Jump to content

Talk:Arming teachers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Who else besides the United States?

[edit]

Can anyone find sources describing teachers in countries other than the United States who carry guns into classrooms? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have sections dedicated to different states. Reading this article i'm still clueless where teachers are allowed to carry firearms and where they are not.--Trade (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image needed

[edit]
elementary school teacher and student

It would be ideal to find something like pic shown, but either with a gun or permission from the photo subjects to photoshop a gun into the picture. I think an image would explain this article best. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think photoshopping images (even with permission from the subjects) is appropriate for an encyclopedia. And the same goes for the adulterated ad currently in the article, which I will remove Izzy Borden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But how about this one - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barnes_M4OL_10a.GunRightsAdvocates.MFOL.WDC.24March2018_(27161857558).jpg Izzy Borden (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one that includes a debunked statement as fact? See here and here. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm t particularly attached to this image, but it is at least one that illustrates the position of those in favor of arming teachers. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The slogan in that image is oxymoronic: If a mass shooting occurred, then the zone was not gun-free. BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
teacher protects their students with gun in classroom
teacher protects their students with gun in classroom

Created by Bluerasberry (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Sammi Brie: I can resolve the warning banners but I cannot cool the talk page. Under what circumstances is a lively talk page a barrier to DYK? Bluerasberry (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another drive-by comment: although the article itself looks neutrally written, I wonder about the hook. The wording "a proposal to stop stop school shootings" is written in a way that suggests that there is reason to believe that arming teachers would stop school shootings. However, the article contains no evidence to support this suggestion. The caption for the image ("teacher protects") is also quite non-neutral; one could easily read the same image as "teacher threatens students with gun", reflecting more accurately the actual incidents described in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "globalize" problem template is removed - special:diff/1092348842/1093279561 Bluerasberry (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THIS NOM REQUIRES ADMIN COMMENT A single remaining cite-needed has been addressed. Both hooks are sufficiently cited. There appears to be mo remaining issues in terms of DYK, as the article is long enough, new enough (when posted) well cited and the nom has completed the QPQ. The image has been dropped and is no longer a topic for discussion here. However, there are arbcom posts on the talk page and it is not clear what this means in practice. The issue was raised above as D6, but that's not quite the same thing. This issue was not resolved as far as I can see. @Sammi Brie:, I believe the ball is in your court. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I have added an expand lead template to the top of the lead, for reasons discussed at WT:DYK, so this will not be ready to go until that's resolved. I'd also caution that we pick the hook text carefully, per David Eppstein, to avoid giving the impression that this is a proven method of reducing shootings.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is still need of a review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orange neutrality tag is still on this article, though it has been more than 30 days since the talk page was last edited. No substantive content changes have occurred since a few days later. The page otherwise seems to be close to ready, though I would suggest to Bluerasberry to reword some of the public debate section to use fewer phrases from The Conservation's article [1].
  • ALT2 checks out.
  • ALT3 is possibly useful, though I wonder if that's a germane fact. (Side note: removed hyphen from "African Americans" in ALT3 per MOS:HYPHEN.)
  • ALT4 is not backed by a specific source to mention the non-implementation of the law.
  • I would like other editors, including but not limited to @Theleekycauldron, Amakuru, and David Eppstein, to appraise the page's neutrality in its current state. If it can be agreed that the tag is no longer necessary and the wording issue is resolved, I think ALT2 can be approved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it even possible for this topic to be written in a way that will gain consensus from all sides that it is neutrally written? On the talk page we have apparently serious proposals that what the article needs is to think of the poor mass murderers and write it more from their point of view. Surely someone who takes that position will not be satisfied with a version that takes the point of view of the 95% of the teachers in the survey. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the neutrality question is going to remain this intractable, then perhaps this page is not suitable for exposure on the Main Page. We've spent nearly two months debating the topic, and while the article has definitely improved, it's probably time to end this nomination. It's something of a shame that the one missing link is so large, though given the "hotness" of the topic, it's not too surprising. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to closing I started the article and nominated the DYK but I have no capacity to engage further. I agree with David Eppstein - there may not be a form of this page which can avoid people raising neutrality concerns. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I readded the picture. If this is getting closed without passing anyway then it can close with the illustration I originally used for the article and this nomination. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gun violence research

[edit]

