body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Deadname

Can we use the correct name for the perp? 72.89.27.178 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See several of the recent discussions above — we're trying to find a reliable source that notes the correct name. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it is the "correct" name, the perp's social media profile was shown to employ the name Audrey Hale alongside "(He/Him)".— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but (while it's not yet evidence in the "reliable source" sense) I can't imagine why the shooter would write "Aiden" on the gun if it wasn't the name he was going by. Agree that there's not yet justification to include it, though. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even if "Aiden" is later confirmed as the first name Hale was using, there's the challenging question of whether MOS:GENDERID precludes us from including the birthname. The letter of the MOS states (my bold): "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page". Hale is not living, and, due to the widespread reporting of the name "Audrey Hale", is technically notable under that name, just like how we use "Ellen Page" on the Elliot Page article because Page was notable under the former name.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that raises the question of whether a deadname's notability due to mis- or incomplete reporting is considered notability for the purposes of GENDERID. Can notability be conferred for that purpose by the initial statements of police, even if later proven false? Curious if a situation like that has ever come up before. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GENDERID is part of MOS:BLP, which includes the recently deceased. --Pokelova (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crumpled Fire fwiw, WP:BLP applies to the recently dead so I think GENDERID would too. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In evaluating administrative action on this article and talk page, I ended up with not enforcing the BLP policy as it generally does not apply to people confirmed dead by reliable sources, and applying it to dead people in this case would be an editorial rather than administrative decision (see the wording of WP:BDP). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BDP states: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." (bolding mine)
Given that this appears to be up to editorial consensus, what are people's thoughts as to whether the subject's name should be considered contentious material with implications for his living relatives and friends? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning in this move discussion from last year might be pertinent, in which consensus was to change the subject's name away from her deadname, despite her being deceased and the majority of sources only using her deadname. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that move is a useful comparison. This is a complicated case and I don't think stuff like Page is particularly useful as a comparison. While shooters are sometimes notable from their shootings, it seems too early to conclude that here, they may not be notable point blank therefore it's impossible for them to me notable under a previous name.

Also if the are notable and for that matter in so much as we need to cover them in this article, the reason we have to cover them arose from them being a shooter i.e. from just before they died. I'm fairly sure Hale didn't yell a completely new name at the police or victims of the shooting, so whatever name they had was from before whatever it is that requires coverage or which makes them notable. (In other words, they were already using whatever name it is, possibly Aiden, at the time of the shooting.)

The fact that in a late breaking news situation sources may have originally used a name (and pronouns) which may not have been their latest preferred name doesn't mean they were ever notable under this name IMO.

However given how widespread the name was in early sources and I expect it is likely to be in a fair amount of continuing coverage and maybe even from the police, while we might be able to respect DEADNAME in terms of which name we choose to make the main name we use, I'm not sure we can actually exclude the name completely like we are supposed to when the subject wasn't notable under that name.

Their death also means it's likely we'll only have social media posts, perhaps some stuff from their 'manifesto', and whatever they told family and friends; to guide us. (Although most of this isn't particularly unique, I can think of at least two recent cases were it arises.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This I think is a case of WP:RS and MOS:GENDERID being in conflict. In this case, I would suggest WP:RS takes precedence. I think the best idea is to wait until this resolves itself as more sources start using the correct name. Theheezy (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/us/nashville-school-shooting-tennessee Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we not consider this to be a reliable source? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever RS and GENDERID are in conflict, which happens sadly but not unsurprisingly often with regards to trans and non-binary people, it is always best practice to follow the subject's most recently expressed name and identity, even when this conflicts with the most commonly used name or terminology used in reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I understand why RS is important and that it isn't good to set a precedent to have something outweigh that, but I don't think that's what we would be doing. NYT reported that he publicly asked to be called Aiden, a name that we know he chose for himself as part of his transition. we have already agreed to mention his transition in the article and use he/him pronouns- there's no evidence he would be going by his birth name after choosing a new name aside from the fact that people we know were not accepting of his transition refer to him by his birthname (in conjunction with she/her pronouns, which we know he also didn't use), that he included his birth name along with his preferred name in a message to someone who he hadn't spoken to since changing his name (very common during a name change), and that RS are using his birth name because that's what the police, who are not a RS, used to refer to him prior to the reporting about his transition. trans people's identities have always been and will always be contentious and subject to erasure, and a RS like NYT using someone's birth name when referring to police reports but explicitly saying he used a different name along with all of the other evidence of his transition is certainly enough for us to use his new name with a mention that his birth name is still being used to refer to him because all of the information being reported on is based on police reports using his old name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The story goes that a former teacher said she saw a Facebook post sometime after 2017 wherein Audrey asked to be called Aiden. Not all posts are public and we don't know who was asked or why. We do know we often ask for things we don't get, or get called things we didn't ask to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He asked to be called Aiden and be referred to with he/him pronouns, he changed all of his social media to the name Aiden, and it's been reported that he was trans. what exactly don't we know? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/she-checked-her-instagram-she-didnt-expect-a-message-from-the-covenant-school-shooter is this not the most recent expression of Audrey? She signed it with her birth name, with her trans-identified name in parenthesis. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what did her best friend in the whole wide world (and maybe beyond) immediately reply? "Audrey!" Audrey didn't seem to mind being "deadnamed" a bit, so it likely wasn't as big a deal at the time, in the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
his best friend? as we've already addressed, this person was a middleschool basketball teammate who he did not speak to often. https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-contacted-authorities-after-speaking-nashville-shooter-audrey/story?id=98182991 You can also see in the newschannel5 story that he messaged this person through an account under the name Aiden, which is an additional reason he would include his birthname at the bottom despite going by Aiden.
