collaboration, it's obstructionism. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are claiming WP:Fringe as your justification. Yet, you are very vague at how you reach that opinion.  When I asked for specifics, you remain vague, and shift to the theme of personal outrage.  Can you suggest another way to put metrics to your claim of WP:Fringe?  Or, shall we just go with your personal opinion about this?  Or, would you prefer to not talk any more about your assertion of WP:Fringe and instead talk about your personal offense taken mixed with smears pointed at me?  Which shall we discuss here?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SOUP. my outrage is due to your bad faith misrepresentation of what i wrote. you won't be getting an apology for that one, and frankly i'm about ready to move for sanctions - i'm on firm ground here, whereas your misrepresentation above is quintessential bad faith. i answered your question, and there's nothing vague about it. i stand by my assessment of your source as fringe. now, can you point to mainstream sources that are referring to hunting when speaking of gun violence? the burden is upon you to provide mainstream reliable sources that use this term with the meaning you suggest. or, here's a thought, we could stop wikilawyering this matter and use common sense, and use the mainstream definition that you know as well as i do, which is what is being referred to by the political/advocacy term 'gun violence' - criminal use of guns to harm people. do any advocacy groups - CSGV, brady, etc - use the term gun violence to refer to hunting? do mainstream newspapers, magazines, television news, etc etc etc etc mean hunting when they say 'gun violence'? no. you know this. please stop playing the bickering, tendentious, wikilawyering, badgering game - and collaborate. provide non-fringe sources to justify what you claim. please stop behaving like a troll. Anastrophe (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) still awaiting your mainstream sourcing that contradicts anything i've written. frankly, i've no idea why fringe sources are even being mentioned. vegans and radical feminists make up a tiny proportion of the population - vegans less than 1% of the US population, feminists less than 25% of the US population, radical feminists a tiny fraction of that. classic fringe opinions. granted, this isn't a US-specific article, there's a significant vegan population in India. do they refer to hunting or law enforcement use or military use of guns as "gun violence" in their mainstream sources? Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, Anastrophe, can we keep discussing this to reach a conclusion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Jimbo Wales:


