Talk:Plymouth shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suspect named locally as Jake Davison

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/12/plymouth-shooting-everything-know-incident-keyham/ SK2242 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also BBC. This source says: "Devon and Cornwall Police will be holding a press conference at 11:30 BST." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a Sky News source somewhere (not able to quickly grab it) that appears to verify two statements previously included in the article (the perpetrator's age and that he was originally from the US). Will look it out. MIDI (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Crime-related categories

Until reliable sources allow us to update the article accordingly, we must avoid including any categories that imply a crime has been committed – WP:CATVER applies, and all we know right now is that there has been a fatal shooting incident. We simply do not know any more circumstances, criminal or otherwise. MIDI (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's clear from RS that it was a mass shooting by a lone gunman who is among those killed. Jim Michael (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But is it totally clear that these were all murder and not manslaughter or accidental deaths? Isn't some kind of official police statement required? 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph ref makes it clear it was a deliberate shooting spree. With the suspect dead, manslaughter is highly unlikely to be declared or suggested. Jim Michael (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I've not heard the police use the word "murder" yet, or indeed any other crime by name? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE applies. Furthermore, there is no living suspect reported, whose reputation is at stake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

At the point at which I made the comment above, we did not know the sky was blue... we knew of multiple fatalities in a firearms incident (but not that all had been shot) and one single source that reported the perpetrator was dead (but without knowing the circumstances). Using criminal categories at that point would have been far too premature, hence this section. MIDI (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Incel

The Telegraph report the suspected perpetrator's link with the incel movement https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/13/plymouth-shooting-gunman-said-terminator-final-youtube-video/

I'm not sure it's necessary to attribute it to the Telegraph. Wikivoice should be fine, given DT's factual reporting status. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph are only reporting what many will have seen and heard on YouTube. It's simply what Davison called himself. But then he also called himself the Terminator. That's as far as it goes at present? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. an extract of the YT video has been re-published by The Daily Telegraph here

I have since added it in Wikivoice as The Times said the same thing. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

3-year-old victim

DeFacto The Daily Telegraph uses 3-year-old and "young" descriptors; it says the CC used both terms in the press conference. It's also reported by Reuters A man shot dead five people, including a 3-year-old girl, during a six-minute killing spree with a pump-action shotgun in the southern English city of Plymouth in what police believe was a case of domestic-related violence..[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solipsism 101 (talk • contribs) 13:47:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

In a similar vein, The Daily Telegraph are reporting that the 51-year-old woman was his mother.[2] I believe we should wait for official confirmation from the police before adding this. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Solipsism 101, it's moot now as a lot more water has passed under the bridge since I challenged the Telegraph quote, but my problem with it at the time was that what the CC had said at the press conference, and what was quoted in the BBC article about that conference, differed from the Telegraph's ostensibly direct quote of what they say was said that same conference.

On the video (which you can hear yourself from about 00:54 in this BBC article), and quoted in that BBC article, the CC said "he immediately shot and killed a very young girl. He also shot and killed the male relative of that girl". OTOH, the Telegraph quote in this article was "he immediately shot then killed a three-year-old girl. He also shot and killed the male relative of that girl". It seemed as though the Telegraph had mis-quoted it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

18:23

Which reference are we using to verify that the perpetrator was reported dead at 18:23? I've skimmed through the 5 references at the end of the sentence but couldn't find it. 18:23 appears to contradict the CC's statement that police arrived 6 minutes after the emergency call(s), and the perpetrator was dead before they "could engage him". Does this imply a death at or before 18:17? I suppose reporting him dead 6 minutes later is entirely plausible, but is perhaps something we should have clearer wording for. MIDI (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism claim