If I knew someone had enough information to stop me from committing a crime I was immenantly about to commit, especially one that ends in my death, I would not continue the conversation to tell them about the importance of respecting a trans person's identity. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't say she was going to commit a crime, she said she was planning on dying. And her friend did know and care enough to try and save her from herself, to no avail. Now that friend's left knowing Audrey trusted her more than anyone, even her parents, and she's fine with using "she/her" pronouns in public. Us strangers with no reason at all to respect "the shooter" (by any pronoun or name) should find it even easier to accept the mainstream view. For trans folk in general, sure, fight for the rights till they're equal. But don't lose sight of this tree in the wider sex and gender woods. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HE was on HIS way to commit a crime and knew that his friend had enough information to inform the police he was planning to kill himself, which could have prevented him from committing the crime. He made it clear that he used the name Aiden and he/him pronouns, whether or not people respect that is irrelevant. We do not get to change the rules for respecting trans identities because we don't like the person in question, this issue effects the whole trans community not just this one person. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have it on good authority (newswires, police, recently professed best friend) that Audrey was a woman. And a woman who acted too fast for that friend to get through to police. Disrespecting a highly atypical mass murderer who was evidently fine with being called Audrey during her last half hour is no disrespect to anybody else, including trans or autistic men, women and children. And it's no disrespect to her, because she wanted to kill and die and got her wishes seven times over. That's already more placation than this extreme outlier should have gotten in life, in my opinion. Not in yours. I understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to decide what is disrespectful to the trans community, and your opinion is not relevant because it goes against WP:DEADNAME and WP:RS. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're lucky then that Wikipedia doesn't publish what is respectful, only what is verifiable from reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your precedence for including his birthname in a third place in this article? Tekrmn (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources? MOS:GENDERID? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean where it says "birth name ... should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly" ...
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)?" because that's the opposite of what you're doing and it's clear your changes do not come from a NPOV Tekrmn (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not their main biographical article (and they are not notable enough to justify their own article), and regardless, they were notable under that name. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, he was notable under that name which is the only reason it can be included in the article in the lead. that doesn't mean it can be included elsewhere. what are you referring to in genderid then, because I certainly don't see anything to support your argument. Tekrmn (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading of MOS:GENDERID. Do you have a WP:PAG-based reason to omit their former name? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the correct reading? you have yet to give any reason why his birth name should be included a third time in this article, so I'm not sure why you're placing the burden of proof on me to leave the article as it was. Tekrmn (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have reliable sources that use their female name, the initial reporting on this incident was with the female name attached and it is with that name that they became notable for this event. I'm still looking for the WP:PAG-based reason to omit the name, and I suspect none will be forthcoming. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how is that relevant? it says that he was identified using his birth name which is mentioned twice in the artic;e. you don't need to find a reason to omit the name, you need to find a reason to include it. I am going to revert the article until you can do that. Tekrmn (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Bye. 👋👋 —Locke Cole • t • c 06:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get to decide what I think is the proper respect I show to all mortal beings. We're distant cousins and some of us are friends, we've spent our lives together, generally. In this case, specifically, fuck Audrey Hale and the three guns she rode in with. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So in addition to refusing to acknowledge reliably sourced information, proposing we go agains WP:DEADNAME, and generally not having a NPOV while sharing your opinion all over this talk page, you also have a previously undisclosed COI? Again, what respect you think people do or don't deserve has absolutely no bearing on wikipedia. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If acknowledging we all have common ancestors, breathe the same air and bleed the same blood counts as disclosing a conflict of interest, sure. I guess I'll stay away from mortal being articles, lest my bias make me partial. And yes, I've repeatedly acknowledged reliably sourced information, it says she was a woman who may have wanted to be addressed as a man and her name in the real world, offline, was exactly what every RS says it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we don't say that she used he/him pronouns at the beginning of the article and then not use the pronouns and just refer to her by her last name, Hale. It would stop controversy, and we can edit the article so it sounds right. Rzzor (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person is a murderer of children. No one should care at all what you call them. They deserve absolutely no respect whatsoever. Deadname all you want because they are dead. KeysNC (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't edit articles on Wikipedia to reflect our personal favor or disfavor of the subjects we cover. We should always edit articles to respect neutrality, only contain claims that are verifiable, and not engage in original research. Making edits because of how we feel about the subject and not because of what our sources say pretty much violates every single one of those policies. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 1

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to the multiple discussions on this talk page regarding the suspect's name and gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the shooter's full name was Audrey Elizabeth Hale (CNN, CNN). The fact that she used other names, like Aiden (CNN) I think is another piece of information about the profile of the shooter that could be included as a fact in the article.