The claim that there are restrictions on gun violence research in the US is FALSE - there are restrictions on using Federal funds for gun control ADVOCACY - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment, but not on research, as that link makes clear ("Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research"). That is a side issue though, since such restrictions , whether or not they exist, are not relevant to the issue of arming teachers. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant as it means little or no actual research has been conducted into the topic of arming schoolteachers. That is literally why it's included in the "background", as it gives context for the overall issue to the reader. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find a source that says that for it to be relevant. Your opinion is not enough. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.. it's in the source you keep deleting. Or maybe you were too busy pushing a POV to bother to look at the fact that it was well sourced? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that source say, exactly? Since it is from 2005, more than decade before congress clarified the Dickey amendment, I doubt it is relevant. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now read the source. Putting aside that it is a "letter", not published academic research, it says not one word about teachers. Did you read it before posting your comment above, whcih falsely claims it is "well supported" by that source? Izzy Borden (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really quite alarming that you removed, then revert warred to keep removed, something you just admitted to not even reading. And even after claiming to have read it, you're still attempting to discredit it for the most bizarre reasons: Putting aside that it is a "letter", not published academic research – yes, it's a PUBLISHED letter by individuals within the University of Pennsylvania Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology in The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal, which began publishing in 1840), and it includes NINE references to support the assertions made and the data in the attached table; it says not one word about teachers – and...? The point is, instead of looking at other causes/prevention, we're jumping to people trying to arm teachers. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that letter say about arming teachers, the subject of this article? Be specific. I am not interested in what YOU think the point is, I am interested in what the source says about the subject for this article. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says there's been no research into firearms deaths (while contrasting that with the number of grants for research on other ailments). I'm confused why you need me to tell you that when you just said you read it... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are confused, it may help to read WP:SYNTH. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you should read that, then re-read what you removed which contained no WP:SYNTH:

In the United States there are legal limitations on the use of federal funds for public health research relating to guns.[1] Researchers who wish to apply for federal funding for gun research have cited this restriction as a barrier to conducting the usual research and a cause for a claimed scarcity of gun research.[1]

Perhaps if you can't understand something you shouldn't be acting upon it in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The removed line was trying to say there are limitations on federal funds for research when the cited article only said the CDC couldn't do research on things that were meant to effect gun laws. It then said that the NIH was the alternative option and that they had, while a limited amount, done research before. Find something more recent and mentions a more broad restriction, I doubt the CDC can research fuel alternatives either. I don't know their scope but gun control really doesn't seem their focus. The fact the Center for Disease Control isn't funding research for gun control laws isn't really worth a mention, imo. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this journal article: Teachers in Arms? A Special Section of AJPH. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find - I'll add some material based on this. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Branas, C C (1 June 2005). "Getting past the "f" word in federally funded public health research". Injury Prevention. 11 (3): 191–191. doi:10.1136/ip.2005.008474.

Comments requested - image of teacher with gun in classroom

[edit]
Teacher protects students with a handgun

Comments requested on this picture for illustrating this article!

I started this article then created this image with a friend. I like this image because...

  1. It clearly communicates the subject of this article
  2. For this politically charged topic, this is a neutral image that I do not believe many people would say is for or against any side of the debate
  3. A drawing is superior to a photograph, because a photo would invite undue real world attention to any person or school depicted
  4. Articles should have images when possible, and no one has yet proposed a better alternative
  5. Picture is cool - high resolution and very wiki for digital combining public domain images.

