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.

Article milestones Date Process Result November 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 1, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept June 25, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept April 6, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 12, 2006. Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Law Enforcement B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Firearms B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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? Anastrophe (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 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%.CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gun violence in the US considered an epidemic?

Anastrophe, with regard to your recent edit to the lead (without consensus) [1], 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.

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Darknipples (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would explain why i had trouble finding the context in the cited source material (besides it being quite extensive). Darknipples (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.[8] But it's an error to just say that anyone who wants to reduce gun violence does so from a political motive. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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? Anastrophe (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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." Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we shouldn't describe those with opposing political or epidemiological views as spouting "rhetoric or propaganda".

This sources seems neutral and authoritative: Gun Violence and Mental Illness edited by Liza H. Gold, M.D. It's published by the APA. Any objection to its use? Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the branch of medicine that deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health."[9] 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? Felsic2 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anastrophe (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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[10] (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. Felsic2 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"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. ".

There is no infectuous disease here. People like to characterize it as an epidemic. It is not, quite simply. Anastrophe (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. @Darknipples: may be better than me at writing a summary of what that source says, or you could do it. Is that OK? Felsic2 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.[11] 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? Felsic2 (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a cite [12] that states firearm injuries have gone from epidemic to endemic, as Felsic2 mentioned. Darknipples (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another cite [13] discussing the epidemic of GV in Boston. Darknipples (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe, you keep making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it [14]. Your most recent edit removes context sourced from the cite on page one of the introduction, which says...

• 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.

Also, just a quick reminder WP:BRD -- Darknipples (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I count two edits of yours. Once before I created this TP section (15:49, 2 August 2016‎) [15], after which (10:36 14 August 2016‎) I pinged you directly [16], and the second (18:19 14 August 2016) [17] 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 [18] 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. Darknipples (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Darknipples (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge the two at the top or something, but this seems like an easy fix. Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Darknipples (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think GV makes a lot more sense than The Sandy Hook article, for the term 'Gun Violence Task Force'. [19] Darknipples (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that relate to this article? Anastrophe (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Darknipples (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.. Anastrophe (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NRA(-ILA) may disagree with you [20]. I will do some more research and see what comes up. I'll continue to add cites here, so keep your eyes peeled. Darknipples (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong organization. Anastrophe (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing context originally cited from a blog post by John Lott in 2013 [21], by what seems like a random IP.

• [22] "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.

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

Darknipples (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Darknipples (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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."[26] 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? Felsic2 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anastrophe (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Darknipples (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anastrophe (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for personal attacks here, Anastrophe. Please see WP:PA. Darknipples (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]