Whether the nickname or legal name is the one used repeatedly throughout the wiki article when referring to her, I guess that is something that could be determined on how most reliable sources go about it. Generally, I don't believe that a person's nicknames and preferred way of being called should have much weight in how an encyclopedic article talks about them, even more so for shooters. There are many historical figures that had preferred names other than their legal name. For example John F. Kennedy went by Jack with his friends and family. The Wikipedia article on him makes a brief mention of it but mostly sticks with his formal/legal name. Al83tito (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was transitioning to using the name Aiden, it was not a nickname and if he had not died would most likely have been his legal name at some point. Your opinion on chosen names has no bearing on Wikipedia's conventions, and Wikipedia conventions (and respect for the trans community) don't change based on what the person was notable for. JFK going by Jack in some circles is not the same as a trans person changing their name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't her legal name when she became notable, was it?Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how is that relevant? Tekrmn (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the reliable sources that have already been cited in this article, here's a non-exhaustive (rather, chosen to avoid overlap) list of references to the shooter actively using and stating a preference for the name "Aiden".
Sources that quote people the shooter had known or the shooter himself:
CNN, sourced to former instructor: "Over the last year, Hale posted on Facebook about the death of a girl with whom Hale apparently played basketball and a request to be referred to by the name Aiden and male pronouns, according to Maria Colomy, a teacher who taught Hale for two semesters in 2017."
AP, ditto: "Hale had “been very publicly grieving” on Facebook, Colomy said. “It was during that grief (Hale) said, ’In this person’s honor, I am going to be the person who I want to be, and I want to be called Aiden.’”"
CNN, sourced to former classmate #1: "In a social media post last year, Hale wanted to go by the name Aiden, Cody said."
NBC News, sourced to former classmate #2: "She added that Hale began using a different name on social media “in the last year or two maybe.”"
NBC News, sourced to screenshots provided by former teammate: "In the first message sent to Patton, Hale signed it as "Audrey (Aiden).""
Sources that reference the shooter's social media accounts and such:
WZTV Nashville: "One of the weapons, an assault rifle as described by police, has the word "Aiden" written on the stock of the rifle. The name is also part of a social media profile used by Hale. On the profile, which has been since removed, Hale listed social links which included links to "creative.aiden" and "Aiden Creates" under Hale's 'About' section."
AP: "Social media accounts and other sources indicate that the shooter identified as a man and might have recently begun using the first name Aiden."
The Tennessean: "Hale, who at this point used male pronouns and the name "Aiden" on his Instagram profile, told Patton that a post he had made on March 13 was really a suicide note."
NBC News: "Hale’s website, which has since been taken down, linked to an Instagram account where Hale used the name Aiden."
If all of this isn't enough to change the primary name to Aiden (while still keeping a "who also went by Audrey" in the article) per GENDERID, RS, precedent, and established best practices — I'd like to hear the rationale for why not. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reliable sources that note it was what the killer seems to have wanted call him Audrey. Some call Audrey "her". But I've yet to see a source only or primarily call Audrey Aiden. Audrey will always be this dead person's common name, it's mathematically assured. This "Aiden" request is worth a mention. But more than who we think we are, we are the way we're remembered by others, and this is not any different for a cis or peaceful person. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the very last message Audrey sent to her friend, she signed it with her birth name in addition to her trans-identified name.[1] This has been widely covered by RS. We can't ask her if that's what she preferred and it simply illustrates how conflicted this young woman was. RS uses her birth name prolifically and we can explain the context quite well given the amount of coverage this event has. The policies re: WP:DEADNAME don't apply here because she's dead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to ask what name he preffered, he told everyone who followed him on social media and they have reported it to reliable sources. implying that his transness was related to the issues that led him to commit this crime is unbelievably transphobic.
WP:DEADNAME does not say we can use whatever name we want in the event the subject is deceased. it does say "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." which we should be extending to his name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 2

I updated the article to use the name Aiden Hale in light of all of that reliable sourcing as well as WP:DEADNAME and was told to bring it to the talk page, even though this was the last relevant thing that was stated and is clearly in line with wikipedia's manual of style. Hale did not also use the name Audrey except where he was speaking to someone who was not aware of his name change. We have no reliable sources stating that he was still using the name Audrey. The fact that some people have not used the correct name for him is not relevant. In addition to all of the sources you listed here we also have https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/us/nashville-school-shooting-tennessee. I will be updating the article again to be in line with WP:DEADNAME and WP:RS Tekrmn (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is bullshit. "Aiden Hale" is something you synthesized. Police haven't changed their tune. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to provide a reliable source saying he didn't go by that name. Tekrmn (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. You're supposed to source the claim. As it stands, both inline citations only mention the real full name (one in the headline itself). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did source my claim, which is why you would need to source to revert the article. If you're referring to the citations you marked, I did not include those citations and I don't believe they were intended to show that he went by Aiden. Tekrmn (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. Your source opens: The suspected shooter who killed six people, including three children, at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee, has been identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale. That's textbook incompetence, and competence is required. If you're not willing to learn, go away. If you are, welcome to Wikipedia! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that was not my source.
