User:Canoe1967/Gun debates in article space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consider this as an editable essay seeking consensus. It may remain with that label until consensus is reached that it is a viable guideline or even far future policy.


Many of the articles we have contain guns and gun incidents. Although some of the article subjects will influence gun politics and firearms law others will not, and to varying degrees. One extreme is no mention at all even though material has due weight to be included, the other extreme is articles becoming coatracks. This is not the only forum with similar views.

KEEP THIS IN MIND![edit]

When a crime involves named suspects see crime. Persons are presumed innocent and will be treated as such until acquitted or convicted.

When referring to actions of a suspect during a crime:
  • The suspect drove to the store.[1]
  • The suspect was wearing a belt.[2]
When referring to a suspect before the incident or after arrest:
  • Goodguy 1 bought a car on Ebay.[3]
  • Goodguy 2 was given a belt for his birthday.[4]
  • The police took a belt and car from the Goodguys.[5]

Do's[edit]

Include material in a legacy/reactions/aftermath section. If laws were changed to a great extent or the incident were the main cause of a political turmoil some may wish to include it in the lead. This may become a matter of debate until consensus is reached.

  • People closed their curtains and went out less.[6]
  • This incident has led to more debate on gun control and gun laws.[7]
  • Rule 303 was tabled in the Senate.[8]
  • On October 21, 2011, the Commissioner of the RCMP, William J.S. Elliot, announced that the RCMP officers will have a new weapon at their disposition, the C8 Rifle. One of the main conclusions that lead to this result was the fact that the officers who were shot down did not have the appropriate weapon to face someone with a semi-automatic rifle, as stated in the public inquiry.[9]

Don'ts[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sources may claim that the article subject will effect laws but until it does then avoid speculative material such as:

  • These changes will happen very soon.[10]
  • I intend to discuss bylaw 303 with council.[11]

Example articles[edit]

Open for examples and edit to match above if you wish.

Good examples[edit]

  • Mayerthorpe tragedy high impact, only one notable social change so inclusion is low, only minor copy edits recently
  • Columbine High School massacre high impact, older incident, many notable social changes, thus it has a high level of inclusion, semi-protected so confirmed editors may wish to refer regular IPs to this guideline

Bad examples[edit]

Keep list long for others to work on. When done move to good examples.

  • 2012 Aurora shooting- high impact recent event, too early for any large inclusions of notable social changes, heated discussion, consensus in flux, most contentious additions and removals are reverted only once because of valid reasons to revert in edit summaries

Need assessment[edit]

Glossary of extremes[edit]

  • Coatrack Article on mice but full of images of elephants running from mice because some may think they actually fear them. Twelve sections on various elephant rampages and the word mice is only mentioned once. At the start of the first sentence--> Mice scare elephants.
  • Due weight Article on the Renaissance with absolutely no pictures. Commons is full of them that you can look at and this article is about fine art in text, not pictures of it.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Witness Foo 1
  2. ^ Witness Foo 2
  3. ^ Major newspaper with image of reciept
  4. ^ CBS interview with family
  5. ^ TV News conference with law spokesperson
  6. ^ Police chief Foo
  7. ^ Politician Foo
  8. ^ Senator Foo
  9. ^ "Les policiers de la GRC auront des armes de plus haut calibre". La Presse (Gesca). 2011-10-21. Retrieved 2011-10-22. 
  10. ^ Dr. Foo
  11. ^ Mayor Foo