 * I see no evidence that both sides accept that hunting, or law enforcement in general, or other legal and long-accepted activities (e.g., right of self defense where legal) are considered gun violence by both sides. Looks like the classic definition of WP:Fringe to me, to equate gun violence with legal and long-considered mainstream accepted activities.  From Jimbo's view, it looks like this is a classic case for omission, or no additional content, being that there is already content (cited) in the article that gun violence "may" or "may not" include legal activities.  Even this inclusion, that it "may" include legal activities, is beyond what Jimbo has advocated.  Doesn't look like there is any remaining issue, with the appearance of us having already reached a conclusion. Yaf (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A central question that remains unanswered is what 'newspapers, TV and magazines' are you using to determine what is mainstream? The problem appears to be that your view of mainstream is not actually a true view of mainstream.  So, please reveal what we should be using to determine 'mainstream'.  Bear in mind that I have pointed to two scholarly books solidly reliable sources.  I could give you a dozen more, would that pass your "fringe" threshold?  Is your 'fringe' test subjective or objective?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Jimbo "the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it". It seems that both sides could agree with a statement along the line, that "some people, including vegans and feminists, hold the view that hunting is a form of gun violence" or some such.    You cannot be disputing that some people hold a view that gun violence includes hunting can you?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'some people' isn't the test however. are we talking mainstream vegans and feminists, or extreme vegans and radical feminists? one could argue that veganism and feminism - which are both for the most part outside of the mainstream - don't represent even minority POV's here.
 * virtually every major gun-control advocacy group claims support for curbing "gun violence" while claiming to support the 'right' to hunt. do the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence consider hunting, law enforcement use, governmental and quasi-governmental actions part of their drive to stop 'gun violence'? no. that's the mainstream gun-control view on the matter. Anastrophe (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yaf also deleted the wording that governmental and quasi-governmental actions such as war and ethnic cleansing are a form of gun violence. Is this controversial? Why did you delete that Yaf? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This was deleted on the basis that it was original research. Consider for example the Rwandan ethnic cleansing with machetes. There are also chemical/biological weapons, fires that burn villages, etc.  War and ethnic cleansing are not "gun violence" in many (most?) cases; equating them with gun violence is definitely OR.  -- Yaf (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How could it be considered original research? Explain yourself.  It is taken as a close paraphrase from the Carter book ISBN 9781576072684 page 262.  Do you dispute that book qualifies as a WP:RS?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, could you please answer my questions? Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently false report by The Observer re gun crime in Manchester
Another strange claim comes from the Observer article which claims that the gun murder rate in 3 suburbs of Manchester have a gun murder rate of 140 per 100,000. Which is statistically highly improbable because the population of those 3 areas is 35,916 which means an annual gun death in those 3 small districts of about 50 people per year. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY A FIREARM IN THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (pop. 53.4 million) IS ALSO ABOUT 50 PER YEAR! Which means almost nobody gets murdered with a gun outside those 3 districts! I can only conclude that the Observer has its statistical knickers in a twist. Again, we should delete it because it patently cannot be true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to believe the latter, namely, that the majority of all homicides in the whole of England and Wales does tend to occur in this rather small part of Manchester, which is but a small part of Manchester that in totality some call "The Second City". This would tend to agree with the 0.09/100,000 rate that some sources claim in the rest of England and Wales. Admittedly, this is just speculation, and has no real bearing, of course.  Based on the ethnicity makeup of these 3 areas, though, and the countries of origin of the immigrants, it does tend to track, in that people tend to continue the customs from whence they come, after immigration, and the points of origin also have high homicide rates.  Hence, Manchester's nickname of "Gunchester". It agrees, too, with stories I have heard.  None of this is acceptable, of course, for use in the article, as Original research has no place in Wikipedia.  The goal of Wikipedia is verifiability.  The current source is cited and is reliable and is verifiable.  If alternative information is found, from reliable and verifiable sources, then that would be fine too, as would any indication that the problems have lessened since 2002.  I sincerely hope that they have. In the US, homicide rates have noticeably lessened since 2002.  Perhaps they have in these parts of Manchester, too.  Truth is not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia; and, yes, I tend to have problems with this policy, too.  Rather, verifiability is the watchword on Wikipedia.  Lets hope we find verifiable data from reliable sources that indicate the problems in these parts of Manchester have lessened since 2002.  I will look as well.  Yaf (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A 2002 report on gun violence in Manchester, the Home Office reported (for a large part of Southern Greater Manchester) that there were 46 known victims of gun crime in the region, of which nine had been shot dead. see Victims (page 19) at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/crrs13.pdf There were 29 gun related deaths between 1997-2000 (table 5 page 36). The data covers not the entire Greater Manchester area, but a substantial part of it (a large swathe of Southern Manchester, including all 3 areas mentioned in the Observer report. So 140/100k seems way to high. Another report http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus713/ccjs_gun_crime_report.pdf shows that gun crime did show a falling trend after 2002 but a rise before then. Three reasons for the rise in the presence of guns are suggested from ballistics testing. 1) souvenir (or worse, official army issue) guns coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. 2) Guns no longer needed in Northern Ireland being sold on the mainland and 3) Guns coming from Eastern Europe and Russia now that there is more contact with these countries where weapons were prevalent. A lot of work as gone into programs to cut gun violence and the falling numbers are a positive sig.  Are you OK now if I delete the reference?  These data do not support the Observer report. --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, it's worth noting the regional breakdown in the Home Office report I've referenced below (Table 1.13, page 34). This shows homicides in Greater Manchester running at between 52 & 56 for the last four years; the anomalous high figure for 2002/03 includes 172 victims of Harold Shipman - without them it would have been 52. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Malcom's "massage down" claim is highly misleading, bordering on being wilfully so. In its statistical bulletins on homicide, the Home Office actually provides two sets of figures: "offences initially recorded as homicide," and "offences currently recorded as homicide" (my emphasis). The most recent exmaple is here, with Table 1.01 (page 18) showing both together in columns 1 & 3 respectively. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True. And of course the reverse is true. Presumably if a suicide in the US is later discovered to be a murder, so this issue rubs both ways. As to regional homicide data, of course it is unlikely that all the homicides in GM will involve a firearm. Typically in the UK firearms are implicated in eight percent of murders. No doubt that rate will be higher in a few parts of GM but overal it is unlikely to be 100 percent. And GM is a huge area, encompassing not just the city of Manchester, but also large towns such as Rochdale, Stockport, Bolton, Wigan, Salford and Oldham.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting points. Have attempted to address all of the potential NPOV sticking points in my latest edits.  Comments? Are there still issues? Yaf (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is still the huge issue with the claimed rates for Greater Manchester and specifically Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme. The Observer text runs:


 * "Despite recent slight falls in the levels of gun crime, inner south Manchester remains one of the most dangerous parts of the country. In 2002 the firearms murder rate for England and Wales was 0.09 per 100,000 head of population, compared with 5.4 per 100,000 for the US.


