Content deleted Content added
Darknipples (talk | contribs) m →Second-guessing academic papers: if at all |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Gun violence in the United States/Archive 3) (bot |
||
| (189 intermediate revisions by 81 users not shown) | |||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|action6link=Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_violence_in_the_United_States |
|action6link=Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_violence_in_the_United_States |
||
|dykentry=...that at nearly seventy percent, the rate of [[homicide]]s in the [[United States]] involving '''[[Gun violence in the United States|gun violence]]''' is significantly higher than that of other [[Developed country|developed countries]]? |
|||
|dykdate=November 12, 2006 |
|dykdate=November 12, 2006 |
||
|currentstatus=DGA |
|currentstatus=DGA |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Firearms |
{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States| |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=high|category=}} |
||
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low|emergency=yes|emergency-imp=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy |
|||
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|||
|class = B <!-- a class specified here overrides the automatic rating based on the numerical scores --> |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low|gun-politics=yes|American=yes |American-importance=}} |
|||
|importance =high<!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings --> |
|||
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low}} |
|||
|comprehensiveness = 9 |
|||
|sourcing = 5 |
|||
|neutrality = 2 |
|||
|readability = 2 |
|||
|formatting = 2 |
|||
|illustrations = 2 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gc|style=long}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=gc|style=long}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 3 |
||
|algo = old(90d) |
|algo = old(90d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Gun violence in the United States/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Gun violence in the United States/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
=Some changes i'm going to make towards Wikipedia pages on mass shootings= |
|||
There's been quite a few articles on some notable mass shootings that are lacking the details to make it complete. I wanted to give you guys the heads up to see if your ok with that. He are the changes. |
|||
I'm going to be adding a picture of the location of the shooting complete with a map of where the shooting took place. I'm going to start with the Stockton Schoolyard shooting, the 101 California street shooting, and the Luby's shooting. |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting |
|||
I'm also going to try and rename some of the articles for the more high profile shootings since right now their pages are oddly named after the perpetrator. |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman |
|||
As for the Stockton Schoolyard shooting and the San Ysidro Mcdonalds massarce, I honestly think that the perpetrators to those event's should have their own article seperate from the shootings since both of those are extremely I profile incidents much like the Virginia Tech Shooting and the Charleston shooting have a lot more notoriety. On the other hand i'm not shure of the details that require the perpetrator to have his own wikipedia page seperate from the shooting article. |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre#Perpetrator |
|||
Any help would be greatly appreciated. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Graylandertagger|Graylandertagger]] ([[User talk:Graylandertagger|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Graylandertagger|contribs]]) 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I'm unclear why this, and the next section, are on this article's talk page - shouldn't they be on the talk page for the article you are planning to make changes on? [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 15:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=Need help changing the Wikipedia article on mass shootings= |
|||
I've been trying to change the frequency section of the Wikipedia article on mass shootings. Right now the article says that the United States has 33 percent of all mass shootings in the world which has been debunked constantly. |
|||
There's a few more things I found on mass shootings that I think might be worth looking at. The first two are articles regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the United States compared to it's population size along with mass shootings from other countries. The United States is one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population of 320 million people which is the main factor that influences all these mass shootings. |
|||
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ |
|||
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/ |
|||
Compared with India which has a population of 1.2 billion I believe that India has more mass shootings because of it's population size, but since India's homicide rate is only 3.5 where the United States is 4.5. |
|||
The Crime Prevention Center is where I discovered the US State Department report on mass killings around the world. I understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to accept sources that side with either side of the debate, but much of the statistics could be used to create a list on the frequency of attacks. Sadly I don't know how to make a group on Wikipedia. |
|||
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ |
|||
While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings. |
|||
Aside from that I also found some articles from politifact on Mass Shooting Tracker that you might be interested in reading. |