Campaigners, as reported in The Guardian and The Telegraph, have criticised the police decision not to treat this incident as terrorism.[3][4] The latter includes the following Laura Bates, of the Everyday Sexism project, said that we “are talking about an individual radicalised online into an extremist belief system who then acted on those beliefs to massacre people. This is terrorism. Both include mention of a Whitehall paper that say incels pose a threat of violence and terrorism. I omit it now because, even though well-sourced, it appears speculative about the motivation. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that it's somewhat speculative, and to an extent a question of semantics. At what point does 'lone wolf' or 'self-radicalised' tip over into an organised movement of political violence? (Frankly for me all that's distinguishing this case from some attacks that have been unequivocally described as such is the lack of an 'online pledge of allegiance'. Which would be practically difficult due to the lack of an explicitly violent blackpiller holed up in a cave in Tora Bora or the like.) But that the commentary is well-sourced and multiply sourced IMO is sufficient to include it in the article, just as long as it's not done in authorial voice, but clearly ascribed as the view of those sources.

For the sake of inter-article consistency, please note that this article already appears on the list of example in misogynist terrorism. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Accused" in infobox

Doesn't a person have to be alive to be "accused"? This should really be "suspect", as per fatalities field? This situation must have occurred in articles many times before. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right – IIRC it was changed from "perpetrator" to "accused" as at this stage it's only believed to be this individual, but suspect seems more appropriate. Surely "accused" would be used if someone was arrested/charged and so-on? MIDI (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The ibox doesn't have a suspect field. Jim Michael (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

True – and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160 shows why. MIDI (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

MIDI, thanks for that. With that in mind, I guess we are not using the 'accused' parameter correctly then, and should remove it altogether. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, it depends on whether we treat it as a noun or a verb. Does the infobox field mean "the accused" (as in a person on trial in a court) , or "is accused", as in the locals said it was him? If the former, then it is clearly impossible in this case. If the latter then we are ok with it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I thought it applied both to the verb and the noun (or is it a contraction of the adjectival "accused person"?). Not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's exactly the origin of the phrase, but it's idiomatic in the legal context, whereas 'is accused' could more plausibly convey either sense. 'Suspect' would be the hyper-cautious phrase to use until there's an inquest, but that would be excessive, given that reliable sources are saying "gunman", even the police statement uses "offender", and so on. I think "perpetrator" (as in of murders and attempted murders), whereas "assailant" has unnecessarily weaker connotations. (Person committing an assault.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Police have not "accused" anyone. Removed. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

We now have "assailant", which seems perfectly fair, although Cumbria, Dunblane and Hungerford all have "perpetrator". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Shooting spree?

Cumbria shootings is described as a "shooting spree". Why not also this one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to me to be the most tonally appropriate phrase -- for either article. Note that it's not the main title of the target article either, which is at the slightly less jolly-sounding spree killer. The same article also points out that it's of limited criminological value too, being not really distinguished at all from mass murder. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, "mass murder" can be accomplished without any shooting. So one might argue "shooting spree" is more precise? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not by any means strictly more precise, as a "shooting spree" needn't involve any fatalities, and the scope of the phrase is (in both respects) different from the scope of the article. Though I see what the article has at present is "mass shooting", which to my eye makes it less than transparent there were any fatalities until we get to the second sentence, which also doesn't seem ideal. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not sure "spree" works in British English for an event like this. In that, it's more associated with things like shopping and drinking and other pleasurable indulgences. It's possibly more likely in US English in the context of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I would not disagree. Maybe we need to re-examine the opening sentence of Cumbria shootings? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree on both points. I've left a note there for now, little purpose in trying to tweak the two in parallel until we're more sure what sort of wording to adopt. Broadly I think I'd argue for both the shooting/firearms aspects and the murder/fatalities to appear explicitly in the first sentence, just to be 100% clear. While the article does indeed gloss "mass shooting" as involving (non-perpetrator) fatalities, I think that's somewhat opaque, and is furthermore inconsistent with "school shooting", which evidently need not. (For example in this article we learn only in the second sentence that there were not any non-shooter deaths.) Now granted here they're very short sentences, so arguably I'm almost quibbling about a full stop versus a comma... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Killing spree usually refers to multiple locations. E.g. Bird travelled to several villages/towns to murder people. The assailant in this case acted roughly in one place. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC) (PS: I would add the OED has two draft versions from 2002: spree killer which is in one location and spree killing which is in multiple locations. Given the OED gives conflicting definitions, the phrase is imprecise and ought to be avoided.)

