Talk:List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom

Northern Ireland shootings
I've just added two shootings which happened in Northern Ireland, but there are many more which need to be added. I'm a bit busy at the moment so I can't but I will later. Incase ant other editors can add them though, they are: Many of these attacks are related to The Troubles, so maybe there should be a separate section in the article for that. Thanks, greyzxq  talk 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Attack on James Murray's bookmakers
 * Ballymurphy massacre
 * Bleary Darts Club shooting
 * Charlemont pub attacks
 * Chlorane Bar attack
 * Darkley killings
 * Donnelly's Bar and Kay's Tavern attacks
 * Greysteel massacre
 * Kingsmill massacre
 * Massereene Barracks shooting
 * Milltown Cemetery attack
 * Mountainview Tavern attack
 * New Lodge Six shooting
 * October 1975 Northern Ireland attacks
 * Ramble Inn attack
 * Sean Graham bookmakers' shooting
 * Springhill massacre


 * So far the list is not covering any shootings related to the troubles. And it's probably a good idea to keep it that way. The troubles already have their own pages after all and will only inflate this list... Trekki 200 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion
What are the criteria for inclusion in this list (simply 4 casualties - including the perpetrator or not?), as there seem to be quite a few disparate offences included and some (probably inadvertent) omissions. Whilst we don't want to be too prescriptive (or it stops being useful, and this isn't the US where we need highly granular lists because there are so many), some of the incidents are very much not like the others, and would probably not be recognised as "a mass shooting" by the "man on the Clapham Omnibus". For instance, it seems perverse that someone murdering their family may or may not appear on the list, depending on how large their family is (1/2/3 children). This is a bit like the sometimes-tricky definition of "school shooting" - e.g. an act of domestic violence that happens to be geographically located on a school or college campus isn't what people mean when they say "school shooting".

There are various definitions available, which include:
 * Four (or five) or more people shot (killed or injured)
 * Indiscriminate rampage with at least three deaths, with no "cooling off" period between killings (really describing "spree shootings")

Most definitions tend to edge around the concept of indiscriminate killing. Within the list, we have some obvious examples (Dunblane, Hungerford), but there are also some which seem to be simple murders (it is presumably not the intention of the list to include every murder committed with a firearm). For instance, there's nothing indiscriminate about the Murders at Stanfield Hall or the White House Farm Murders. The Eastbourne tragedy likewise is a highly targeted two-part murder (each half of which does not constitute a mass shooting, indeed there is evidence that Hicks had as many as 7 wifes and had killed all of them in separate killings. But we wouldn't count a serial killer who shot one person per week for 7 weeks as having committed "a mass shooting").

These do not really fit the spirit of "mass shooting", and it seems a bit disjointed that we include the White House Murders simply because the killer had five family members to kill, but the Foster killings (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/04/8 Foster killings) or Spalding shootings (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-37787949) are not, simply because the murderer "only" had one child to kill.

Conversely, the 2003 Murder of Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare is not included, sitting in broadly the same category as the Euston shooting (drive-by gang shooting which kills innocent bystanders). This raises the question over whether we should additionally mark up shootings committed with legal/illegal firearms (even if they're in the same list), along with incidents like the Houndsditch Murders, which were criminal-on-police shootings during the commission of a separate offence - rather than an indiscriminate spree shooting or premeditated murder.

I'm not sure how much this matters, it just seems a bit inconsistent/arbitrary in places, and I feel in particular that familial murder/murder-suicides don't exactly belong. I also note that there's a template on the Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom page noting that it disagrees with this page on how many "mass shootings" there have been in the UK, namely because it's more narrowly scoped on spree shootings with legally held firearms. That's probably a wording issue on that page, but just food for thought as to what readers perhaps expect to find in scope.