Thoughts from others? Bluerasberry (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is a neutral image (the teacher is brandishing the weapon, seemingly pointlessly. Proponents of arming teacher would not support something like that - the gun is supposed to be used only in case of attack). Izzy Borden (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the ideal image anywhere on the Internet, or otherwise describe it? Bluerasberry (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is 'ideal', but something like this might work - https://epe.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/78032be/2147483647/strip/true/crop/741x503+37+0/resize/840x570!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fepe-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F43%2F30%2Fcb25b4d64b97948051cffb58e53a%2Fschool-shooting-arming-teachers-social.jpg. Maybe get an editor in such a school district to snap a photo of a similar sign. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Can you say why? Bluerasberry (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're implying that the picture originally was created to show a teacher protecting kids in a classroom, which, no it wasn't. You can't just pull images like that particularly with rather contentious statements --Masem (t) 00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative option suggested by Curbon7.
Thoughts? A thoroughly ridiculous 'illustration', for multiple reasons. The teacher is clearly not protecting anyone from anything, except possibly the end of an entirely imagined 1950s. Poe's law being what it is, I'll not even attempt to figure out if this is satire or not, but it doesn't belong in the article. Or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Reddit could probably make good use of it for a meme though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image suggestion is crap, to put it mildly. You can't fabricate your own image and then use it in a highly-charged topic area like this. Hell, the entire concept of the article itself is basically a WP:POVFORK, and I am considering nominating it for deletion. Zaathras (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above that the shop is both too uncanny (though it is a very good shop) and generally inappropriate for use. However, I found the following image on Flickr of a teacher with a gun in Yekaterinburg in Russia ([2]). Gets the point across and seems like a solid option imo. Curbon7 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image is described as "A teacher standing over a rifle in the emergency training room of a school in Yekaterinburg, Russia". Is there any evidence that said 'emergency training' is anything to do with training teachers to protect pupils in classrooms? Schools tend to get used for all sorts of external purposes outside of class hours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what 'point' is the photo supposed to be getting across? That teachers need to be trained to field-strip assault rifles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it shows a teacher handling a gun; the image doesn't necessarily need to be the teacher actively using it. I don't have a mule in this fight, I'm just suggesting a potential alternative considering the original proposition ain't going anywhere. Curbon7 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the only source we have is Flickr, we can't even say that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Curbon7 (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr isn't a reliable source for statements about what a photo shows. We have absolutely no context, so can't say it 'shows a teacher handling a gun'. Not that the Flickr page claims even that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr works like how we approach other social media. If we can verify the account behind the posting, then we can assume the information is validated. EG I know the US Army posts to Flickr under a confirmed account, so if they say a picture is a XYZ-500 Tank, we shouldn't question that. But this specific picture lacks that validation of user account, so it is absolutely right to question it. --Masem (t) 05:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it shows a teacher handling a gun. To be said to be "handling" something, a thing usually needs to be in one's, um, hands. That image does not show that. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can use NBC videos in articles. Copyright and all that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some BBC and PBS images as well, again, all copyrighted. The images don't show anything specific to armed teachers versus any other tactical firearms training. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A more realistic picture: "...of the 30 cases in which a teacher discharged a firearm between 1980 and 2012, almost 97 percent were intentional shootings; just over 74 percent of the victims in these shootings suffered fatal injuries; in 70 percent of the cases at least 1 other person was shot, while in 50 percent of the cases only 1 other person was shot; just over 63 percent of the teachers used the firearm to commit suicide, while 70 percent used the firearm to shoot at least 1 other person; and none of the cases involved victims that were students or parents of students." [3] Levivich 04:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this article needs an image at all. Might just be one of those cases referred to in MOS:IMAGES: not every article needs images. But in any case, I agree that the children's book style image is not neutral –– nor is it encyclopedic. Generalrelative (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something like an infographic might make a better illustration. Levivich 05:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Educators Workshop

I just found and uploaded the public domain image at the right. It's an "Educators Workshop" with teachers from New England. Obviously it doesn't show a teacher in a classroom, but it's directly relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the image source: The workshop brings together teachers, administrators and other education professionals aboard the depot and gives them the opportunity to experience what recruit training is like in the [Marine] Corps. So once again nothing to do with arming teachers for the classroom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Surely not a lead photo, but if we need an illustration of teachers learning about guns that isn't a cartoon... Not ideal, granted. I wonder if there's a source mentioning these workshops in connection to arming teachers for background (e.g. "teachers have been invited to educators workshops where they learn how to use firearms while taking basic new recruit training"). We'll see. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very relevant training picture, good one. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is utterly irrelevant to an article on arming teachers, since there is no evidence that the teachers are being trained for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do reliable sources illustrate this topic?

[edit]

How do reliable sources illustrate this topic? The links here are articles about arming teachers. Which ones do you think are appropriate for illustrating this article? Choose your favorites, link to others, or describe ideas for illustrations which do not exist. If all illustrations are inappropriate then say so. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPR article

[edit]