|||
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/01/david-cicilline/david-cicilline-mixes-shooting-data-call-stronger-/ |
|||
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/ |
|||
Also take a look here |
|||
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458492474/how-many-mass-shootings-this-year-theres-no-consensus |
|||
== Incorrect math/bad stats, '109 people dying per day from gun violence' == |
|||
Keep in mind, that as far as referencing Shooting Tracker on the Wikipedia page, i'm perfectly fine with that so long as we include the criticism that it's received. As of now the Wikipedia article on Mass Shootings does include the criticisms towards Shooting Tracker. I just want to keep it that way. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Graylandertagger|Graylandertagger]] ([[User talk:Graylandertagger|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Graylandertagger|contribs]]) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
From the first 3 sentences of this wiki topic: |
|||
*** regarding "The United States is one of the most densely populated countries" is not true, per [[List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density]] the USA is #182 of 244, not even in the top 50%.[[User:CuriousMind01|CuriousMind01]] ([[User talk:CuriousMind01|talk]]) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Statistics == |
|||
Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[4] Guns were the leading cause of death for children 19 and younger in 2020.[5] In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available as of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics reports 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide.[6][7] The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day or about 14,542 homicides in total,[8][9][10] being 11.9 per 100,000 in 2018. |
|||
The article quotes statistics from different years, and from different sources, often juxtaposed in the same graf. There needs to be better consistency - particularly in terms of the quality of sources. For example, the CDC, FBI, and the BBC are used as sources for homicide numbers, each using differing years, and differing numbers. Not to even mention that raw numbers are considerably less informative than rates. Some effort needs to go into vetting the accuracy of sources relative to one another. The FBI and US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics are largely the 'go to' sources for data on violent crime; the BBC, while unquestionably a reliable news source, has their numbers wrong on the numbers quoted in the lede (they are listing total homicides, not the fraction committed using a gun). I'm hoping to find some time soon to work on this, but in the meantime it would be good if others began comparing values against sources to determine whether the source is accurate. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=Is Gun violence in the US considered an epidemic?= |
|||
"with 109 people dying per day or about 14,542 homicides in total" |
|||
{{U|Anastrophe}}, with regard to your recent edit to the lead (without consensus) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=732687331], I feel this warrants some actual discussion. Here are some cites I found after only a brief search. Please take some time to look at them. Instead of omitting this context all together, perhaps we can come up with an alternative. |
|||
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/gun-violence-disease-epidemic/422478/] |
|||
*[http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/283424-top-doctors-group-declares-gun-deaths-a-public-health-crisis] |
|||
*[http://www.psr.org/resources/americas-epidemic-gun-violence.html] |
|||
*[http://www.abc2news.com/news/region/baltimore-city/nightline-investigates-the-countrys-gun-violence-epidemic] |
|||
*[http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/24/12026296/public-health-gun-violence-cdc-data-doctors-crisis] |
|||
*[http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-14/ama-calls-gun-violence-a-public-health-crisis] |
|||
[[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 10:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello. Just one quick point for now: Anastrophe's recent edit to the lead was not "without consensus". The phrase that gun violence in the United States "is considered a national epidemic" wasn't there before. It had been added to the lead by an IP editor a few hours before Anastrophe took it back out, in the previous edit in the article history. <font face="cursive">— [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]]<small><sup> ([[User talk:Mudwater|Talk]])</sup></small></font> 10:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah, that would explain why i had trouble finding the context in the cited source material (besides it being quite extensive). [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 11:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
109 x 365 = 39785 |
|||
Gun violence in the United States is ''characterized'' as an epidemic by those who wish to impose more gun control laws. There is no actual epidemiological basis for the characterization. If we want to add a section to the article discussing the misrepresentation of criminological and sociological problems as an epidemiological problem by those intent on promulgating false narratives, I have no problem with working on such a section. Nevertheless, science trumps ideology, rhetoric, and propaganda every time, and Wikipedia has an obligation not to promulgate falsehoods without describing their nature neutrally. Stating that gun violence is "considered" an epidemic is a falsehood - it is *characterized* as such by partisans. There is a meaningful difference. And it absolutely has no place in the lede where it is not discussed in the article. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:That argument seems, oh, what's that fancy word... can't remember. You're assuming that people arrive at the conclusion that gun violence is an epidemic because they are already opponents to wide-spread gun ownership. It makes just as much sense to conclude that they are opposed to widespread gun ownership because they have decided that gun violence is an epidemic. Is there any evidence to prove one version over another? |