 * "In Greater Manchester the rate was to 10 per 100,000, while in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme it was 140 per 100,000."


 * According to the page history, Greater Manchester had an estimated 2002 population of 2,513,468. If the firearms homicide rate really was 10 per 100,000 that would suggest 251 homicides with firearms, which would be pretty spectacular given that the Home Office's bulletin covering homicide and firearms crime for 2002/03 says (Table 1.03, page 11) that only 58 people were fatally shot in the whole of England & Wales for that year! 2001 Census figures show the following population:
 * Longsight - 16,007
 * Moss Side - 10,977
 * Hulme - 8,932
 * TOTAL = 35,916
 * As Hauskalainen notes, if these had a firearms homicide rate of 140 per 100,000 it would account for 50 deaths. The aforementioned Home Office bulletin doesn't tabulate homicides by police force area, but the following year's (i.e. 2003/04 - ) does, and includes the 2002/03 numbers. This shows total homcides in Greater Manchester as 224 in 2002/03 and 55 in 2004/05. However, the 224 includes 172 victims of Shipmen, so would have been 52 otherwise. The inescapable conclusion is that the figures quoted by the Observer are clearly wrong, as the one for Greater Manchester exceeds that for all homicides in the region including Shipman's anomalous 172, while the three sub-areas would account for the bulk of both the non-Shipman killings in that area and firearms homicides in the whole country. Although the Observer is a reputable source, we simply cannot rely on figures that are self-evidently wrong, so I am deleting them. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All original research. You are confusing rates with varying choices of population areas. You chose the entire area, not the area where the rate was found. The rate is 1.4 per 1,000 in the original Operation Chrome report, subsequently reported in the Home Office paper that I have just added the cite for; this equates to 140 per 100,000 when converted into the normal statistical norm of per 100,000.  Have restored the properly cited information, based on finding not one, but two sources, that agree exactly on the rate of 140 per 100,000.  Yaf (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Published Home Office and police statistics demonstrably refute the claims in the Observer article. The part of the Bullock/Tilley report you have quoted is talking about ALL shootings, not just homicides. It may well be that the Observer claim is based on a mis-reading of the same, but it is still wrong. This document clearly shows 224 homicides in Greater Manchester in the year in question, 172 of which were Shipman's victims, leaving 52 others. The idea that 50 of them could be fatal shootings and it not be a matter of wide media comment and record is utterly preposterous. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are again using Original Research in conflating the rate for the whole of Greater Manchester with the rate among sub-sets of the population. The original Operation Chrome reports were for individual sub-sets of communities in GM.  The rate is correct at 1.4/1,000, or, converting to the common norm, 140/100,000.  You are confusing rates with totals.  Yaf (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The numbers of GM homicdes (i.e. 224, 172 and 52) I quoted above are the actual numbers, not interpretions from rates, althouygh they do disprove the rates quoted in the Observer article. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And, you are assuming that the 52 gun homicides were equally distributed over all of GM. They specifically were not.  In the small areas where they were committed, the rate was 1.4/1000.  Yaf (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. The part of the Tilley/Bullock report you have quoted is dealing with ALL shootings, not just homicides, and covers the four years from 1997 to 2000. The Observer piece referred to a single year (2002) only, so the figure are inherently incompatible. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that there were any specific numbers of gun homicides in GM or in the small areas within GM where the vast majority of gun homicides occur. I am just saying that there were gun homicide/murder rates of 1.4/1000  (140/100,000) in the small areas in GM where nearly all the gun homicides were committed.  You are clearly doing Original Research in claiming that not one, but that two reliable sources are in error.  Is there a need for a 3rd and a 4th cite, too, to prove that the rate at 140/100,000 is correct?  You are arguing against the inclusion of article text that is properly cited with reliable sources, based on your assumption that the data are wrong because you know better than the reliable sources.  This is not the way Wikipedia works.  It is vandalism to remove properly cited content just because you disagree with the reliable sources.  