NPR is a reliable source, but the article cited does not mention arming teachers. using it here is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Doubly so when the same edit also removed what is clearly stated in the article - that the 2018 "spending bill made it clear that the CDC was allowed to conduct research on the causes of gun violence" Izzy Borden (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not applicable here. There is an obvious synthetic claim being made - that the CDC did not research arming teachers because of the Dickey Amendment (in the article - "the CDC and NIH, have conducted very little research into the effects of arming teachers, in part due to the Dickey Amendment"). Not only is this a novel argument not made by any single source, it is directly contradicted by the sources being combined, all of which clearly say that 'the CDC was allowed to conduct research'. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting the dates. Levivich 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which source makes the claim that "the CDC and NIH, have conducted very little research into the effects of arming teachers, in part due to the Dickey Amendment"? Izzy Borden (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is supported by those and many, many other sources. They're not claiming the literal text of the Dickey Amendment absolutely prohibited it, but it was "due to the Dickey Amendment". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do not. The NPR article only says this "The CDC has shied away from gun violence research since 1996, when legislation known as the Dickey Amendment first prohibited the agency from using federal funds to advocate or promote gun control." That is a temporal sequencing of events, without an explicit attribution of causation nor even related to pure research (vs. advocacy), and more importantly, one which does not mention arming teachers, at all. The sentence "the CDC and NIH, have conducted very little research into the effects of arming teachers, in part due to the Dickey Amendment"" is not supported by the NPR article, and your using it this way is a very clear violation of WP:SYNTH. I had used a much better source (an academic medical journal), directly on the subject of research into arming teachers and its relationship with the Dickey Amendment, which provided a more accurate description of the situation. For some reason, you decided to replace that with a non-expert source, synthesize an argument it did not make, and remove the nuances that the xpert source did make. Does not look good. Izzy Borden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

After reading through this article, I could not help but notice both the lack of adherence to NPOV and how it is a POVFORK that borders on being a COATRACK. The whole article need a rewrite from the ground up and probably is better suited as a paragraph or two in Gun violence in the United States or School shooting. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good essay, you gotta give it that. Maybe deserves a short excursion to AfD based on WP:NOTESSAY alone, since it's just a compilation of policy arguments. - hako9 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Definitely needs a ton of work, but also just saying "it's POV" without any elaboration doesn't give anyone anything to go by if they were to undertake a rewrite. Could always propose a merge/AfD it, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs a rewrite, but search Google Scholar for "arming teachers in classrooms" and you'll see there is plenty of material to write an article from. Maybe draftify it until it's rewritten, or maybe just leave it live (maybe tag it). Levivich 03:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what the Point of view issue is. Could you clarify? Izzy Borden (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not saying there aren't any, but Template:POV isn't a drive-by template, but one that's supposed to accompany a talk page section pointing out specific issues. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From #Comments requested - image of teacher with gun in classroom to the US-centric focus, this article reads more like an op-ed against arming teachers in the US than a neutral encyclopedia article on a global topic. I tagged per Levivich's comment above. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Describing it as a 'global topic' seems a bit of a stretch, given the complete lack of evidence that the suggestion is taken even remotely seriously almost anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complete lack of evidence? I've just started looking, but it's been proposed in Zaire [4], Kenya [5], and South Africa [6].
Other sort of factual issues with this article, since some have asked:
  • In the US, the practice of teachers carrying guns is allowed in at least ~19 states
  • It goes back to at least 1980 but maybe earlier (the study I quoted goes back to 1980); it was already happening by Columbine in 1999; Sandy Hook in 2012 wasn't the first time this was proposed (or enacted)
  • There are documented cases of teachers actually using their guns to stop school shootings (rare, but it's happened)
  • According to aforementioned study I posted, teachers shooting themselves is what happens most of the time
Nobody should mistaken my comments here for advocating for the policy. It's just that the article as written does not cover this topic well... not yet, but that's what we're all here for. Levivich 15:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is from South Africa, not Zaire, and it clearly relates to the same discussion as the third source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. Nevertheless, still not a complete lack of evidence that the suggestion is taken even remotely seriously almost anywhere else. Levivich 15:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Kenyan source, context clearly matters. See this article from the Guardian for the background. [7] Very different from the situation in the US, and almost certainly better treated as a part of a broader conflict (one concerning ethnic/communal violence involving a group allied with al-Qaeda) than an abstract discussion about 'arming teachers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ".za" TLD is South Africa. But South Africa and Kenya are sufficient to show this is not just a US thing, especially when the South Africa context brings an opposite viewpoint - there, teachers' unions are calling for the arming, in the US they are the most vocal opponents. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources we have seem to suggest that a representative from a single teachers' union ("not a recognised union in the basic education sector", according to the SA government) made such a call after an incident in 2019. Not much to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly what the sources say: "The Educators' Union of South Africa (EUSA) has called for teachers to be allowed to bring guns to school to protect themselves". According to their web site, EUSA is 'registered with the Dept. of Labour. " Izzy Borden (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what response has there been from outside this union? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IDK. The government has opposed this call, that's all I could find. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