I see slightly to my surprise that there's a whole hierarchy of categories for this (Category:spree shootings in the United Kingdom, and so on), which immediately gets us into having to make 'wikivoice' determinations as to which is which. While simultaneously the scoping article says things like 'The category has, however, been found to be of no real value to law enforcement, because of definitional problems relating to the concept of a "cooling-off period".', and other critiques of its fuzziness or utility. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I attempted a slight wording tweak on this (adding a bold title, making 'murder' explicit in the first sentence), but this was reverted with a rather general "not needed" comment. Not clear why. Perhaps not even intended, given the edits of another IP were reverted at the same time. Clarification welcome before I try to either redo or (re)reword. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"In The News"

This story was nominated for the "In The News" section on the Main Page, but was rejected some 12 hours ago. At the time, the rationales given for opposing its inclusion centred on this being a domestic crime with no ideological motive. It has since become clear that neither of these things is true. I would suggest that this be reconsidered for ITN but i was directed here with the instruction: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page". I'm not really sure of the protocol around this, so i hope someone better acquainted with these things reads this. Effy Midwinter (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

You could request a re-open of the nomination on the ITN Talk page. If you're feeling bold you could even re-open it yourself, with the above rationale, just to "test the water". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I still think it not important enough to post to ITN, but I agree that enough new info about it has been reported in RS to make it more notable than previously thought & to justify re-opening the nom. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you talk me through "not important enough"? This is by far the 'leading the news' story in a major English-speaking country. It'd be competing on the front page with week-old dead-dog Olympics stories, of all things. I'd support a re-nomination, but share your existential despair at this sort of reverse-venue-shopping paper shuffling. (The most appropriate place for this discussion is somewhere else, so we can entirely ignore it.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's receiving a disproportionate amount of media coverage. That's because it happened in a country with a large media presence, in which mass shootings are rare. Also, there's typically less news in summer, so there's less other news to compete with. Though easily notable enough for an article, this has nowhere near the historical importance of UK mass shootings with higher death tolls, such as the Kingsmill massacre, Hungerford massacre & Dunblane massacre. Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The Troubles, e.g. the Kingsmill massacre, is/was a whole different ball-game? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hungerford & Dunblane had no ideological motive & weren't part of a conflict, yet they're still far more notable than Plymouth because of their higher death tolls & major changes in gun laws as a response to them. Plymouth is unlikely to go down in history as anywhere near as important.

