User:Felsic2/Gun use

Firearms achieve general notability in various ways. One of the primary ways is through their use in notable crimes. These uses are often reported in high quality sources, such as newspapers of record and scholarly publications. Even so, all mentions of criminal use of specific guns are routinely deleted from articles about those weapons. At the same time, information of less notability and with lower quality sources is routinely kept. This seems not to be in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies. All notable uses should be included, whether legal or illegal.

However, remember to assume good faith. Other editors may interpret policies differently, while doing their best to improve an article. One may make a case for inclusion, of information about the use, including the criminal use, of specific guns. But one must not violate consensus even while making a case to change it, nor should one ever edit disruptively.

Reasons to include notable crimes on gun articles

 * Gun crimes are reported in high quality sources. WP:V
 * Gun crimes are often the main source of notability for a firearm. WP:LEAD
 * Gun crimes are just as much a part of the story of the firearm as other routine details. WP:COMPREHENSIVE
 * Various core Wikipedia policies require including basic facts about a topic. WP:NPOV
 * Gun articles are skewed when information is censored. WP:NOT
 * Readers expect to see this information in gun articles. WP:ASTONISH
 * In addition to crimes, other uses that appear in reliable sources should be included. WP:POV

How to include
While the criminal and other notable uses of guns are important, the information should be presented in a compact, neutral fashion. Notable uses would be those which involved a notable (blue-linked) victim, perpetrator, or event. Each incident could be summarized in a single sentence, unless there is special significance, such as changed laws, fame, etc, which should be covered briefly. Facts which might be included, if available, include: date, notable linked topics (persons, events, or place), ownership (legal, illegal, borrowed, stolen), casualties, other weapons involved, broader impact, and special connection to topic. To avoid WP:SYNTH, such information should be cited to a secondary source which specifically mentions the type of weapon used. Only notable incidents should be included.

Here are some examples of how notable uses, including crimes, might be mentioned in gun articles:


 * ''John Smith missed three times when he shot at Gnarphian President Richard Roe on December 3, 1978, with a 9mm Jones K7 revolver he had bought from a pawnbroker the day before because he liked its shape.
 * ''The Gnarph Shooting of June 1938, which resulted in three deaths including the shooter, was committed with a K7 (serial #4123586, blued steel) and a knife.
 * ''Ten K7s, some with laser sights, along with other handguns and rifles, were used by the PQR Brigade in a 2008 shootout that left two LEOs and five attackers killed or seriously wounded. During the gunfight the rebels' K7s were more reliable than the Angolan Constabulary's 9mm Roe semi-automatic pistols, which jammed repeatedly. In response, the Gnarphian Parliament passed sweeping laws, including a mandate to confiscate all registered K7s and other revolvers.
 * ''Six-year old John Smith used a K7 he had found in his uncle's house to fatally shoot a young girl in 1968, leading to a lawsuit which bankrupted Jones Arms.
 * ''In 2008, sniper John Smith, a lance corporal in the Imperial Fusiliers, used a modified K7 in Gnarph to make a record-setting kill at 2,900 meters.
 * ''John Smith's 1998 rampage on the El Serena School, Roeville, Gnarph, in which he killed nine children and two teachers, was ended when he was confronted by a janitor carrying a K7.
 * ''Smuggled K7s were among the firearms used by insurgents in the Gnarphian Resistance in the 1940s.
 * ''A fresh shipment of 100 K7s and ample ammunition is credited with allowing Colonel John Smith and the defenders of Fort Serena to hold out for 19 days in 1908.
 * ''General John Smith, an Gnarphian Civil War combatant, was famous for carrying dual K7s with wildebeest horn handles, given him in 1928
 * ''Gnarphian Bureau of Investigation agent John Smith used his backup K7 in 1958 to bring down gang leader Richard Roe after Roe had wrestled away Smith's service weapon during a casino raid.

There are various potential sections which could include this material, such as "History", "Operational history", "Civilian service", "Incidents", "Criminal use", and so on.

Rebuttals to common arguments
Many of the same arguments against including mentions of crimes in gun articles are made over and over. Many are based on arguably faulty interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Some of these debates are repeated across numerous talk pages.

Remember that these arguments are made by other editors in good faith. Nor should one assume that a particular argument is exactly the same as before, or that no valid argument against including mentions of crimes in gun articles can ever be raised. Specific arguments in particular debates should be given specific responses, if one disagrees with the actual argument presented. All responses or rebuttals should be civil and polite and should assume the good faith of all involved editors. If, after reasonable discussion, there is not consensus for including mentions of crimes (or other notable gun use incidents) in a particular article, the consensus should be followed, and an editor should not tendentiously persist in arguing the point once the consensus is clear.

WP:GUN

 * Argument: WikiProject Firearms says that criminal use of guns should not be mentioned except in very limited circumstances.