|||
:I just came across a book that analyses a huge variety of gun issues from a public health perspective. ''Reducing firearm injury and death: a public health sourcebook on guns''. It is not a political book. It's written by " two experts in public health and injury control,", not gun control activists. They don't use the word "epidemic", so far as Amazon's search tells me.[https://www.amazon.com/Reducing-Firearm-Injury-Death-Sourcebook/dp/0813524210#reader_0813524210] But it's an error to just say that anyone who wants to reduce gun violence does so from a political motive. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Obviously there is some type of nuance to the two stats, but nevertheless, it's over doubly incorrect... |
|||
::I'm sorry, I don't see what that has to do with the characterization we're discussing. You just stated that the source you are reading doesn't use the word epidemic, so what is its relevance to this discussion? [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm addressing your unsourced claim that "Gun violence in the United States is ''characterized'' as an epidemic by those who wish to impose more gun control laws." [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 19:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::How does what you just wrote address that characterization? Your source doesn't even mention the word 'epidemic', by your own statement. |
|||
::::As to whether my "claim" is unsourced, I wasn't aware that we had to source matters that are widely accepted in the scientific community. Policy states that it's unnecessary to cite that the earth is round, for example, if it is mentioned in an article. The use of the word "epidemic" as related to gun violence is a metaphorical use, which is inappropriate to a factual article about the matter. Certainly, we can note that it is ''characterized'' as an epidemic by some subsection of the population, but it is not considered an epidemic at all as a scientific matter. There is no bacterial or viral vector. It is not transmissible via saliva or sexual contact. Furthermore, even if we were to accept that there were a scientific basis to the metaphor, the data clearly shows that gun violence levels in the US are - rather than at epidemic levels - at the lowest levels last seen since the early 1960's. And with no measurable contribution from any gun control implemented as a response to the 'epidemic'. So - I'm willing to work on a section that describes how gun violence is characterized in some quarters as an epidemic, while providing the balancing viewpoint that the metaphor is also rejected by some quarters. This of course not from primary sources but from reliable secondary/tertiary sources. Simple repetition of the term in the popular press only works to show that it is a term of rhetoric, when examples of use of the term in criminological reports and studies are difficult to even find. This article is not here to parrot rhetoric or propaganda - it is to state in clear terms what reliable sources state about gun violence. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 20:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Maybe we shouldn't describe those with opposing political or epidemiological views as spouting "rhetoric or propaganda". |
|||
:::::This sources seems neutral and authoritative: ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=DoUJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA394&dq=%22gun+violence%22+epidemic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUlNXh6MHOAhVhF2MKHdEqBdkQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=%22gun%20violence%22%20epidemic&f=false Gun Violence and Mental Illness]'' edited by Liza H. Gold, M.D. It's published by the APA. Any objection to its use? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 21:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's a good source for a section describing the metaphorical use of the term 'epidemic' to describe gun violence, yes. Please don't mischaracterize my comments. I didn't describe anyone as spouting rhetoric or propaganda. I identified that use of the term is rhetorical, and used as propaganda, which it is, in some quarters. That's patent, since there's no scientific basis for the characterization. There are no opposing epidemiological views - unless we're to characterize epidemiology as being plastic and open to interpretation which it is not - it is a scientific discipline based on empirical facts. Let's stay on point please. Thank you. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 21:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::"the branch of medicine that deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health."[https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=epidemiology&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8] ''And other factors relating to death.'' Don't deaths resulting from firearms come under that definition? It's possible to look at the issue from a scientific discipline, isn't it? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 21:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Certainly. And of course gun violence falls under the rubric of 'other factors relating to death'. That doesn't mean that gun violence *is* an epidemic, which is the matter in contention. Since there is no actual mechanism of contagion, gun violence can only be ''characterized'' in epidemiological terms - you cannot state epidemiologically that gun violence *is* an epidemic. Its use is metaphorical, and some find it useful. But again, we are dealing with a term of rhetoric, not a scientific definition, when used to characterize gun violence. I have no disagreement or argument with the article factually describing that some sources _characterize_ gun violence as an epidemic. Stating the gun violence _is_ an epidemic, or that it is _considered_ an epidemic - without qualification - is inappropriate. |