Had this happened in Afghanistan, Somalia or the US, it wouldn't be posted to ITN. An event being rare for its country doesn't make it much more important. Jim Michael (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well actually, it pretty much necessarily and logically does, but more to the point, Wikipedia policy is to follow what reliable sources say. Your apparent argument is that we shouldn't rely on reliable sources, they're 'disproportionate'. Now, if ITN had a 'news cycle' that was churning through topics at a prodigious rate other 'more important' or indeed more recent topics, I might see your point, but... the Olympics is still on the front page. I don't think "has to be as important as Hungerford" is an at all reasonable threshold. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I share IP 109's incredulity that somehow what is undoubtedly a major news event in the UK is somehow less significant than the close of the Summer Olympics six days ago, and the "defection" of Krystsina Tsimanouskaya, the last real development of which was ten days ago. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a major news event in the UK because it's rare & there's little other domestic news than the continuing COVID pandemic. It's prominently mentioned in many UK & foreign media articles that it's rare. If this had happened in the US it wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a news story. Had it happened in Pakistan or Ethiopia, it's unlikely that it would even have a WP article. Imagine the reaction (or rather lack of one) to 6 people shot dead in Parachinar rather than Plymouth. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Except you could apply that "reasoning" to pretty much any news story. Many events are newsworthy because they are rare where they happen. This event is as newsworthy for the UK as the Las Vegas Shootings were newsworthy for the US, i.e. by virtue of being a rare extreme in their respective countries. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't on the same scale as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which was world notable & whose death toll was over ten times higher than Plymouth. We wouldn't post a minor earthquake due to it happening in a country for which it's rare. We can't base importance on the volume of media coverage - if we did we'd have posted the much-publicised 'news stories' of celebrity weddings, sportspeople transferring from one team to another & a woman putting a cat in a bin. Jim Michael (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently we can't determine whether something is In The News by whether it's in the news. Undoubtedly there's an Anglophone (and general Western) bias in both the Anglophone media and on Wikipedia, but the answer to that isn't to just keep the Olympics on ITN for another month due to a lack of material (or effort to identify it). Nor does it makes sense to suggest UK mass shootings have to pass a US-set bar. (Or if it does, it's a horrifying prospect.) "Three months of uninterrupted drizzle" would be more notable in some places than in others -- construct your own example, to according to whimsical or serious taste. BTW, there's a ton of news. The 'silly season' effect is a rather niche one, as applies to the domestic political lobby especially. But seemingly none of it is making it to ITN either, and I think I begin to see why.

Given that the other objections to the nomination have been pretty clearly rendered moot, and we seem to just be going around in circles with JM's, re-nomming seems the best approach. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. We rightly have a higher standard in regard to what we put in ITN than news media prioritise. Much of the UK media have, at various times, decided that the main news stories include celebrity weddings, celebrities cheating on their partners, sportspeople changing teams & a woman putting a cat in a bin. Summer is usually the slowest season for news. The forest fires in Italy, Greece & Turkey should be in ITN - they're far more notable, affect many times more people & have caused many times more damage over an area that's many times larger.

I don't object to this shooting being re-submitted, but I still think it not important enough to be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess you could amend your rationale over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see so much as a 'higher' standard being applied here as a more arbitrary one. Of course, the other difference is that Wikipedia is even more Anglophone and Western biased than the Anglophone Western media, and more poorly resourced, to boot. So if we're going to apply a "but worse things happen at sea" standard to exclude things, but continue to have no visibility whatsoever of the hypothetically more objectively newsworthy we're comparing them to, ITN will be reduced to a stately procession of recurrent scheduled events, and a whimsical smattering of events that were current two weeks ago that somehow slip through this net. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Should title be plural?

I would think that by definition the title should be "Plymouth shootings" given that there were multiple victims in more than one location, albeit them being in close proximity. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. As per Cumbria shootings. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is very different to the Cumbria shootings, because Derrick Bird shot people at six different places over a period of over 2 hours. Jake Davison's shooting was confined to a small area of a suburb during a far shorter space of time. Jim Michael (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the plural implies multiple victims and so is more appropriate. Murder of Jo Cox, for example, was "a shooting." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Also multiple locations. If the shooter had simply gone into the house, killed those there and them himself, "shooting" would be appropriate, but as he then left the house and then shot people in at least two different locations, it should be "shootings." Nick Cooper (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should check what the British English reliable sources call it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was struck by this earlier, when I mislinked to Plymouth shootings and did a doubletake at that being a redlink. But the sources are very mixed: Guardian, Telegraph, 'shooting'; Sky 'shootings'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look at google searches, BBC, Irish Times, (UK) Independent, The Times, ITV, Devon Live, Express, Hull Daily Mail, Birmingham Mail, Standard, and the Washington Post all using the singular form in headlines (though not necessarily consistently in text, I can see some "shootings" even in some of these same publications). Standard (again!), the Irish Examiner, the Herald Scotland, the BBC (again), Express (again), Devon Live (again), the Daily Record, the Leicester Mercury, the Stourbridge News, Leigh Journal, Gazette News using "shootings". Does seem to be leaning fairly heavily to "shooting" on raw numbers and publication prominence. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think DeFacto knows which is more popular in the press.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Shooting can convey multiple victims, e.g. 2017 Las Vegas shooting. It seems "shooting" is more commonly used in the press about this event, although I am sure some editors have a better idea of this. (PS: I would also agree this was roughly one location.) Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Las vegas was a shooter operating from a single location, firing into (generally) a single location. Nick Cooper (talk)