The sentence after "Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter." is "Police initially identified him as a woman using his birth name, but authorities later reported he was a transgender man."
Additionally, the person who the police identified as the shooter was Aiden Hale. I made it clear that he was identified under a different name. The way these two sentences were written is in keeping with WP:DEADNAME. Tekrmn (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was your claim. By making your claim next to a contradictory source, you've helped make Wikipedia a less trustworthy place. Accidents happen; will you now either change the source to match your claim or change your claim to match the source? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KWTX quite clearly state "Aiden Hale" in their March 28th article. This is pretty clearly not a case of synthesis based on that article alone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a caption, not a source, and doesn't say that's how the shooter "was identified", unlike the multitude of sources which correctly do. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hulk you made the claim that name Aiden Hale was synthesis when you said "Aiden Hale" is something you synthesized. Regardless of whatever else that article states, the fact that the KWTX article uses Aiden Hale means that name cannot be synthesis, at least as far as we define the term on wiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I was wrong. It was something someone saw in a caption. It's still at odds with the way the police, reporters and real life acquaintances identified and continue to identify her, per reliable sources. I get not wanting to make a living transgender person feel bad, in general. But in this specific case, the dead mass murderer feels nothing and you're all taking this to a rather nutty extreme. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The protections that are founded upon the BLP policy are not just there to protect our article subjects, they're also there to protect the family, friends, and loved ones of our article subjects. Yes Hale is dead, but people who knew him are not. By disrespecting him, no matter how heinous the crime he may have committed, we are also disrespecting the people that Hale cared about and who cared about him. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's what I mean by a nutty extreme. Calling a murderer widely and posthumously identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale "Audrey" is somehow a danger to her family, friends and loved ones, who don't seem to have known she thought she was a man, up to 30 minutes before she went postal. And the loved ones of other article subjects, somehow. Right. As I said on my Talk, I'll let you think about it for eight more days. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion doesn't matter. There are reliable sources stating that he went by Aiden, and the way his name is used in this article is the way it should be according to the wikipedia manual of style. If you can't provide a reliable source that says he wanted to go by his birth name then you have nothing of any relevance to contribue to this article or talk page. Your edits are vandalism at this point. Tekrmn (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She signs "Audrey", first and foremost (Aiden parenthetically, as if optional). Her loved one chooses to reply "Audrey!" Audrey is unoffended and still thinks she's beautiful. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this conversation twice already, but he used his birth name in that message because he was using an account under the name Aiden, which the person he was messaging didn't know him by. Your claim that he was unoffended is based on literally nothing and wouldn't be relevant even if it were verifiable. Additionally, this does not in any way indicate that he wanted to go by his birth name, let alone explicitly show that to be the case. This is not a reliable source for your claim and you know it. Tekrmn (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I know. I didn't know you use two usernames here. Now I do and am sorry your two identities made me repeat myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use two usernames, I changed my username. Either way this is a discussion we have had three times (twice under this username) now despite the fact that you are making baseless claims. I'm not going to respond to you again unless you vandalize this article again or come up with a reliable source to verify your claims. Tekrmn (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only user I've talked about this to went by "Derekeaaron1". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were reaching out to someone I knew over a decade ago, who I hadn't kept in touch with and certainly hadn't discussed my transition with before, then I could absolutely see myself leading with the name they knew me by as opposed to the name I use now.
The name on his Facebook account (as you can see in that screenshot) is Aiden, not Audrey. Our old pal's razor might conclude that the name he used on his Facebook page—not to mention the name he used on his other regularly utilized (i.e. non-LinkedIn) social media accounts, the name he had told friends to use, and the name he wrote on his gun—carries more weight than the name he led with once in a message to a distant friend who hadn't yet heard the news.
Noting that the person he hadn't spoken to about his transition responded to the first contact in a very long time with the name she most recently knew him by isn't the incontrovertible evidence you seem to think it is. Likewise, if I were less than 14 minutes away from setting in motion the events guaranteed to lead to my imminent death, inserting "um, actually, I go by..." into my final words would not enter my mind.
––––
Your recurring arguments here are:
  • he wrote Audrey first in a message to someone who only knew him as that name; therefore, he had no preference for Aiden
  • the police announced his legal name, leading most media sources to use that name; therefore, the name he actually used and preferred doesn't matter
  • he was a mass murderer; therefore, we should make our editorial decisions with the intent to deny him an accurate accounting of his life, as retribution
Faced with reliable sources and policies/precedent that you disagree with, you've chosen to double down and explicitly endorse righting (what you see as) great wrongs and casting aside NPOV in favor of sticking it to a dead person because "fuck Audrey Hale and the three guns [he] rode in with."