 * Rebuttal: WikiProject advice pages are not policies or even guidelines. They are essays, just like this is an essay. Project advice pages exist to explain "how the community's policies and guidelines should be applied to their areas of interest and expertise". They do not exist to prohibit certain information from being included in articles.

It's trivia

 * Argument: This is trivial information. WP:TRIVIA says to delete it.


 * Rebuttal: 1) Gun articles are full of information which would seem trivial to the average reader, such as the dimensions or surface coatings available. It is insulting to regard that information as vital while calling use in a notorious murder "trivial". 2) WP:TRIVIA does not say what many people think it says. It's about how to integrate material into an article from sections labeled "trivia". It specifically calls for content to be kept, not deleted.

Lack of effect

 * Argument: The crime in question has not had an effect on the gun itself.


 * Rebuttal: This standard is not used for other content or for other topics. It is not based in policy.

Any gun could have been used

 * Argument: There's nothing special about this gun being used for this crime. The criminal could have used any gun.


 * Rebuttal: In most cases we don't know why a particular gun was used in a crime. Guns are not all alike, and the particular capabilities or characteristics of a gun may have caused the criminal to use one gun over another, or to succeed or fail in their crime. Just because we don't know of a reason doesn't mean that there is no reason. We generally don't know why police departments or military units choose one firearm over another, yet that does not stop us from including those references. If the argument is that all guns are alike then we should delete the majority of gun articles. We don't have articles on every washing machine ever built.

Already covered in article about the crime

 * Argument: Readers interested in a gun's use in a crime can read about it there.


 * Rebuttal: It is standard to cross-reference information in all suitable locations. Readers interested in a gun or in a crime committed with that gun would have no other way of know what other crimes were committed with it unless that info is included in the most logical place - the article about that gun.

Not notable

 * Argument: This criminal use of a gun is not notable. It hasn't been the subject of standalone articles and does not meet WP:Notability. The coverage that does exist is part of a media frenzy that'll pass.


 * Rebuttal: 1) WP:N covers whether an article should exist, not what content should be in the article. WP:WEIGHT is the main policy about content. 2) There's no policy that says only information that's repeated year after year may be included.

Undue weight

 * Argument: Including a mention of a crime in an article about a gun would be undue weight.


 * Rebuttal: The proper weight to give information in an article is determined by its coverage in reliable sources, not by the opinions of WP editors. Crimes are often notable, whether by themselves or because of the involvement of a notable criminal or victim. The use of particular guns in those crimes is often reported, sometimes at length, by reliable sources. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT requires including that information.

Including crimes in gun articles pushes a POV

 * Argument: Editors who want to mention crimes in a gun article are pushing an anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment POV, are reflecting their own biases, and are engaging in propaganda.


 * Rebuttal: 1) Simple, factual, reliably sourced information that's relevant to a topic should be included. Every editor has biases. 2) Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia, and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only applies to one country. 3) It assumes bad faith to accuse editors of inserting propaganda into an article when they are adding uncontested facts.

References to crimes unfairly demonizes guns

 * Argument: It's unfair to the gun to link it to crimes. It is a form of demonization that introduces bias into the article.


 * Rebuttal: Fair treatment of a topic means including all aspects, positive and negative. Including criminal users does not "demonize" a weapon any more than including law enforcement users "sanctifies" it.

Other gun articles don't mention crimes

 * Argument: Don't single out this firearm by mentioning crimes where it was used. That would be unfair to it.


 * Rebuttal: All articles on guns should include information about notable uses. If some guns are used more for crimes than others than that is a fact of life, not a bias of WP editors.

Other weapon articles don't include criminal uses

 * Argument: People are murdered with knives and baseball bats all the time. It'd be crazy to include all stabbings in the Knife article or all the crashes in an airplain article.


 * Rebuttal: 1) There's a difference between articles about generic objects and articles about specific commercial products. 2) Many articles about non-firearm weapons actually do mention notable crimes committed with them, and airplane article routinely list every known crash.

We don't include the car that the criminal used

 * Argument: We don't mention crime in the article about the brand of car which the criminal used.


 * Rebuttal: Most people would recognize the difference between products that are directly related to the commission of a crime and those which are peripheral. Very few sources discuss the use of cars by criminals while very many discuss the use of guns.

Gun articles will be swamped by listings of every crime ever committed with them

 * Argument: There are so many crimes committed with some guns that the articles will be overwhelmed by lists of crimes.


 * Rebuttal: 1) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Lack of room is no excuse for excluding information. 2) Some gun articles have lengthy lists of law enforcement agencies that use them, and no one is complaining about that. 3) While a few guns may be used frequently in crimes, that's no reason to exclude the information. 4) The number of gun models frequently used in crimes is very small compared to the thousands of gun articles. There is no danger of all firearms articles being overwhelmed by lists of gun crimes. 5) If any firearms are used so frequently that listing every notable use would be excessive then that material could be split into a sub-article.