|||
::::::::Either way however, the claim does not belong in the lede, since the body of the article contains zero discussion of this.[[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Sorry to keep throwing dictionary definitions at you, but according to this one rampant gun violence could qualify: ''affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epidemic] (Other definitions do tend to include "infectious disease"). So it's not totally unreasonable to use "epidemic" in this context. |
|||
:::::::::I agree with you about the lede, at least for now. It's probably best to deal with it in the text first and then circle back to the intro later. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 22:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I think we should use this source - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm |
|||
::::::::::"rampant gun violence". Shall we discourse upon the definition of the term "rampant"? We do not have "rampant" gun violence by even the most generous definition. Please see the lede of the article: "Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms". You are welcome to note in the article that it is characterized as an epidemic; Under no valid definition is it an epidemic. Ultimately, I don't think it merits much more than a sentence or two in the body, noting that some like to characterize it as an epidemic, but that it is not truly same. The number one definition that our dear friend Google presents is "a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time". That is the most commonly understood meaning, and generally WP uses the most common meaning. Our very own Wikipedia article on the term states (while acknowledging that use of WP to define things on WP generally is recursive) "An epidemic (from Greek ἐπί epi "upon or above" and δῆμος demos "people") is the rapid spread of infectious disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time, usually two weeks or less. ". |
|||
Where:- |
|||
::::::::::There is no infectuous disease here. People like to characterize it as an epidemic. It is not, quite simply. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 23:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I don't think it's our job to second-guess experts writing in reliable sources. If we find those, we report what they say. If we find sources who disagree, then we report what they say as well. Let's not make this harder than it has to be. The Gold book looks like a reliable source, and Gold looks like a sufficient expert. {{ping|Darknipples}} may be better than me at writing a summary of what that source says, or you could do it. Is that OK? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
All homicides |
|||
::::::::::::The Gold book is fine for a mention that the infectuous disease model is used by some as a proxy for discussion of the issue. The Gold book does not state that it is an epidemic. Does the fact that it gun violence is described as an epidemic merit inclusion? Sure. A sentence or two perhaps. I do hope that we aren't going to have a section created that quotes the Gold book as some sort of 'evidence' that it is an epidemic, lacking sources that disagree with that viewpoint. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 23:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Number of deaths: 24,576 |
|||
::::::::::::::Considering that it's an entire book devoted to the topic of gun violence, which is the topic of this article, and considering that it apparently falls into the highest category of reliable sources, it'd make sense to use it extensively. I haven't read more than some pages in Google, so I can't be sure of exactly what Gold is saying. I do see where she references another author who says that gun violence has gone past being an epidemic into being an endemic condition.[https://books.google.com/books?id=DoUJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA394&dq=%22gun+violence%22+epidemic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUlNXh6MHOAhVhF2MKHdEqBdkQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=endemic&f=false] While we're on the topic, do you know of any sources that contradict the "epidemiological model" of gun violence, or its characterization as an "epidemic", which we could use for balance? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Deaths per 100,000 population: 7.5 |
|||
:::::::::::::::I'm not sure why you are suggesting that the Gold book should be used 'extensively' - are there shortcomings in the many other sources used in this article? A single source can be useful to mine for meaningful content, but I don't see any compelling reason that it should be used more than any other source. |
|||