On top of that, you've decided to exclusively refer to someone who virtually all reliable sources now agree was a trans man who used he/him pronouns as a "woman", using she/her pronouns in every single one of your talk page posts and both talk and article edit summaries.
I believe the sum total of all this is what's colloquially referred to as not a good look, and officially referred to as tendentious editing and interactions begging to be brought to AE or ANI. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3061:2C59:7F4:9178 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. I was leaning towards sticking with MOS:GENDERID before but you've convinced me fully. Loki (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also Derekeaaron1 and Tekrmn, or a new voice here? (nevermind). In any case, I'm choosing to refer to her as her self-identified best friend continued to in reliable source interviews after learning about "Aiden", as a woman named Audrey. As have "authorities". I've used "he" a few times earlier on this talk page and always in article space, but am convinced some of you (in Wikipedia and the news) are basing your logic on a moral panic, as fallaciously as when it was "cool" to "think of the children" instead. Anyway, I'm trying to comply with Sideswipe9th's preference that I take a break, so I'd appreciate it if you (or your aliases) held up on bashing me further till April 12. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's quite easy to check my /64 and see who I am? We've interacted repeatedly. Hence the edit summary comment.
Also — weird leap, assuming someone who Aiden hadn't been close to in over a decade was his "best friend", when such phrasing appears absolutely nowhere. Weirder leap, assuming that would even trump the chorus of reliable sources. (I'll also note that you haven't acknowledged your stated intent to push a POV that bad people deserve worse coverage on Wikipedia.)
Pray tell, what moral panic is that you believe in? Apparently you view the proper response to it is to misgender someone, but I can't quite put my finger on what views would prompt such reasoning... 2600:1700:87D3:3460:85C5:CB26:A7AA:3D4A (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suck at alphanumerics, so will defer to you on who you are (the first digits certainly match). The exact phrase is "most beautiful person I've ever seen and known all my life". It's not a weird leap to count that as a "best friend", "closest confidante" or several other things. "Distant friend" seems weirder to me, and I'd like to know where you gleaned that. That intent of mine is your invention; I could deny it or state my own, but it wouldn't matter, you'd put new words in my mouth. I've argued with people like you before, if not you yourself. Just replace "children" with "transgender" and it's nearly the same. That's not to say the basic rights at the cores are the same (though they can cross over), just the nutty extremes they've led to in such similar arguments. I'm not grooming children, if that's what you're implying, and don't want to protect anyone who is. I just don't think we need to apply a rule designed for a living person to a dead person whose last known expression of identity was "Audrey (Aiden)". Realizing the importance of parentheses, police statements of fact and the last person you tell you love before you shoot up a building isn't something only "the enemy" can do. Granted, I do only have one trans friend and know that saying so makes me sound defensive, but that's statistics for you. Might backfire less to promise you one of my favourite albums is about gender confusion. Or no matter what I say, this goes nowhere. Whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A: "a former middle school basketball teammate"
Aiden was 28, middle school in the US is generally ages 11-13. Over a decade since they were teammates.
B: "They both went on to attend high school at Nashville School of the Arts and kept in contact over the years through Instagram posts and comments, but they didn't talk regularly."
Kept in contact in the way that one does with former friends, but didn't talk regularly, and certainly wasn't close enough to have learned about his new name or pronouns. (I believe that's more likely than "was told about new name and pronouns at a time prior to his final message, but actively chose to deadname and misgender, which Aiden was totally fine with.") If we even assume that they remained just as close through the end of high school, generally age 18, then it's been around a decade since that point.
C: "Hale never talked to Patton about Covenant — in fact, Patton didn't know Hale had attended the school." (ibid)
Not a close enough friend to know much about his past.
D: "Patton told CNN’s Don Lemon she was the shooter’s childhood basketball teammate and “knew her well when we were kids” but hadn’t spoken in years and is unsure why she received the message."
Hadn't spoken in years and didn't know why she was the recipient of that message.
I agree that "most beautiful person I've ever seen and known all my life" is ambiguously worded and could be read as indicating a best friend. Given all the above, I personally think "ever seen and known, in all of my life" is the more likely reading—someone thinking back to people they remember fondly in their life and choosing one to reach out to—but I get the uncertainty. With all of the above, though, I think it'd be wrong to consider them as having still been best friends.
––––
Anyways, I'm not accusing you of believing anything specific, but I'm noting that the terminology ("moral panic") you use to explain why you're continue to misgender someone is terminology (and justification) that has been used by quite a few people who believe that more people identifying as trans is the result of some great conspiracy theory.