I think it's open to interpretation, but I think the press have gone with singular "shooting" because it roughly happened in one place, and I'm fine either way. I did trace the path on Google Maps (from the route The Telegraph[5] says he took) and it's roughly 360m. The 3-year-old and her father were 20m from first shooting, two injured people 40m from where those the child and the father were shot, man in the park was 100m from that, woman he shot after that 160m from that, and he shot himself roughly 40m from that. I think it's on the margins. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the two timelines are fairly similar (about a ten-minute period in each case), and the distinction between "covering" a smallish area with a long-range weapon and with some movement on foot is a slight one that it would be hard to make systematic. I'd be inclined to keep it as-is, unless and until the balance of sources shifts significantly and start using "shootings" predominantly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Terminator paragraph

The "video transcripts" are the YouTube video in question where he refers to himself as "the terminator", as well as discussing other facets of his life being downtrodden BioticusEdits (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't understand why this section of the "Perpetrator" subcategory was removed, as I believe it to be important BioticusEdits (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Who transcribed the video? Where was it published? If you, or someone you know, transcribed the video then it is original research and cannot be published here. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologise, to clarify, I meant the video itself and used the word "transcripts" to mean what he said in YouTube's official transcript system that can be accessed using a computer and provides a near-perfect subtitling system - The video was from the shooters channel, re-uploaded by a news channel - With all that he said being in the video, and then on further referenced websites that I cited next to it, I don't understand why it was removed. BioticusEdits (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Davison's YouTube channel has been taken down at its source, so I think we need a good reason to be quoting from it. (Yes, I know WP is not censored.) Let's see what others think. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Extract still on public display, via The Daily Telegraph's YT channel, here? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel that the fact that the video in itself clearly shows the shooters mental state, and it being his final video, is good enough reason for it to be quoted; apologies if I sound perhaps defensive, but I feel that the complete removal of the Terminator piece to be, in my personal opinion, wrong. BioticusEdits (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It is also covered by RSs, such as this one in The Times.[6] But was this a declaration to kill, as one might infer from a mass murderer saying in advance "I'm the Terminator"? I believe the perpetrator Davison said it as we live in a dystopian world with no hope, per Yahoo News[7]

“I’m always going to keep trying, as long as you’re breathing air… it’s like in the Terminator, right? The whole premise of the Terminator movie is that everything’s rigged against you, there’s no hope for humanity. We’re on the brink of extinction, these machines are unstoppable killing machines that can’t be beaten, can’t be outsmarted. “But yeah, humanity still tries to fight ’til the end. I know it’s a movie but I like to think I’m a Terminator or something, despite reaching almost total system failure you keep trying to accomplish this mission. But anyway, see you guys later.”

Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's possible the perpetrator was using this reference to allude in an indirect and deniable way to his intentions, but the paragraph reads so disjointedly -- entirely flipping POV from humanity to the machines midway, quite the plot twist -- that it'd seem like reading too much into it. But that seems to be what both the Telegraph and the Times are seeking to do by quoting it in the manner they do. The New York Post -- not the highest bar -- has a similar headline, but at least does better by later quoting a fuller context. So merely clickbait, as opposed to outright misrepresentation. Other sources like the Guardian refer to the same video by saying "He compared life to a Terminator movie", which seems to me to be a fairer summary. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Gun law

The article currently has:

Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, most private gun ownership was banned; people may still apply for a licence to own a sporting (hunting) rifle.