:::::::::::::::As to sources that contradict the 'epidemic' characterization, as below - the first source user Darknipples cited, the Atlantic article questioning the usefulness of the ''metaphor'' of an epidemic. It clearly identifies use of the term as a characterization, not an epidemiological reality. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 01:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Here is a cite [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1829336/] that states firearm injuries have gone from epidemic to endemic, as {{U|Felsic2}} mentioned. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 10:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Another cite [http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-Concentration-and-Stability-of-Gun-Violence-in-Boston.pdf] discussing the epidemic of GV in Boston. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 21:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Firearm homicides |
|||
{{U|Anastrophe}}, you keep making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=734489192&oldid=734347972]. Your most recent edit removes context sourced from the cite on page one of the introduction, which says... |
|||
Number of deaths: 19,384 |
|||
*''Like many large cities in the United States, Boston experienced an '''epidemic''' of youth homicide between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Homicide among persons ages 24 and under increased by 230 percent—from 22 victims in 1987 to 73 victims in 1990—and remained high well after the peak of the '''epidemic'''.'' |
|||
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9 |
|||
19,384/365 = 53 |
|||
Also, just a quick reminder [[WP:BRD]] -- [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 20:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Please don't misrepresent my edits. I have not "[kept] making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it". I have made a single edit, to remove a claim that is stated uncritically and as if it were factual. You are welcome to rewrite that section to ''quote'' their claim that it is an epidemic - it is not appropriate to parrot what they say as if it were factual. The discussion you started was based on a further misrepresentation of my original edit, which was removal of an unsourced claim by an IP user, not removal of sourced content that had been reached via consensus. Nowhere in the article was the (fictional) notion that gun violence in the US is an epidemic ever discussed in the body of the article; we don't just leave in place IP editor's opinions in the lede where they aren't even addressed in the article. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I count two edits of yours. Once before I created this TP section (15:49, 2 August 2016) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=732687331], after which (10:36 14 August 2016) I pinged you directly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGun_violence_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=734441289&oldid=729637287], and the second (18:19 14 August 2016) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=734489192&oldid=734347972] just hours after I had already asked you for a discussion on the topic. Furthermore, with regard to your claim, ''"we don't just leave in place IP editor's opinions in the lede where they aren't even addressed in the article"'', your second and most recent edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=734489192&oldid=734347972] removed the exact same type of content/context that was already in the GV article body, and therefore may be considered precedence for some inclusion in the lead. It is not my intention to misrepresent your edits, and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your work here, but perhaps now you understand why the timeline of events is concerning. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 23:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::FTR your initial response was at 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC). The second edit was made (18:19 14 August 2016), or immediately after you had responded. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 23:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Timeline: |
|||
:::I removed unsourced content not found in the body of the article. |
|||
:::You started this section, suggesting that my removal was without consent of other editors (none is required when removing unsourced content, particularly when added by IP editors). |
|||
:::A short time later, I reworded content that uncritically parroted a claim of epidemiological etiology. It's fine if it in the article, so long as it is identified as a characterization, rather than a fact. |
|||
:::After that edit, you wrote "you keep making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it ". That's false. I made a single edit after you began a discussion - the basis for the discussion being questionable to begin with. One edit does not constitute "keep making". |
|||
:::You now claim that I removed content, which is false. Reword is not removing. A single use of a word in an article cannot seriously be characterized as offering "precedence" for inclusion of the same word in the lede - setting aside that "precedence" really doesn't fall under any Wikipedia policy I'm aware of. The article is about gun violence; it's fine if it mentions that some characterize gun violence as an epidemic, but only if it also clearly represents the rejection of the use of that term by others. We could use the very first article you cited as an excellent discourse on the problem with characterizing gun violence using an epidemiological model where there is no viral or bacterial vector. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 23:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Thus, "with 53 people dying per day or about 19,384 homicides in total" |
|||
== 2 sections titled Gun ownership == |
|||
We could merge the two at the top or something, but this seems like an easy fix. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Or perhaps it is better stated as "with ''UP TO'' 109 people dying per day" |
|||
{{done}} [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== firearms and race == |