Yaf (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your two "reliable sources" are not compatible. The Observer article claims 140 homicides per 100,000 for a single year (2002) for Longsight, Moss Side, and Hulme; while the Tilley/Bullock report (page 16) is for all shootings (i.e. not just homicides) in a four year period (1997-2000) in Longsight and Greenheys (Hulme). As shown above, the Observer rates in relation to the known populations of the identified districts (i.e. Greater Manchester as a whole, and Longsight, Moss Side, and Hulme specifically) produce figures that are utterly incompatible with homicide statistics for England & Wales as a whole, and Greater Manchester in particular. If you want to rely on the Tilley/Bullock report, you must not only covert the rate to per 100,000, but also divide it by four. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the report again. You are wrong.  The peak rate was in 2002, and is the 140/100,000 rate.  You are conflating the rate in a small area with the rate for the country as a whole.    There is no incompatibility.  Yaf (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No I'm not. I'm looking at the Observer report right now and it say:
 * "In 2002 the firearms murder rate for England and Wales was 0.09 per 100,000 head of population, compared with 5.4 per 100,000 for the US.
 * In Greater Manchester the rate was to 10 per 100,000, while in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme it was 140 per 100,000."
 * The implication is that the figures for Greater Manchester and Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme are for murders/homicides. The population of Greater Manchester in 2002 was 2,513,468 so the claimed 10/100,000 rate equates to a number of approximately 251. Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme have a collective population of 35,916 so the claimed 140/100,000 rate would equate to a number of 50. The Home Office statistical bulletin on Homicide and Gun Crime for 2003/04  clearly states in Table 1.13 (page 24) that there were 224 homicides as a whole in Greater Manchester and that 172 of them were victims of Shipman, leaving 52 others. The Homicide and Gun Crime statistical bulletin for 2002/03  shows (Table 2.13/page 55) that there were only 81 fatal shootings in that year in the whole of England and Wales, so clearly 251 could not have been shot dead in Greater Manchester. Likewise, if 50 of the actual 81 were commited in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme, don't you think it would merit at least a mention to that effect? It would be so hugely against the national trend that someone would have to be seriously deluded to think that it would not be remarked upon, if it were true. The bottom line is that 251 were not shot dead in Greater Manchester in 2002/03, nor were 50 shot dead in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No Yaf, Nick is right and you are wrong. And even if you were right (which you are not) I would seriously question the meaningfulness of murder statistics in very small areas. Taking an extreme example, if a resident in a street of 50 homes with 100 residents is murdered, the murder rate for that street would be 1 per 100 or 1000 per 100,000. Selectively choosing small parts even of big cities is not very meaningful statistically speaking. I suggest that you drop this one as the Observer report was not right about the Manchester figure and as Nick has already suggested, may well have mistaken the the "shootings" statistic of 1.4 per 1000 residents as equating to gun deaths. An easy mistake for a journalist to make if the deadline is pressing. I am sure we have all made similar mistakes ourselves here. If you continue to press for this by re-inserting it I am sure that Nick and I will continue to revert it. Why not take this to Editor Assistance for an independent view? --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have at long last received had a long and detailed re-mailed eply about this matter (the GM gun crime rate) and one other (allegations of massaging down of statistics) from the statistician at the Home Office responsible for the crime data. It is pleasing that our government can help out when asked for help. In essence, I can summarise this as being that for GM as a whole, the gun homicide rate has varied between 0.16 and 0.36 (between 4 and 9 shooting homicides per year over the period 2002-2008 (compared to 0.09 and 0.14 gun homicides per 10000 population for England and Wales). As to overall homicides, the Shipman murders are included in into the statistics on the year the crime was reported, not the year in which it happened. Thus there is a blip of excess homicides recorded in certain recent years reflecting the Shipman murders which actually happened over a much long period but only got reported in the year that the death was re-assigned to Shipman. On the Observer quotation she says