[edit]

I suggest pagemove to "Arming teachers in the United States" since the article focuses exclusively about issues in the US and dropping the lead sentence "Arming teachers is the practice of training and equipping teachers in the education range of preschool through secondary school with firearms" in the entirety, WP:OBVIOUS with no boldface anywhere per Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#First_sentence_format. - hako9 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - this article is not relevant to anywhere outside of the US, and nor does it seem intended to be. From the second sentence, familiarity with American politics and the application of US law is assumed. Theknightwho (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is currently framed specifically around the US response to school shootings, discussions about arming teachers are not solely an American phenomenon. [8][9] I don't know if a pagemove, or an expansion of article scope is a better call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion of scope is a better call; but maybe tag it until the scope is expanded. Levivich 03:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution when looking at non-US sources: factions within the US firearms lobby have a long history of trying to astroturf pro-gun content elsewhere in the world, sometimes getting picked up uncritically by media not aware of the background. Expansion of the article scope needs to be based on solid sources, not isolated media reports lacking substance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; expansion needs to be based on academic sources, of which there appears to be plenty. In my view one of the problems with this article is the reliance on news media, which are not very reliable for this sort of thing and by their nature will always tilt heavily towards recentism. BTW, it may be that an expanded article will have so much info about the US that'll it'll be UNDUE and we should spin out a U.S. sub article, but I don't think we're there yet. Levivich 13:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the above- the scope should be expanded, academic sources should be used, and if it ends up being US-heavy, that content should be split into a separate article.Izzy Borden (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article should be moved to "Arming teachers in the United States", while a more general overview of arming teachers should remain on this page. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be forked? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arming teachers is not uniquely an American concept. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only American. In Pakistan they armed teachers after the 2014 Peshawar school massacre. In Israel there was a plan for armed teacher response squads in each school. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Israel, see the sources cited in the 'Source collection' section below. It appears that Israeli teachers are not armed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Israel the source I linked talks about a government plan to create an armed teacher response squad, trained by the police, in each school in 2001, it has officials making statements on this plan. If this plan progressed, it probably did not last, but there was a plan for this. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
StellarNerd, I'd like to add that to a section about Israel - could you provide a translation (a sentence or two with key details would do)? Izzy Borden (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this was ever implemented. The source discusses setting armed readiness squads in schools, from teachers. The readiness squad is a concept that exists in Israel in the military and frontier settlements, this is the Hebrew Wikipedia. I pushed the article through google translate tool:

Fighting Terrorism: A stand-by class of teachers in every school

The classroom will have armed teachers who will be properly trained by the police so that they can properly protect the safety of students in the event of terrorists entering the school.
by: Tamar Trabelsi-Haddad Last updated: 16.12.01, 08:40

If, God forbid, a terrorist organization plans an attack on an educational institution, the terrorists will receive an appropriate educational response in the form of teachers and armed teachers, who will attack them in a combat procedure.
This was agreed at a meeting of representatives of the Community and Police Division in the Civil Guard with representatives of the local government and the Ministry of Education.
According to the summary, a stand-by class will be established and trained in each school, where there will be armed teachers. The members of the "elite team" will be teachers with a license to maintain weapons. They will receive the training from the police, so that they can properly protect the safety of the students in the event of terrorists infiltrating the school.
The teachers in the standby class will go through workshops and training and learn how to deal with terrorists. As part of the training, they will go through ranges, receive special identification vests and function as a Civil Guard team during the school year.
Pacifist teachers have nothing to fear: the local government has said that the stand-by class will only consist of teachers who would be interested in joining it. Those who agree will receive a monetary reward for their participation in the courses. In the future, teachers who do not have a firearms license will also be recruited, and they will undergo a licensing procedure. The responsibility for the professional retraining of the firing teachers lies with the Community and Police Division, which will formulate clear procedures for the establishment and operation of the stand-by classrooms.
The chairman of the local government center, Adi Eldar, said that the establishment of the teachers' stand-by classrooms was intended to address the security problem of educational institutions. The poor offered to them.