||
:{{xt|African American populations in the United States disproportionately represent the majority of firearms injury and homicide compared to other [[Race in the united states|racial groupings]].}} |
|||
I think GV makes a lot more sense than The Sandy Hook article, for the term 'Gun Violence Task Force'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_Violence_Task_Force&action=history] [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Would it be less true if the word ''firearms'' were omitted? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Given this is the page Gun Violence in the US, yes. firearms should remain in my opinion. [[User:KarmaKangaroo|KarmaKangaroo]] ([[User talk:KarmaKangaroo|talk]]) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::The terms 'Gun Violence' and 'Gun Violence Task Force' seem unrelated to you? I would ask how a task force developed specifically to deal with GV is ''unrelated''. The original stub was... |
|||
::*''"The Gun Violence Task Force is a task force created by US President Barack Obama to address the causes of gun violence in the United States, formed in the aftermath of the mass murder of 20 children and six faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Vice President Joe Biden will lead the task force."'' |
|||
::It would easily fit into the public policy section, where there's already some content about GV from Obama. Or, perhaps a subsection called 'Executive legislation' could be used to compile similar content. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 01:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Concerns re [[:File:Gun murders in the U.S in 2021 FBI.svg]] == |
|||
:::Since there are no mentions of this task force actually having done anything at all since it was announced nearly four years ago, I think the redirect should simply be removed. It would add absolutely no value to this article, except perhaps as an example of the countless useless initiatives proposed and implemented by the government over the decades.. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 02:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::The NRA(-ILA) may disagree with you [https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140530/chair-of-federal-gun-violence-prevention-task-force-introduces-wide-ranging-gun-control-bill]. I will do some more research and see what comes up. I'll continue to add cites here, so keep your eyes peeled. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Gun murders in the U.S in 2021 FBI.svg|thumb]] |
|||
:::::Wrong organization. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 04:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|NoemiKappa}} |
|||
<br>--Your new graphic seems to have its labels reversed--with the ''total'' number of murders being ''less than'' the number of murders involving firearms. This seems backward. Is this chart copied directly from a source, or did you create it yourself, from the source's data? |
|||
<br>-- Separately, be aware that it's desirable for the text in images be comparable in size to the article's narrative text. This image doesn't comply with this guideline. |
|||
<br>--Please learn to use proper sourcing. Beyond the explanation at [[User talk:NoemiKappa]], there is a proper form for citations; see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Possibly, the situation could be saved if you [[User:NoemiKappa]] would make a '''''horizontal''''' bar chart with larger font size, as some existing graphics in this article have done. Consider presenting only the highest-murder-rate states, as that would mean the individual text entries would be readable. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Homicides Section == |
|||
== Controversies section relevance == |
|||
I am removing context originally cited from a blog post by John Lott in 2013 [http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/two-multiple-victim-public-shootings.html], by what seems like a random IP. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=726442642&oldid=726406729] ''"[[John Lott]] argues, though, that would be mass murderers target [[gun-free zones]]. Lott claims that his research shows that since approximately 1950, all but two public mass shootings in the U.S. have occurred in areas there are bans on carrying guns. Further Lott argues that in Europe, every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone."'' |
|||
Not only is the quality of this source (blog) poor, this claim by Lott has often been refuted. |
|||
*[http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/jan/13/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-two-mass-shootings-1950-occurred-/] |
|||
*[http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/right-carry-laws-revisiting-link-between-guns-crime] |
|||
*[http://www.newsweek.com/mike-huckabee-mass-shooters-gun-free-zones-416016] |
|||
[[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 08:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
What relevance does the content in the Controversies section have in the article? It does not seem clear why it is included |
|||
== Offenders Section & subsection Vectors == |
|||
[[User:Olgaman|Olgaman]] ([[User talk:Olgaman|talk]]) 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Conflicting info in intro == |
|||
Not really sure what is going on, or what the point of these sections is. Please share your thoughts as to how they can be improved. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 11:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
This paragraph in the intro |
|||
== Discussion of differences in data between FBI and CDC == |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