That doesn't ring true. People can own guns for more reasons than hunting for sport (pest control, for example), and shotguns as well as rifles must be licensed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it a bit. BBC have a piece on it, but tha

t's not comprehensive. I should add The Times reports says a bystander says it was semi-auto,[8] which would be unlikely unless it was a .22. This area of law is quite technical and our description needs refinement. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted the Chief Constable said it was likely a pump-action shotgun although the police have made no official determination.[9] We probably should wait for the official determination for this. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Current reporting is that it was a pump-action shotgun, but it remains to be seen if it was a low-capacity (2+1) on held on a Shotgun Certificate, or a higher-capacity one held on a Firearms Certificate, although the former seems more likely. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Reuters says "pump-action shotgun" here, so this seems perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we can go with that, and then elaborate if it later comes to light what capacity it was. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Times is reporting that he had a shotgun certificate, which was removed and reinstated. "Devon and Cornwall police are being investigated by the watchdog after it emerged that Davison’s shotgun certificate and a shotgun were returned to him in early July."[10] This matches the IOPC investigation's summary (here). Perhaps earlier reports, including from the CC, were using "firearms licence" liberally to include shotgun certificate? Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume so, yes. UK police forces (including D&C) have webpages to apply for one with titles likes "firearms licencing", and I've heard people referring to different "classes" of firearms licence (maybe just informally, maybe older terms of art?). But present terminology -- for example on the forms themselves -- appears to be "firearms certificate" and "shotgun certificate". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Firearms licencing and social media checks

I see we have a decent-looking (as far as I can tell, as it's paywalled) single source from The Times on this. I note the Telegraph had a story on the 14th -- "Force gun owners to face online hate trawl" -- from a retired chief constable, and is apparently running more on this tomorrow. It was referred to on the BBC The Papers review, but doesn't seem to be online at either site yet. The press association has a similar story, appearing for example here, and other outlets, should we wish to additionally source or flesh out this point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The BBC says here: "Ahead of the publication of new statutory guidance, all police forces in England and Wales are being asked "as a matter of urgency... to review their practices and whether any existing licences need to be looked at again," said a Home Office source." Has any source reported how many licences there are in the UK? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The BBC ref we used to define GB gun laws has that info. In E&W "156,033 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 617,171 weapons. There are shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns." and "Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 25,983 certificate holders in 2020. 46,703 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns - and 133,037 weapons are covered by that scheme." So 182,016 holders of firearms licences in Great Britain and many more holders of shotgun certificates. BBC cites the ONS for this data (link). Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Would some or all of this information be useful as a footnote? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Could certainly be argued to be somewhat pertinent, as (for example) the aforementioned ep of The Papers featured the guests expressing incredulity at their being so many such certs. Which may not be an especially usable source in itself, but could be an indication. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The ONS figures are authoritative, and we should be citing them directly, rather than through the filter of the news media. The is especially pertinent given that the BBC - for some bizarre reason - gives the number of FACs (156,033) and the firearms covered by them, but only the number of shotguns covered by SGCs. The number of SGCs is 548,521 but the ONS also states that the two types of certificates are held by 565,929 people, as while most SGC holders only have that one type, most FAC holders also hold an SGC. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I take the story in question to be this one: "Gun owners face social media checks after Plymouth shooting; Priti Patel has asked all the 43 police forces in England and Wales to review their current firearm application processes; By Charles Hymas, HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR and Hayley Dixon, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT 15 August 2021 • 10:30pm". Paywalled, so I have no insights to add on the content. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That Telegraph story is the same as what's in the BBC article about reviewing processes/licences here. Relevant chunk from the former: Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, has asked all the 43 police forces in England and Wales to review their current firearm application processes and whether they need to “revisit” any of the existing 720,000 gun licences." This is confusing as the ONS says there are 565,929 people with both/either FAC or SGC. I am slightly wary of us offering an analysis of these figures to say or imply the task assigned is difficult. (In the Telegraph, the closest it gets is noting that police chiefs say RIPA rules do not permit random trawling of social media accounts, unless there is a specific complaint.) Do we have any RS that speaks to the difficulty of going over the files of half a million people? Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Daily Record