Newspaper reporters often make mistakes about guns

 * Argument: Newspapers and scholarly sources are not reliable sources about guns because they make mistakes identifying guns or using technical terms. Only sources that focus on firearms are reliable sources.


 * Rebuttal: 1) Dismissing sources otherwise considered reliable requires specific proof. While journalists may make errors (or report erroneous information given them by law enforcement sources), reputable sources provide the most accurate available information. 2) Gun-oriented publications do not have a monopoly on this topic. Their accuracy and impartiality is even more questionable. Most omit any mention of controversies concerning guns or their use.

It's only of interest to a few users

 * Argument: Most readers of articles about guns are not interested in what crimes they were used for.


 * Rebuttal: There is no evidence to support this. Articles about guns, especially those used in notable crimes, may be read by readers with a variety of interests. Many gun articles already include information only of interest to a very small audience.

It's a form of coatracking

 * Argument: The article about the gun should be about the gun itself, not about how it is used. See WP:COATRACK. It is outside the scope of the topic.


 * Rebuttal: How a gun is used is part of the story of that gun. We already include wars and conflicts. We include other details of gun usage, including some popular culture appearances, gun collecting information, etc. So long as the mentions of the crime are kept short they do not violate the principles of WP:COATRACK. WP:SCOPE does not exclude mention of closely related topics. For example, notable crimes are often mentioned in articles about the locality where they occurred, even if there's no evidence that the location was specially chosen by the criminal and even if it could have occurred elsewhere.

It's against consensus

 * Argument: A bunch of us have discussed it and we've decided that it doesn't belong in this article.


 * Rebuttal: Local consensus may not override project-wide policies and guidelines. While there are many talk pages in which editors opposed to the inclusion have objected enough to prevent a consensus in favor of inclusion, there do not appear to be significant instances of a consensus forming to agree with the exclusion. Many editors have proposed inclusion, while the opponents seem to be fewer but more insistent.

It glorifies crime and criminals

 * Argument: We shouldn't give so much attention to criminals - it only encourages them.


 * Rebuttal: It isn't Wikipedia's job to censor itself to possibly prevent future crimes or to erase the existence of people or events we don't approve of.

It's political

 * Argument: Gun articles should focus on technical issues and avoid politics.


 * Rebuttal: There's no policy which says that only technical issues should be covered in a category of articles. There is nothing inherently political about crimes using guns, although some crimes are explicitly political and some crimes become political issues. Even so, that's no reason to pretend that guns exist in a political vacuum. Omitting all mention of gun crimes from gun articles to avoid political involvement is a form of censorship that may have a political cause or effect.

We don't know the specific type of gun

 * Argument: We don't whether the crime was committed with a "K7 Mark 3" or a "K7 Mark 4", so we can't say anything.


 * Rebuttal: There are countless facts in Wikipedia where there is a degree of uncertainty, or even conflict. We report the best information we have, and even include mention of the conflict if it is reliably sourced.

Recentism

 * Argument: The notoriety of the firearm's use in the crime may only be a passing news story. We can't predict that it will still be noteworthy in the future. WP:RECENTISM


 * Rebuttal: The RECENTISM essay suggests that articles shouldn't be created or overburdened with recent events. But the only crimes which are notable enough to have articles will have passed the threshold of notability. Short references to notable crimes would not overburden firearms articles. RECENTISM does not say to avoid all mention of recent events. It just says to "be aware of balance and historical perspective." Since notable crimes are among the events which lend lasting historical significance to weapons, they have a place in that balance.

Unencyclopedic

 * Argument: This material does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is unencyclopedic.


 * Rebuttal: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, though focused on poor arguments in deletion discussions, covers this issue:  Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". Unless there is an objective standard that the community can agree upon, this is simply a subjective objection without any foundation. See also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

What about defensive uses

 * Argument: It's UNDUE weight to mention criminal uses but not defensive uses.


 * Rebuttal: Where appropriate, firearms articles include a list of "Users" that is composed of police and military units, or simply lists of countries. Those lists often rely on primary sources, indicating the lack of notability of those uses. Even so, those are on the opposite side of the ledger from criminal uses. For civilian defensive gun use, any gun uses that are notable enough for an article, whether used by a criminal or against a criminal, should be included. That material is part of the historical record of a firearm.

Caution
Firearms and their use is a topic about which many people, including many Wikipedia editors, feel strongly. These views span a wide range, nor are they likely to be the same all over the world. Editors should be careful to remember not to engage in editing with a battleground attitude. Nor should editors attempt to score political or ideological points in editing articles. The primary goal should always be to improve the encyclopedia, whatever one's views on a particular topic.

Attempting to wear down editors with differing views by endlessly raising objections or re-arguing them after consensus has become clear is a form of Disruptive editing and violates policy. It also tends to backfire, and harm one's reputation and make any valid arguments one might raise less likely to be accepted. One should make one's points firmly and as clearly as one can, but also understand when to drop the matter.