The article vacillates throughout in dependence upon FBI or CDC data regarding firearm homicides. CDC numbers are generally higher than FBI numbers. It wouldn't be appropriate to choose one data source or the other for this article, however, I think a brief discussion - early on in the article - would be appropriate to explain these differences. I found an excellent article by the DOJ Bureau of Justice statistics that explains these differences. I may make a go at summarizing this and adding it to the article. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Firearms are overwhelmingly used in more defensive scenarios (self-defense and home protection) than offensive scenarios in the United States.[14][15] In 2021, The National Firearms Survey, currently the nation's largest and most comprehensive study into American firearm ownership, found that privately-owned firearms are used in roughly 1.7 million defensive usage cases (self-defense from an attacker/attackers inside and outside the home) per year across the nation, compared to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (C.D.C.) report of 20,958 homicides in that same year.[16][17][18] |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
conflicts with the rest of the article. The text in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Defensive_Gun_Violence has text that disproves it. |
|||
== Second-guessing academic papers == |
|||
The sources for the information in the intro paragraph seems to be in favor of guns and might not be entirely independent. |
|||
An edit that seemed well-sourced was reverted, with the summary "The results of these studies are based on an interval far too long ago to have current validity. The most recent data presented is 19 years old. No current relevance for the correlations."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&diff=736615315&oldid=736614063] I'm not sure I understand why we'd substiture our own judgment for that of the authors and editors of the studies. If the only issue is that the studies are old, we can add the dates. For example, "Studies published in 2002 and 2007 found that..." This article should include history and trends, etc., not just the up-to-the minute info like a medical article. Are there newer studies which contradict these? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 19:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:At what point do old studies lose relevance? The edit stated the conclusions as if the were factual data, rather than correlations. If someone dredged us a study in some way related to gun violence from the 1910's, would that be relevant to today? The editor who posted the old study has found a newer study, but it suffers a similar problem: the results are characterized as absolute, rather than how the study itself characterizes it - as associations and correlations. This needs to be fixed.[[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::So, lets add the necessary dates and context instead of removing seemingly relevant content from what appears to be reliable sources, shall we? Or, we could request an RFC or take it to RSN. Simply excluding or removing content based solely on personal opinion, ''instead of just "fixing it" (as you yourself suggested)'', is not what policy and guidelines (such as [[WP:MOS]]) suggest. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're a bit behind the curve. I already fixed it. It's not a matter of opinion; mischaracterizing a source is a violation of policy. It no longer mischaracterizes the source.[[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::There's no need for personal attacks here, Anastrophe. Please see [[WP:PA]]. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 16:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I beg your pardon? What personal attack? You commented on a matter that was already resolved, thus, you were 'behind the curve'. You also claimed that I was "simply excluding or removing content based solely on personal opinion" which is false, and if we're going to walk on eggshells, could similarly be characterized as a personal attack. I think walking on eggshells is counterproductive. Please retract your claim that I engaged in personal attacks. There was none, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::To quote WP:PA ''"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."'' Calling me "behind the curve" was disparaging, unnecessary and unproductive. My comment was on your removal of content because it is "too old" and had nothing to do with you "personally". As you originally stated... |
|||
:::::*''"The results of these studies are based on an interval far too long ago to have current validity. The most recent data presented is 19 years old. No current relevance for the correlations. ([[WP:TW|T...)"'' |
|||
::::::.... I think it's best if we move on to discussing the article. If you wish to discuss this incident further, we should move it to our personal talk pages, however, I'm willing to let it go since you've already apologized. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 17:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Fair enough. I never knew that 'behind the curve' is a disparagement - I'm behind the curve routinely. Oh well. |
|||