I quite agree with keeping Troubles-related shootings separate. Hemmers (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you: familial killings or gang-related shootings are not the same as indiscriminate mass shootings targeting members of the public. Domestic incidents make up the vast majority of entries in the 'List of mass shootings in Switzerland' page as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Switzerland
 * Under this criteria, countries like Australia would've had multiple mass shootings since Port Arthur in 1996 (despite what studies and media organizations say). Even Japan would've had several incidents since then.
 * Thoughts ? 2600:8800:5232:DD00:297D:655D:41A4:7816 (talk) 2600:8800:5232:DD00:297D:655D:41A4:7816 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to definitions given by authoritative sources. There is a good list at Mass_shooting. I don't see anything about treating familial shootings differently, and to be honest, I don't follow the logic of seeing them as special. If family size prevents it being a mass shooting, so be it. Regarding gangland killings: only one definition given in that section excludes gang killings (Mother Jones). I can see the argument here because gang killings kinda seem like a war. On the other hand, most definitions don't exclude gangland killings, and something like the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre intuitively feels like it should be in a list of mass shootings.
 * You mention Australia and Japan. While of course we mustn't argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as it happens, in their lists of massacres, both include recent shootings: see List of massacres in Japan and List of massacres in Australia.
 * So my preference would be to include gang killings and family killings if they meet the 4+ criterion used by most sources. OsFish (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant if you were to use the definition of four or more shot (injured or dead) and include gang and familial shootings. Under such a definition Australia would've had many incidents since 1996, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nic0487#Creation_of_a_'mass_shootings_in_Australia_page'_and_missing_UK_mass_shootings
 * The US government defines mass shootings as four or more killed (not including the perpetrator) and excludes domestic and gang-related shootings: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings#note1
 * Why isn't this definition used on the site? 2600:8800:5232:DD00:E900:25CA:AF4B:9368 (talk) 2600:8800:5232:DD00:E900:25CA:AF4B:9368 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition used is the one that Wikipedia editors (ie us here on this page and anyone else who wants to join in) agree by consensus to use. So we have to find agreement (in a collegiate, not a confrontational manner), and if we can't find agreement, invite others in a neutral way to come and give their view. (For example, there are general noticeboards for inviting disinterested editors, subject noticeboards for people with an interest in the area etc.).
 * So we have the power to decide - but for this page only. If you want a general rule for all mass shooting pages, you need to argue at a higher policy level making sure to advertise to editors with an interest in the area. Wikipedia is a bit bureaucratic like that, but patient collegiality is what keeps the encyclopedia going.
 * Anyway, guidelines on the criteria for list inclusion are at WP:LISTCRITERIA. The basic concern there - that lists should not be indiscriminate - is not an issue here, because on either of the definitions we favour here (the USG version of 4+ dead you prefer, or the various versions listed at Mass shooting of 4+ shot I prefer), we have clear limiting criteria. Every mass shooting of four or more people is likely to have reliable sources (eg multiple quality news reports).
 * Your concern as I understand it is that without restricting the criteria as per the USG, the list would become so long as to be unwieldy. Is that right?
 * That lists are too long to be unwieldy would be a valid concern. While we're not limited like a paper encyclopedia, pages need to be navigable by users. When a list gets too long is when we might introduce extra limiting criteria, or split lists into two pages, or organise them differently or whatever.
 * The thing is, I just don't think List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom is overlong or unwieldy right now. If you look at each decade, the number of shootings listed is in single figures at the moment. That's easily manageable for a reader, isn't it? OsFish (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Suicide
I have updated all the references in this article to "committed suicide" and changed them to "killed himself" (or the relevant grammatical variations). "Committed suicide" is now recognised as a pejorative and stigmatising term for those who take their own life. It rattles off the tongue because it is so engrained into our cultural language, however this has a profound effect on the families and friends of those who die by taking their own life. The term is historic, based on suicide being a criminal offence for which people could be prosecuted. And so it was in the past, people "committed suicide" ie they committed the criminal offence of killing (or attempting) to kill themselves. That criminal offence was abolished in 1961 so for the last 60 years or more, nobody has been able to 'commit' the criminal offence of suicide but the term has remained embedded in the language. Terms such as "killed themself", "took their life" or "died by suicide" are the more modern, non-pejorative terms to apply. There is a wiki article on this subject Suicide termininology - see the section on "Opposition to the term "commit" suicide. In the cases referred in this article those involved *DID* commit criminal offences - namely of killing or wounding others so they did commit criminal acts. However killing themselves wasn't itself a criminal act - it was suicide. On reflection the most appropriate terminology to use is to factually and objectively describe what happened, namely that the perpetrator 'killed himself'. So that is the global change I have made throughout. Marlarkey (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)