"The rates for Manchester do not, though, correspond with the figures quoted by the Observer in March 2004. And from the data collected centrally by the Home Office, it is not possible to show figures for more local levels such as Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme."

On the issue of "massaging statistics", the answer is simply that statistics published by the police are never changed, but those by the Home Office are amended (either up or down) as more accurate information becomes available.

"Section C of the current document, released in April 2009, shows the criteria that need to be satisfied before a force can ‘no crime’ an offence already recorded (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/countrules.html).

Numbers of homicides are included on the general statistical data returns that the Home Office receives from each force in England and Wales. Forces are also required to provide us with demographic data and information about the circumstances surrounding each offence initially recorded as homicide on a separate return, which is stored on our Homicide Index. As with the ‘no criming’ process for the general stats return, forces may also apply for offences initially recorded as homicide to be no crimed from the Homicide Index if it becomes clear during the police investigation that no offence was committed, i.e. that the death was due to natural causes, an accident, was self-inflicted or where it becomes clear that no death occurred. Only a very small number of offences are no crimed from the Homicide Index each year.

The general police recorded crime figures that are published each July do not take into account the results of court proceedings. However, the Homicide Index does have the capacity to differentiate between offences initially and currently recorded as homicide. If, after further investigation, a force (in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service) considers a lesser offence to have taken place (e.g. assault, dangerous driving) rather than a homicide, they continue to provide us with information about the case, through to court proceedings, and the database will re-classify the case as ‘no longer recorded as homicide’. As you’ll note from table 1.01 of the most recent homicide chapter, between 80 and 125 cases per year have been re-classified in this way since 1983 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf). Figures for later years tend to be lower since investigations and court proceedings may be ongoing, and may be revised upwards as further information is received."

I hope that settles the matter.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of cited data
The following was copied from Yaf's talk page:

Kindly explain why WP:BRD applies to the reverts you made.

The article is about gun violence but you re-inserted material that is not about GUN violence but about violent crime in general. Violent crime may have risen in the UK but violent crime does not necessitate use of a gun. Indeed most violent crime in the UK will definitely not involve a gun, though that may be the case in the US (I am not sure).

Similarly the text about homicides in general. A homicide does not necessitate a gun. Hence the text you added back is irrelevant.

Your cite of WP:BRD in this instance is inappropriate. Please reconsider and revert the edit you made.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is clearly appropriate, being that you made a bold deletion, I reverted, and now a discussion should take place. The table on the article below the text in question lists homicides.  The prefatory text, that you removed, is entirely appropriate in identifying the limits of the data contained in the table of homicides, being that the rate given per each country is not indicative of the variances that exist in rates within each country.  (Much the same as homicide statistics that apply in Manchester in the UK, versus across the country as a whole, are considerably higher in Manchester.)  Removal of properly cited data to "massage" the message is not appropriate, although such "massage" is apparently common amongst UK statisticians, as noted by one of the references you removed.  Neutral point of view does not mean "white-washed".  It means that properly cited data, from reliable and verifiable sources, is needed.  But, instead, you removed considerable cited content and that appears to be censorship.  I therefore reverted this apparent "censorship".  Yaf (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was happy to leave the issue of variability in the article and actually did so. I don't think anyone doubts that within a country there will be variability from place to place. Its not a controversial statement. The rate of gun homicides in Greater Manchester is double that of the England and Wales average, which I would think was entirely within the realms of normal variation for a given country, so the describing it as "considerably higher" is wrong (as was the Observer article I guess you are alluding to). But you over exaggerate the effect of national variation. Manchester is, after Britain's third largest city and has a gun homicide rate of just 0.23 per 100,000 compared to New York's 7.3. New York, let me remind you has a relatively low number of homicides (it was way down in 50th place in the list of America's 73 least safe cities) which, assuming the US national statistic of guns causing 67% of all gun deaths, still makes Manchester 21 times safer in this regard than one of America's safest cities. The Home Office does not "massage" statistics, it records them accurately. As the Home Office statistician said, if a road accident victim is initially recorded by the police as the victim of a homicide but the person responsible is found guilty of the lesser charge of dangerous driving, it is quite right to re-classify the death. The Home Office simililarly "massaged upwards" (p.s. this is irony) to record the murders by Harold Shipman. This is merely more accurate reporting, not an exercise in massaging statistics.


 * As for "massaging the message" that is what these references you added back do. They do not support the data in the table in any way, which is the prime reason I deleted them. But they do serve as means to an end.. the means being to use Wikipedia to convey messages that "gun crime and gun ownership rates are not linked and that Britain's statistics on gun deaths are inaccurate". Therefore, on the grounds of accuracy this was the secondary reason why I deleted those references. Those are pro-gun lobby arguments, and neither is true on the grand scale of things. Sure, there are exceptions such as Wyoming, but exceptions do not make the rule. In any case, the table IS accurate and does not really need a lot of explanation. We can make the points you wish to make without using references which tell subliminal tales. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

End of content copied from Yaf's talk page.

Multiple editors need to discuss the proposed deletion of cited data. Discussions on one's talk page hardly constitutes consensus building to support removal of a major section with cited data in accordance with WP:BRD. Yaf (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Have restored properly cited data, while also removing uncited claims. Also, the interpretation of absolute numbers of deaths was entirely false. Rates are more indicative of urban vs. rural risks, being that crime rates in general are down markedly in the US over the last decade. It is false to claim OR interpretations based upon absolute numbers of deaths in cities, for example, being that deaths in general are down. Additionally, there were no cites for the contentious material that was added. Original Research POV commentary is not appropriate for inclusion in this article, and all claims must be cited. Yaf (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)