--StellarNerd (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izzy Borden: is that helpful? --StellarNerd (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thank you very much! Since the other sources listed here indicate that currently Israeli teachers are not armend, I'm guessing this was never implemented? Any details on that ? Izzy Borden (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any details really, if it was implemented it didn't last or isn't large scale. The newpaper report on the decision by officials to set this up was from December 2001, the active phase of the Second Intifada, in which many Israeli civilians were killed by terrorists. In December 2001 there were several suicide bombings. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I put it that it was apparently not implemented, but if folks think that is original research since we don't have a source that explictly says so, feel free to take it out. Izzy Borden (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether any such policy was ever proposed, I'd make the same comment here as I did regarding Kenya - that context matters, and such material cannot be simply presented as if it were part of the same 'arming teachers' debate that is going on in the United States. The situation in Israel is very different, and such proposals there have to be seen in the broader context of ongoing political conflict there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different context, these response squads were to respond to terrorist attacks. I don't know if this actually went anywhere. I do think it does show that this isn't just talk in the United States, but that other countries have had this talk as well. It sounds like that in Pakistan it went a bit beyond talk in at least one region, not sure of other places, but most places are just talking about it, including the United States. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source collection

[edit]

Discussion about source collection

[edit]

Above I've posted some sources I found about this subject. I'd invite folks to add to the list and/or strike any entries that have been incorporated in the article or shouldn't be incorporated in the article (and leave a note indicating same). Levivich 16:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the first source actually have anything to say on the subject of arming teachers? From the abstract, it seems to concern itself with "estimates of the prevalence of fighting and weapon carrying among adolescent boys and girls". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, good catch. Levivich 16:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask the same question about the source cited for Thailand - does it say anything specifically regarding arming teachers? Again, this is paywalled, but the abstract seems to suggest the study concerns "firearms proliferation and the creation of civilian militias in Southern Thailand", and the consequences of such proliferation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. (This is the one I thought the other one was.) It talks about arming teachers, and also about other government programs like providing bodyguards for teachers and giving teachers loans with which to purchase firearms. But I'm not sure if it's classroom teachers, like public classroom teachers, in the same sense as in the USA. It's an 18-page paper I haven't read, but from an initial skim, it seems the arming is more for protection of teachers (who are targeted as part of ethnic clashes) than arming teachers so they can protect students in the classroom from mass murderers (the USA model). Levivich 21:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of additional (news) sources for Thailand, which make it clear we are talking about public classroom teachers, who are both armed and trained by the Thai government. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then yet again, context matters, and we need to be very careful not to present content on this source as if it were a continuation of the US debate. This has been a recurring problem on Wikipedia, where coverage of firearms topics worldwide has frequently been badly distorted by narrow interpretation though a US-centric lens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone think this is a continuation of the US debate? Simply create a separate section for each country. Izzy Borden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone reading the article lede, as it currently stands, would be very likely to see it as a continuation of the US debate, considering that it deals exclusively with exactly that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That lead was written when the article's scope was US-only. There's a simple fix, which is to rewrite the lead, as I gave done. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every place is different. The one place where they actually went ahead and armed teachers was in parts of Pakistan: [10][11][12][13]. The Washington Post reported that a teacher at Mingora killed a 12 year old 5th grader by accident with his weapon, in an accidental discharge. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is neutrality still a problem?

[edit]

I've made some changes to the article to make it more neutral by adding more arguments and removing irrelevant info. The lede is also less Americacentric. Is neutrality still an issue? X-Editor (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still a problem. Very much so. It is nothing more than an article centred around the current US debate, with a few token efforts towards 'internationalisation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Public Debate

[edit]