You might well abhor everyone who takes that stance, but justifying continued misgendering by accusing those advocating for following reliable sources, policy, and precedent of "basing [their] logic on a moral panic" is bound to raise an eyebrow. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:85C5:CB26:A7AA:3D4A (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not accusing me of grooming children or believing straight people don't do it more often. I'm not a right-wing kook, in any connotation, but that is what a lot of people I wind up arguing with try to suggest about me. I think keeping in contact through social media is just what "friends these days" do instead of talking or speaking to another. In any case, Hale chose her to confess, suggesting something deeper than the relationship she had with her parents, old offline acquaintances or her former teacher. For what it's worth, I think I'm using the correct pronouns, not misgendering. You mean well. So do I. We'll "talk" again. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search on social media does reveal some people, some who say they knew Hale, expressing various degrees of frustration, anger, and sadness towards the misgendering and misnaming of Hale, both by the Nashville police and in the wider media. This is one of the areas where we can and should do better, regardless of the crimes that Hale may have committed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not "may have". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 3

Hulk brings up an interesting point above. We know this person named themselves as “Aiden”, but did they ever name themselves as “Aiden Hale”? We shouldn’t assume. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he was changing his last name he would have made that clear in his social media posts or name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did he actually state that he was still using his last name with Aiden? starship.paint (exalt) 03:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not to my knowledge, but why would we assume he changed his last name with no evidence??? especially given that we still aren't using his new first name despite there being tons of reliable sources reporting that Aiden was indeed his preferred name. Tekrmn (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying assume he changed his last name, I'm saying don't assume that he didn't change his last name. starship.paint (exalt) 03:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mononym! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least two reliable sources; KWTX, News.com.au that use the name Aiden Hale in their content. There may be more, though with many American news sites blocking EU (GDPR says hello!) readers I've not been able to exhaustively search for them yet. Additionally the NBC News article on what they call "confusion and disinformation" surrounding Hale's gender identity gives some support to the notion that Hale had changed his forename without changing his surname.
Channelling my Occam, the simplest explanation to me is that Hale changed his forename only, and that in absence of evidence to the contrary it's reasonably safe to assume he went by Aiden Hale. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly agree. Refusing to acknowledge reliable sources showing someone changed their first name because "well, what if they changed their last name too?" or "what if they changed it to a mononym?" is moving the goalposts at best and outright trolling at worst. Never mind the various sources that say "Aiden Hale" and not a different last name — what if he pulled a Prince and got rid of his last name? Hell, are we sure he didn't go full Prince and "Aiden" is actually meant to be a unique symbol? We better hold off on making any change until we deal with these important uncertainties.
I mean, come on.
I'm surprised the lone person claiming a lack of clarity on this issue hasn't gone "hey, these sources say Hale used he/him pronouns, but not he/him/his... it's theoretically possible that he used different pronouns for subject and object than for possessive, so maybe we should just undo everything and wait until reliable sources answer that unanswerable question 😇" 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID

I've read the above, and I agree with some parts and disagree with other parts, but the biggest thing I disagree with is the misapplication of MOS:GENDERID. The only salient part of that, IMO is the opening paragraph: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. As far as I know the article is using male pronouns. The rest of MOS:GENDERID applies only to living subjects, and is irrelevant (to wit, If a living transgender or non-binary person..., In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person... and In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person... (emphasis added)). And even if the perpetrator were alive, they became known for this event (and their death in it) under their "deadname". Finally, MOS:GENDERID is a Manual of Style Guideline, and in the hierarchy that is WP:CONLEVEL, the application of it is not as black and white as a policy or even a broader guideline would be. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you quoted that gendered words should reflect their self-identification even if it doesn't match what is used in common sources, and that for living transgender people birth names should be omitted unless notable and then only included in the first mention. yes, the MOS specifies living in regards to birth names, but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to mention his birth name as many times as we can get away with. Tekrmn (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to mention his birth name as many times as we can get away with. That's your interpretation. Our article is following the sources, which use both names reliably. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the name aspects of GENDERID are founded upon the BLP policy, and so subject to WP:BDP. BDP applies for a 6 month to 2 year (depending on a per-article consensus) after a BLP subject dies, which is part of why our BLP CTOP is for biographies of living and recently deceased persons. The current commonly held practice across many articles involving recent deaths of trans or non-binary individuals is that the name part of GENDERID continues to apply for at least as long as BDP allows, though per-article consensus can extend that indefinitely if deemed necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with regards to how policies interact with guidelines, as WP:PGE states clearly, there's no community held brightline between how we determine a policy versus guideline. With only a handful of exceptions, like policies that have legal implications, it is not uncommon for policies to clash with other policies, guidelines to clash with other guidelines, and policies and guidelines to clash with each other. There is no overarching hierarchy for determining which policy or guideline takes precedence when it clashes with another. For example, a lot of editors cite WP:NOTCENSORED as a sole reason to include content, yet WP:V contains WP:ONUS which explicitly tells us that consensus can determine that we can exclude verifiable information. How do you reconcile a policy that states that we can include almost anything, with another one that states that by consensus we can decide to exclude it?
