Talk:Mass shootings in the United States

Low Quality Sources
There is obviously strong bias on this subject. However, edits should not be reverted under the guise of citing "low quality sources." If a party feels that the quality of a source is not up to par, it merits a discussion on the talk page. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to November 3 as this new editor has been making dramatic changes to the article removing respected sources and replacing them mostly by one controversial source (Gary Kleck) whose stats vastly disagree with most respected sources. Possibly, the source could be included as a counterpoint. But, they most certainly should not be stated as verifiable data in Wikivoice. Onus is on you to justify this massive change. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Massive changes have not been made. Gary Kleck was not cited. The controversial John Lott was cited which I since reverted. Grant Duwe was cited in the published book The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings, from one of the world's leading publishers: Wiley. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You think changing High-capacity magazines were used in 50% to 0.33% is not major -- as one example. And yes, it is Gary Kleck that you cited and the Washington Post that you removed. Your massive changes to this article have been challenged. I strongly suggest you revert your last revert as per WP:BRD. I realize that you are a new editor, But. this article is under discretionary sanctions and must be treated accordingly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Edits that cited Gary Kleck have been removed. Edits that listed Grant Duwe have been reinstated. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to gain consensus for these several changes which appear to have a major impact on the article "rhetoric" (current consensus). Sources used by WP follow WP:RS. If you have a problem with WaPo as a source, you can argue this at WP:RSN. You will lose. WP policies and guidelines may appear arcane and complex. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia -- not a forum. Takes some time to get used to. But, such policies are required in such a massive effort.
 * I now see that you have reapplied edits without consensus. I again strongly suggest that you self-revert as you have no consensus for these edits. Consensus WP:CON is a major part of this project. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

While consensus is encouraged, it is not necessary. I made bold edits that moved the discussion towards a neutral point of view. If you disagree, that's fine, revert it back. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is necessary and your posts move this towards your POV, not neutral POV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In reading through this it would seem that the new sources are simply a different perspective on the topic. I don't think they should replace the old sources but it would be reasonable to say that many of the statistics depend on how the information is parsed. I think adding vs replacing makes sense here. I will note that I haven't verified the claims in the sources, I'm only looking at the edits. Springee (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added cites include papers written by Grant Duwe. Our article on him includes 16 cites. 12 of the 16 are to papers written by Grant Duwe. Obviously improper. 3 of the 4 cites that are not to his own papers are dead links. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are these white papers or reviewed? Springee (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like four links were added to an essay in the book The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think w we should discuss your sources before adding them. It may be good content but let's discuss it here first. Springee (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is fair. What aspects would you like to discuss? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need to establish of these are good academic sources. Springee (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the sources, but what needs to be done to establish that Wiley and Duwe are good academic sources? Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please help me understand the relevancy of another Wikipedia article to this one. Genuine question, no ill intentions. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking for sources about the author of the essay you cited multiple times. The WP article is about this person. The article will likely be deleted as it is a WP:stub and its sources are the person himself added by an IP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thank you. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * We generally are expected to abide by the manual of style, and to avoid writing from personal perspectives on tragic circumstances. As opposed to the magazine change, which involved a factual misstatement, we are not required to prefer the style of the source over the house style.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "factual misstatement?" Genuine question. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Further reading on the link you provided brought me to this one. See this RfC. It appears that the choice of "commit suicide" or "due by suicide" is up the editor. Please advise if that is no longer the case. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You changed the type of magazine to something that did not agree with the specific statement by the source. As for the RfC and the MoS, as I say, it's not compulsory to use one or the other. However, it appears that by changing existing text and per your comments above, you are trying to impress your own point of view on the text.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Source stated "high capacity magazine," which is a bias term. Just trying to make it neutral.

It's a leap in logic to say we have to follow source when it says, "high capacity magazine" but not when it says, "committed suicide."

Anyways, due the apparent lack of interest in making this article neutral, I will focus my efforts elsewhere. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Part of mass shootings in the United States" question
Hello For anyone willing to provide input, there's an RFC tangentially related to this page here, and any input would be greatly appreciated. 1984 New York City Subway shooting is currently listed in two mass-shooting categories, and its template reads that it's "Part of mass shootings in the United States" (this page). The question is: "Should this article, concerning firearm-related violence with multiple persons injured, be included in mass-shooting categories, even though no sources directly refer to it as a 'mass shooting'?" The key debate concerns whether "mass shooting" is a special term that requires labelling by a reliable source. Thanks in advance!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Contributing Factors lacking
there is no mention to the explicit link between mental illness and shooting. our societal shortcomings also lead people to that, and the media's treatment of shootings. all well documented 68.206.97.197 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The "Perpetrator suicidality" section heavily covers mental illness and the "Sociocultural factors and perpetrator life histories" section covers socio- factors and media treatment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

lede does not reflect body
As the lede reads today, it does not reflect the body. The lede mainly recounts the different rates and frequencies by different observers of differing time periods, which confuses the reader. It even contains data not present in the body! Given the July 26, 2023 publication in JAMA (Characterization of Mass Shootings by State, 2014-2022) I will add these most recent findings and copy edit lede. I will remove a sentence that does not even belong there "The Federal Bureau of Investigation designated 61 events as active shooter incidents in 2021." Wuerzele (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research
— Assignment last updated by Stevenmadden7 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Table caption to exclude perpetrator(s)
I could not ping the editor because of the IP address. There is a revision proposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States&diff=1182863594&oldid=1182794237 to add "(excluding perp.)" at the table capture; however, the cell value already have mentions about the perpetrators; maybe we will not enlarge the caption to make it multiline, but will add a small footnote that otherwise explicitly indicated, the amount of death does not include perpetrator(s)? The header is now ugly after the accepted change. See an example of such a table with footnotes at the table (below the table) at Intersex. Would you mind I will arrange the same way? --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)