The Daily Record is a Scottish tabloid, but it does not appear at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so is presumably reliable. Nevertheless, I suspect a better source could probably be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't do better, but googling for this information certainly produces other sources... more UK tabloids. So if you go with the theory that several right-wing redtops sorta balance a left-leaning tabloid, and they can't all be wrong... Mind you, those others likely do appear on the RS naughty step... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so the Daily Record is just less bad. I suppose there is the Scotland connection with Shetland, although I guess "Glasgow is to Shetland as London is to the Scilly Isles"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Other tab. sources are the Scottish editions of the Sun, etc, presumably on much the same basis. So if I were to argue against this, I could say it's the (less tongue-in-cheek) equivalent of the Clare Champion's "local hotelier loses US presidential election" headline. Here's a token non-Scottish sources though: Wales Online: Plymouth gunman spent time on remote island with his family. It's just echoing what the DR said, but it at least avoids the strict localisation, single middling source, and explicitly deprecated sources issues, if not getting within shouting distance of a paper of record (no pun intended). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using a source that, from what I've seen in it, uses overstated, exaggerated, and sensationalised claims, and lacks context. I'd say that if the claims we are using it for cannot be supported by any of the mainstream quality media, then they we are giving them undue weight in our article and should remove them. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You're rather arguing here for a blanket ban of a source there's no such guidance regarding. Though your basis for it isn't wildly off-base, it must be said. Perhaps it should be raised over there, either individually or in the form of UK tabloids in bulk -- this one might have escaped largely due to lower prominence.

In the meantime, though: Evnin' Stanit! Apparently we regard this one as 'upper-middle' market, regardless of whether the Record is better or worse than that mark. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated?

User:Solipsism 101, he quoted him, how is that unrelated? Are we not supposed to say who inspired the whole subculture? The Hanau attacker referred to him too, this isn't isolated. 92.0.5.48 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

From the similar-looking edit summaries, I infer this refers to The Former Guy. To be fair to your point, it's certainly mentioned in the cited Sky News article (and others). But the context isn't entirely clear: was he liking/quoting TFG on incel culture-matters? On gun laws? On other matters entirely? And "inspired the whole subculture" is an overstatement (on either matter, and others besides). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, an earlier article calls it 'fundamental'. Someone researched it here too. This correlates them too, although an opinion. This too. Frankly, it's a surprise it's not discussed at Incel, with only the refs mentioning him (one could reasonably think some people are erasing the main content, but then I haven't checked that page's history, so this is only idle speculation). And this claims he was a fan. This says he loves him. So, yes, I'd say he's certainly related (and this is barely page 2 of a search)... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"In his last YouTube video before the shooting, Davison stated "I wouldn't clarify myself as an incel"." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

And... that erases all his previous references to it? 92.0.5.48 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Where's the WP:RS that lists them? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

The article is already full of them? And my last two... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has a few. The Indy says "he loves him"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

