Talk:School shooting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the School shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1 |
 | School shooting was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
.svg){kind=small} | The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources. If you see a threat of harm on Wikipedia, please follow these steps. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 6 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harria18. Peer reviewers: Sulema James, Sarahjervis71, Youngdn99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to have survived from this assignment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC).
Terrorism?
This article, as of now, has the Template:Terrorism and is under Category:Terrorism by method, but the text itself does not mention terrorism at all. Not every mass shooting is a terrorist attack. I believe the template and the category should be removed. Mateussf (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think so, too, but there are a couple of school shootings that were terrorist attacks. I think the terrorism sidebar and category puts undue weight on that aspect and can make the reader think that most school shootings count as terrorism. Sjö (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- "school shotting" by difintion is: a case or an event in which a student at an educational institution—an elementary, middle, or high school or a college or university shoots and injures or kills at least one other student or faculty member on the grounds of that institution. Such incidents usually involve multiple deaths. "Rampage school shootings" are a type of school shooting where no single or specific individual is targeted by the shooter.
- "School shotting" as a phenomena is part of "school violence" were kids attack their own teaches and peers. It is not an attack by a stranger for whatwver resons, but for peers at the same age who go to school together.
- This phenomena is related to youth's psychology and to culture of availability of weapons for young people, you can not mix it with terro attacks in schools, which is different category and must be mention seperatly in differnt page. Ain alzaytoon (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"A ban on the ownership of handguns was introduced in the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland) following the Dunblane massacre.[206]"
In the paragraph above this sentence, it makes many notes of the result of US's legal decision to not limit guns, such as the Vice Principal shooting with a firearm and another claim about virginia law school. This doesn't seem impartial, because the sentence above about the UKs political decisions doesn't also get the same discussion of the result of their decision making. It would be suggested to add the sentence "There have been no school shootings since.", in the same paragraph but after the sentence about dunblane. A source can be found here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/survivors-of-britains-last-school-shooting-write-to-parkland-students 2601:547:901:5F60:60D6:2A92:2B0F:116E (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Partly done: Moved the orphaned sentence about the political response to Dunblane up to the massacre's listing in the table, reduced "political impact" section to sub-section since the rest of that deals extensively and exclusively with the impact in the US. Given the lengthy coverage of U.S-centric impacts, the only sentence about U.K. impacts is not warranted for expansion that is already covered in its own article and the remainder should be clearly indicated as part of the United States section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"By the year of 1997 the Zero-Tolerance for any type of weapon was implemented by more than 90 percent of U.S public schools.[207]". Sentence of concern: "A majority of shooting attacks occur in Gun-Free zones, leading many to believe that they do not actually stop any attacks.[208]"
This sentence as it stands is illogical. Gun-Free zones are already said to be 90% of public schools. It stands to reason, that if they are ineffective, then 90% of school shooting attacks occur in Gun-Free zones. But, it stands to reason, that if they extremely effective, then still 60-70% of school shooting attacks occur in Gun-Free zones, that's much better than 90%. Still, a majority. So, the last sentence has no substance to it. Perhaps it means to say "A relative majority of school attacks occur in Gun-Free zones", if that statement is actually true, in-which case it could be said that they are ineffective or even worse (Though it could simply be a negative correlation). Or, "They have the same rate of school attacks", etc, using "rate" instead of absolute amount. As it stands, it's just confusing and illogical for anyone who reads it. I too can say "A majority of shooting attacks occur in states that aren't Wyoming", but it doesn't quite lead me to believe that Wyoming is doing something amazingly right in the world of preventing shootings, other than having a small population. Regardless of the source at [208], it still needs to be logical, there are plenty of false sources. In particular, source [208] seems to make no academic claim of that anyway, other than a comment by Trump, which the specific article [208] itself happens to say "deserves two pinocchios". So, the source for this claim directly rejects that and then discusses why such a claim is hard to discuss when there are only about 30 shootings to even consider, and definitions of "gun-free" are ambiguous. This sentence should be removed on the nature of it itself, and if it were to stand, the citation [208] directly contradicts it anyway; an article actually in support would have to be used instead (Though again, this sentence should just be removed). 2601:547:901:5F60:60D6:2A92:2B0F:116E (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Done The IP user is correct. The objected-to statement failed verification The reference cited actually debunked the statement it was offered to support, and the statement as written was a mis-quoting anyway. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