As for CONLEVEL, GENDERID has a very, very high CONLEVEL, with its application and practices being defined across many discussions over many venues, including article talk pages, MOS talk pages, policy and guideline talk pages, and various relevant noticeboards throughout the project. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the name part of GENDERID continues to apply for at least as long as BDP allows You should probably get consensus for that and change MOS:GENDERID to state that. Should be simple if it is, as you claim, a commonly held practice. In the meanwhile, I'll deal with the policies and guidelines as written. Also, with regards to how policies interact with guidelines I'm going to stop you there. You link to WP:PGE, an essay. WP:CONLEVEL is policy. Once which also has the backing of the arbitration committee. You may think there is no brightline, but the community clearly disagrees with you. How do you reconcile a policy that states that we can include almost anything, with another one that states that by consensus we can decide to exclude it? Your question was it's own answer. That's talented. As for CONLEVEL, GENDERID has a very, very high CONLEVEL ... Respectfully, it does not. If it did, it would be similar to WP:NFC, which is an editing guideline, but that has WP:NFCC embedded within it, which is an official policy. You're more than welcome to start an RFC or a discussion at WP:VPR to see about getting MOS:GENDERID enshrined as policy. But in so far as this discussion here, as I stated at the opening, the only relevant portion of MOS:GENDERID to our discussion here is the concerns over pronouns, and this article already uses the correct pronouns. The concerns over "deadnaming" are irrelevant per the current wording of MOS:GENDERID. The perpetrator is not a living person, and the remainder of MOS:GENDERID only deals with living people. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biden ice cream criticism

It's been added and removed a couple of times now. A consensus for inclusion needs to be established on this, so starting this discussion. Per WP:ONUS, could editors in favour of including it please state your reasoning for inclusion. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see in any sort of world where that addition would be DUE and not just a random POV WP:COATRACK violation. SilverserenC 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These rationales against a "blue side" are expected. I do strive to overcome public misconception of bias regarding Wiki. with everything I do on here, but with politics.. WP:WEIGHT, selectively, continuously skews one way.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially "his supporters claimed that his jokes were taken out of context" — numerous reliable sources that neither support nor oppose Biden have stated that it was taken out of context, because it objectively was. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is needed. Some sources don't mention it as I didn't hear or read about it on National Desk news or ABC news. CNN has no mention of that. This is my first-time hearing about that part. A source here does. https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-bidens-gaffe-about-ice-cream-and-nashville/a-65159845 Cwater1 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable Silent-Rains (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in article - I am in favor of keeping this controversy within the article. Every time a major mass shooting in the United States happens, the president usually reacts in the same way, & that same reaction is added to the articles on the shootings every time. Here are some examples since Biden has been president:

As you can see, all of Joe Biden's reactions to shootings consist of him feeling sorry for the victims & advocating for gun control. This differs from the norm, so I believe it is notable & should be included. Many media outlets, such as Snopes, USA Today, Politico, & others have mentioned this. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's some nice original research. Let us know when a reliable source says the same thing. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to say that my reply is original research? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of reliable sources in your reply implies that it's original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply sounds like original research to me unless you have a reliable source to support that claim. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not trying to put in a Wikipedia article that Silent-Rains is guilty of original research, so we don't need an RS. We can use our brains and Wikipedia's definition of original research. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must have copied the statement from the articles. If you add the sources, then it is legit. These are tips, see Wikipedia:No original research for more. Cwater1 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Silent-Rains: Please see WP:BURDEN. A09 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for statements: Oxford,[2] Sacramento,[3] Buffalo,[4] Uvalde (there's something wacky with that source), Highland Park,[5] Raleigh,[6] Missouri high school,[7] Virginia,[8] Chesapeake,[9] Monterey Park,[10] & Michigan.[11] Silent-Rains (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Silent-Rains Make sure you source statements. Cwater1 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwater1: I think that you might not get a response from your ping, so out of curiosity what source is missing? The reply above yours is the sources that Silent-Rains provided for the quotes above and I provided sources for Snopes, USA Today, and Politico in my ping to FormalDude below. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sources you provided now. I was reminding someone else that they should cite the statements. Cwater1 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see his response. I just noticed he did add sources. Sorry about that. Cwater1 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. No problem at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between actions following being informed and a reaction to the information. 2601:246:5400:7930:4C22:D3F5:D582:AC76 (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  1. ^ https://www.newschannel5.com/news/she-checked-her-instagram-she-didnt-expect-a-message-from-the-covenant-school-shooter
  2. ^ Chowdhury, Maureen (November 30, 2021). "Biden on school shooting: "My heart goes out to the families that are enduring the unimaginable grief"". CNN. Archived from the original on December 1, 2021. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  3. ^ Cullinane, Susannah (April 4, 2022). "Sacramento police hunt for multiple suspects after mass shooting leaves six dead". CNN. Retrieved 2022-04-04.