:::::::As far as removing very old studies, there is the question of weight, verifiability (all of the cites in the original were behind a paywall), sourcing (all three relied - if I recall correctly - on the same author's studies), and relevance within the context of what we know now (the 1980's were one of the most criminally violent intervals in US history - the correlations found for that interval are not directly relevant to today, where we have the lowest violent crime levels in the last 60 years. We *do* have to use some reasonable judgement in whether to include results of studies that rely on very old data - and of course there was the gross mischaracterization of the results of those studies, which was the most glaring problem of all.[[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sounds so much like''' [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] being easily offended and using it as a means to manipulate the argument. A regular distraction trick often employed by LB. [[Special:Contributions/68.170.118.12|68.170.118.12]] ([[User talk:68.170.118.12|talk]]) 04:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:* {{U|Neotarf}} or {{U|68.170.118.12|68.170.118.12}} - I have addressed this accusation before, and will continue to do so by taking this to the editors talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A68.170.118.12&type=revision&diff=737650791&oldid=646554360]. This is not the place (article TP) to have these kinds of discussions (if at all), as they should be relegated to editor talk pages. [[User:Darknipples|Darknipples]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 06:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:FlamingDrake|FlamingDrake]] ([[User talk:FlamingDrake|talk]]) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Considering that the first illustration for the article is an 1901 assassiantion, I think it's reasonable to say that gun violence throughout US history is within the article's scope. If necessary, it could be divided into eras, or a "history and trends" section could be created. However if there are newer studies which cover the same periods and issues as older studies, then probably the newer sourcees should be given priority. I assume, for example, that a 2001 study on Prohibition-era gun violence would be better than one from the 1950s. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:33, 4 April 2024
 | Gun violence in the United States was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Incorrect math/bad stats, '109 people dying per day from gun violence'[edit]
From the first 3 sentences of this wiki topic:
Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[4] Guns were the leading cause of death for children 19 and younger in 2020.[5] In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available as of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics reports 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide.[6][7] The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day or about 14,542 homicides in total,[8][9][10] being 11.9 per 100,000 in 2018.
"with 109 people dying per day or about 14,542 homicides in total"
109 x 365 = 39785
Obviously there is some type of nuance to the two stats, but nevertheless, it's over doubly incorrect...
I think we should use this source - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Where:-
All homicides Number of deaths: 24,576 Deaths per 100,000 population: 7.5
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 19,384
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9
19,384/365 = 53
Thus, "with 53 people dying per day or about 19,384 homicides in total"
Or perhaps it is better stated as "with UP TO 109 people dying per day"
firearms and race[edit]
- African American populations in the United States disproportionately represent the majority of firearms injury and homicide compared to other racial groupings.
Would it be less true if the word firearms were omitted? —Tamfang (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Given this is the page Gun Violence in the US, yes. firearms should remain in my opinion. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Concerns re File:Gun murders in the U.S in 2021 FBI.svg[edit]
@NoemiKappa:
--Your new graphic seems to have its labels reversed--with the total number of murders being less than the number of murders involving firearms. This seems backward. Is this chart copied directly from a source, or did you create it yourself, from the source's data?
-- Separately, be aware that it's desirable for the text in images be comparable in size to the article's narrative text. This image doesn't comply with this guideline.
--Please learn to use proper sourcing. Beyond the explanation at User talk:NoemiKappa, there is a proper form for citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources —RCraig09 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Possibly, the situation could be saved if you User:NoemiKappa would make a horizontal bar chart with larger font size, as some existing graphics in this article have done. Consider presenting only the highest-murder-rate states, as that would mean the individual text entries would be readable. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Controversies section relevance[edit]
What relevance does the content in the Controversies section have in the article? It does not seem clear why it is included Olgaman (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Conflicting info in intro[edit]
This paragraph in the intro
Firearms are overwhelmingly used in more defensive scenarios (self-defense and home protection) than offensive scenarios in the United States.[14][15] In 2021, The National Firearms Survey, currently the nation's largest and most comprehensive study into American firearm ownership, found that privately-owned firearms are used in roughly 1.7 million defensive usage cases (self-defense from an attacker/attackers inside and outside the home) per year across the nation, compared to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (C.D.C.) report of 20,958 homicides in that same year.[16][17][18]
conflicts with the rest of the article. The text in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Defensive_Gun_Violence has text that disproves it.
The sources for the information in the intro paragraph seems to be in favor of guns and might not be entirely independent.
FlamingDrake (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)