The article currently frames the pro- and con- arguments as "Public Debate in the US". To be sure, the vast majority of sourced used are American (reflecting the article's origins)- but are these arguments really only US ones? Seems the South African government has made similar arguments against ("The call is irresponsible, reckless and dangerous, as this can only escalate the violence"), and the South African teachers' union made similar arguments FOR ("The deceased was allegedly shot dead by two random people who had gained unauthorised access to the school premises. This is besides the fact that the school does have a security guard officially employed by the Department of Education,"). Izzy Borden (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of sources presented so actually offering evidence that there actually was a wider debate in South Africa, it is difficult to see how the article could be claimed to be discussing 'public debate' there in any meaningful sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional sources attesting to this public debate in SA, I'm sure more can be found - there's nothing unique to the US in the core arguments 'for' or 'against'.
Personally, I'd assume that people outside the US are, when they are discussing arming teachers, doing so in the context of whatever brought about the debate there - which may very well have nothing to do with 'for' or 'against' arguments in the narrow US context resulting from a specific 'school shootings' issue. From a brief look at the sources you cite, that seems to be the case, since the examples of violence they discuss weren't mass shootings. The second source, incidentally, is an editorial on a Libertarian website, describing itself as " an alternative to the mainstream media", [14] and thus of possibly marginal significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I would assume the opposite - the core arguments ("not the teacher's job/they wouldn't be good at it/it just creates more violence" vs. "the police aren't there in time/if you know there's no guns it's an easy target/people have a right to self defense") are the same - and your last example is proof of that - the "self defense" argument is one common to libertarians everywhere- whether in South Africa or the USA. But rather than assuming, why not just put forth the arguments, from wherever they come, without trying to frame it as a US thing? Izzy Borden (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was you that framed it as a US thing, not me. You claimed, entirely without evidence, that there's nothing unique to the US in the core arguments 'for' or 'against'. And don't be so damned patronising - I know very well what the word 'assuming' means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing you didn't click on that link, it was a joke (which if you did click on it, perhaps it sailed over your head). I didn't frame it as a US thing - that's the way it is currently framed in the article, with a section not named by me called 'Public debate in the US". I named it "Public debate" [15] - you changed it to "public debate in the US"- [16]. My argument is that the arguments put forth in that section, sourced to US outlets, are not unique to the US. You may disagree, but while I have shown you at least two arguments common to the US and SA (self-defense, leads to more violence), you've done nothing but "assume". There's no need to assume anything - not even in the naming of the section- just bring the arguments.Izzy Borden (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I changed the title of the section to reflect the content - which consisted entirely of material discussing the debate in the US. As for the rest, I'm not the slightest bit interested in debating with you over a couple of Google search results. Any statements regarding whether debates elsewhere concur with those in the US need to be sourced, not based on our personal interpretations. I assume you've read WP:OR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we agree it was you who framed the section that way, despite your previous false claim that it was me. That's a start. I've already shown you that public debate about arming teachers exists in South Africa, so there's no WP:OR, and I will be addign those sources and changing that section heading shortly. Izzy Borden (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no evidence that there is any ongoing debate in South Africa. Or that the sources dating from 2019 indicate that there was any significant debate at the time. A single unrecognised union made a single call for teachers to be armed. Which apparently got nowhere, and as far as we know gathered no support beyond an editorial on an obscure Libertarian website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided evidence that there was such debate, as recently as 2019. there's absolutely no need to show "ongoing" debate, whatever you imagine that to be. That you continue to misrepresent facts (the union is recognized, the debate is not limited to libertarian websites) does not reflect well on you. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that any opinion on you coming from me would include the words 'obvious sock', I'm not the slightest bit interested in your opinions of what reflects well on me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap shots don't reflect well on you, either. Levivich 14:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Wikipedia articles shouldn't have "pro" and "con" sections at all and these sections should be eliminated altogether. Having pro/con sections presents the topic as a "debate", presents it as having only two sides (pro and con), and presents arguments as falling into one of those two sides. In reality, "arming teachers" isn't a debate; it's a real thing that happens, and yes, it is something that is proposed and debated, but we're describing a concrete practice that occurs in the real world, not an abstract topic at a debate club. Arguments about the benefits and drawbacks of the practice do not fit neatly into the "pro" or "con" categories. For example, "increases public safety" and "decreases public safety" aren't "pro" and "con" arguments, they're just contradicting expectations of the outcomes of the policy. Frankly, I'm not sure that various commentator's opinions about this practice are relevant or significant enough for inclusion (as opposed to actual studies, or summarized mainstream opinion). WP:DTTC is an essay about this. Levivich 23:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point regarding 'pro' and 'con'. Wikipedia isn't a debating society, and it is our job to report that debates are occurring, not offer up a platform for it to continue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged racism

[edit]

'Institutional racism'.. what? This is a highly politicised topic, surely it can't just be assumed to be correct in the context of any article? Whether or not you believe every institution is racist, or teachers specifically, it should be worded better or in my opinion removed entirely. 47.9.146.110 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the sources, and the source for this is clear. Other drawbacks to arming teachers involve the learning environment. In particular, owing to structural racism and discriminatory school security policies, Black high school students are less supportive than white students of arming teachers – 16% versus 26% – and report feeling less safe if teachers are carrying firearms.[17] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it should probably be attributed to the source, not stated as fact. Especially when the source itself relies on an editorial and a study that measures "perceptions of fairness", not any actual racism. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality problem banner

[edit]

I just removed the neutrality problem banner from this article because of the absence of anyone listing specific objections. Feel free to put the banner back if you also can describe a problem and or request an improvement. As a suggestion, if you can link to a reliable source on this topic and say that its perspective is not represented in this article, then that would be a great reason for restoring the neutrality banner. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I readded it just now, as the article is not neutral at all (despite people trying to get it on the Main Page as a DYK, which for such a controversial topic should be checked extra carefully). For example, the article says, in Wikipedia's voice,

"Jurisdictions which heavily restrict firearms on school grounds offer mass murderers some assurance they can avoid armed resistance or specifically identify and initially disable designated armed personnel."