'Praised' was the word I meant to use. 92.0.5.48 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm unclear what your precise claim here is. Trump, the alt-right, and incels may indeed be 'correlated', but when we're boiling down a lengthy (if vaguely worded) article into two or three pithy clauses, we must be careful not to impute a direct connection the article itself isn't making. WP:SYNTH, etc. From a reading of that article in isolation, it's possible he was liking/quoting Trump thundering on about... any given topic. Indeed, the Guardian's quote is a very innocuous 'teleprompter Trump' one -- doesn't go to the Truncel angle at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's synth if the perps mention it themselves, and there's ton of articles from RS out there, so why should it be this site's job to make sure there's no connection between incels and him when he was very obviously catering to them? Not only is it not synth, it would be negligent and pretty much censorship through omission if an encyclopedia does not make the connection that so many journalistic outlets already made... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What's your source that this perp mentioned it? Where's your source for such a connection being made in this case? If you're making an argument that might apply to other articles, make them there. Your previously proferred source did not verify either of these claims. Can't censor them if they don't exist. Your argument that it did is clearly impermissible synthesis, and pretty shoddy as basic logic, too. "Trump is well-known incel-fodder, and he quoted Trump on a topic wildly unrelated to incel matters, therefore we should directly juxtapose "Trump and incels" in the summary of a quote doing no such thing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

He quoted him, what source...? 2 above isn't enough? Tell me again how I'm synthing anything when the sources are making lots of connections? 92.0.5.48 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll tell you again. He quoted him on things entirely unrelated to incel subculture. Happy now? If you can't find a source that's reasonably summarisable on the lines you appear to want, and you insist on that summary for sources that don't support it, then that's textbook SYNTH, and precisely what the policy is there to preclude. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Background of shooter?

There's very little about the shooter's background in this article. Is that because it's still being confirmed? Any truth to the reporting that he is from Arizona, or is that self-description he evidently made somewhere online now thought to be just part of his delusions? Moncrief (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

He may have been born in the US, but his YouTube videos show he had a strong local accent. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually striking through that question, now that I see that the first identified victim is his mother, also from Plymouth. It sounds from all evidence that that claim of origin was just part of his delusions. Moncrief (talk)

He was interested in the US, but did he ever say he was from there? Jim Michael (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. But he was born in Plymouth. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

On Facebook he claimed to be from Arizona, as reported in various sources. Not sure if this was a concerted attempt at a fake 'persona', or just 'fill in a fake profile for giggles/to throw Big Tech off the scent'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

He was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder as a child and attended a special needs school, maybe that should be worked into it somehow? I don't have much experience editing wikipedia pages so I'd like if someone else could: "Diagnosed with autism as a child, Davison was sent to Mount Tamar special school in Plymouth, where he was said to have been a 'disruptive' influence on his peers."

Because, you know, people with ASD are more likely to be mass killers??? WWGB (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If this was in The Independent, I'm sure we'd add it very quickly. But we can't use the Daily Mail because of WP:DM. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Times says Davison says he had autism, along with depression and anhedonia (here). The problem with a brief bio in an article about an event is that any additional info, beyond the trivial such as his employment status and age, can appear to suggest a connection to the event. I would prefer expanding the bio before including info that might have no explanatory power. With 2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Perpetrator, PDD-NOS was mentioned because a police report mentioned the perpetrator had ASD as background info. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Law and firearms in the UK

Unfortunately there are morons editing this wikpidia who do not understand the firearms and shotgun laws in the UK. A shotgun is nothing like a rifle or LBP held under a FAC unless it has a higher capacity than 2+1. If you don't understand 2+1 you are not qualified to respond to this. Alcapone69 23:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that Davison used a shotgun. The background section makes clear that a firearms certificate (FAC) and a shotgun certificate (SGC) are not the same thing. Perhaps it is misleading to mention a FAC as this would not have applied to the gun used in the shooting.[11]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

By all means explain to us "morons at wikpidia" what "2+1" means and why that's relevant to this article. As Ian says, it might be beneficial to not mention the FAC. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reddit suspension

Are you sure his Reddit account was suspended a day before the shooting? Or was he banned from using the account, as his Reddit page was still accessible after the shooting and was suspended a day or two later 86.165.231.49 (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The current source is The Daily Telegraph and they seem petty sure about it, as they make a headline with it. Do you have an equally strong source that contradicts this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)