This is sourced to this, I guess the source is supposed to be the very last line of the article, a quote from one former sheriff and proponent of the proposal. How a quote from one random proponent became established fact in our article is not clear, but it is an obvious NPOV fail. Please (in general and certainly if you want it on the Main Page), go through this article with a fine comb and check everything for POV issues. Fram (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental neutrality problem in this article is self evident. It was quite clearly created to cover one specific debate in the United States while purporting to present a global perspective. The few other countries mentioned each have specific broader issues with political and/or ethnic violence, but are presented as if they were offering a response to the same problems that the US has. This concoction of a supposed single 'public debate' is synthesis, or at best, distortion by omission. Any remotely neutral discussion of 'arming teachers' would start off by stating the obvious - that beyond the US, and a very few locations with other very specific issues, the suggestion that teachers might need to be armed simply doesn't arise. There is no global debate about 'arming teachers', and Wikipedia shouldn't be pretending there is. Any coverage of such material instead belongs in specific articles covering the context where such discussions arise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fram regarding that particular line. No idea how it went unnoticed for so long. Removed now. Also agree with Andy that conflating the US debate with every other time it's come up internationally may be misleading. Maybe it would be better to restrict this to the US, and anyone who wants to create a higher-level article can do so (or, alternatively, spin out the US article, and anyone who thinks the higher-level article can't stand on its own can send it to AfD). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunfighters' perspective

[edit]
Circumstances exclude the perspective of the mass murderers from this article, but understanding their motivations and rationale is important to devising an effective deterrent which is the fundamental reason for this discussion about arming teachers. In the days of the universal military draft, military training taught us to identify vulnerabilities and ways to either defend or exploit those vulnerabilities. Many athletic competitions emphasize this approach to victory within the restrictive rules of their game. Law enforcement professionals have a focused perspective relating to the broader range of personal combat circumstances, including gun-fighting; but many may be reluctant to reveal vulnerabilities, just as military secrecy seeks to conceal strategic vulnerabilities. The article shouldn't be limited to the effectiveness of teachers as gunfighters, if arming them (or simply leaving open the possibility they might be armed) could reduce the probability of the gunfight by encouraging the mass murderer to seek a more vulnerable target. If we truly want to cover the range of perspectives on this issue, I suggest considering the reasons this perspective is seldom heard before we eliminate it from the article. Thewellman (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or the reason we shouldn't write it like that is that it is mostly bullshit. It seems as if most school shootings are not driven by "easy target" considerations, but that shooter nearly always went to their own school or a school in their own village (Sandy Hook, Robb, Saugus, Red Lake, North Park, Umpqua, Marysville, Stoneman Douglas, ...) The reason shooters pick a specific school is not "the teachers are unarmed", and claiming this as fact instead of the opinion of some people is wrong. Fram (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Perspectives that are seldom heard' rarely belong in any Wikipedia article, per WP:DUE. Unsourced opinions (like Thewellman's above seems to be) never do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the shootings you mention, Nikolas Cruz is the only perpetrator who survived. He may provide more definitive information after legal proceedings are completed. Some have interpreted social media comments as indicating he (and possibly others, with the probable exception of the North Park Elementary School shooting) may have been inspired by a desire for news coverage publicity by setting a record in the number of people killed. I don't dispute schools close to the shooter's residence may be selected because the shooter is familiar with their layout, schedule, and facilities (including the ability of faculty or staff to resist armed aggression.) Do you have a reliable source for why these shooters chose a school rather than some other familiar nearby public grouping of potential victims like a church, shopping center, theater, or concert? Thewellman (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hinrichs23 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Hinrichs23 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public debate: Psychological impact

[edit]

There is nothing on the psychological impact upon young pupils of having their teacher armed. If someone knows a citable source, that topic should be included. BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arming_teachers&oldid=1252585879"