  4. ^ Ryan, Patrick (May 14, 2022). "'Pure evil': 10 dead, 13 shot in Buffalo supermarket mass shooting". WIVB-TV. Archived from the original on May 14, 2022. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
  5. ^ "At least 7 killed in shooting at Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois; person of interest in custody". www.cbsnews.com. Archived from the original on July 5, 2022. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
  6. ^ Shaffer, Josh (2022-10-14). "NC officials, President Biden react to 'tremendous tragedy' 5 deaths in Raleigh shooting". News Observer. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
  7. ^ Biden, Joe. "@POTUS: "Jill and I are thinking of everyone impacted by the senseless shooting in St. Louis – especially those killed and injured, their families, and the first responders. As we mourn with Central Visual and Performing Arts, we must take action – starting by banning assault weapons."". Twitter. Retrieved 2022-10-25.
  8. ^ Locklear, Robert (November 14, 2022). "'Get weapons of war off America's streets:' Bidens release statement after UVA shooting". WSET. Retrieved November 14, 2022.
  9. ^ House, The White (2022-11-23). "Statement from President Biden on the Shooting in Chesapeake, VA". The White House. Retrieved 2022-11-23.
  10. ^ Forrest, Jack; Pellish, Aaron (January 22, 2023). "Biden offers condolences to victims of California mass shooting, acknowledges the impact on AAPI community". CNN. Archived from the original on January 23, 2023. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
  11. ^ News 10, WILX. "President Joe Biden releases statement on the shooting at MSU". wilx.com. Archived from the original on February 14, 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2023.((cite web)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
@Silent-Rains: None of those suggest that Biden's reaction to this event differs from the norm, as you originally claimed. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to say that none of those sources suggest that Biden's reaction to this event differs from the norm, as I originally claimed? Silent-Rains (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't need one, because I'm not trying to put that into a Wikipedia article. Sources are open to interpretation, but you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a source verifies something it explicitly doesn't say, as anyone can read the sources for themselves and see that. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source says you don't need a source unless you want to put it into a Wikipedia article? What reliable source backs up anything you say?
If you need to violate a policy (being unable to provide a reliable source) to explain the policy & how it applies, you are likely using the policy incorrectly. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to edit anymore you could just voluntarily stop editing rather than being silly in an effort to get banned. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding that didn't get cleared up and spiraled out of control a bit. Hopefully the sources below that FormalDude was asking for get this back on track. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Honestly, your comment was a bit confusing to me, so it makes sense why the sources you got were not the ones you wanted. Here is sources for Snopes, USA Today, and Politico. Not 100% sure if these were the exact articles that User:Silent-Rains was mentioning, but I am somewhat confident. Hopefully this somehow helps someone. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: I'm not sure what's confusing, but I'll try to make it simpler. Silent-Rains is saying Joe Biden's ice cream comment needs to be included because it "differs from the norm" and they provided previous quotes from Joe Biden responding to mass shootings as 'proof'. The sources they provided, in addition to the sources you provided, do not verify that. We know Joe Biden said it, but that's besides the point because nobody is arguing that he didn't say it. The argument is that it is not relevant to this article. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was confusing to me was what sources you were asking for. (I actually went and pulled up the sources for the Uvalde comments thinking that you wanted them for some reason rather than looking at the linked articles for them.) And I think that was what derailed this whole discussion as Silent-Rains took it that you wanted the sources for the statements that were mentioned rather that the sources for what was said on Monday. (As for the last three sentences, gotcha. I don't see the point in including it, but at least we seem to be back on track.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I do have my suspicions of bias (in that I think that there would be significantly more support for including it if say DeSantis or Trump did the same), I don't this this should be included per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 04:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a Hate Crime

Shouldn’t this be labeled as a Hate Crime? KeysNC (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until such time a large swathe of WP:RS report on this, no, not really. The FBI still hasn't released the manifesto, and we don't know when they will. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcmastrpc: Apparently said manifesto isn't a manifesto: Authorities have yet to release what was written publicly. But TBI director David Rausch did talk candidly about the contents of the manifesto at a Tennessee Sheriffs' Association meeting. Rausch said what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. It can only be so if the motive is released and RS begin referring to this as a hate crime. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the calls for it to be investigated as a hate crime by congressional republicans be put into the article? Foward123456 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a new section discussing the possibility of adding congressional republican calls for the shooting to be investigated as a hate crime. Mainstream and reputable sources have published articles on this. Thoughts? Foward123456 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that republicans are inquiring about this as a hate crime. It’s widely published and the important for the reader to understand all aspects of the reaction. I’d say to put it in the reaction section only. 47.200.110.84 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ofc. But as sadly usual in WP the same people are trying to pull their ultra-politized POV in order to hide facts. Been happenning in WP since years ago... HCPUNXKID 08:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reason why I would list this as a hate crime. It was an attack on a CHRISTIAN CHURCH. If it was an LGBTQ event, it would have been listed as a hate crime immediately, like the Pulse shooting. But then again, we'll have to wait for the manifesto Rzzor (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except it was a Christian school, and the shooter was a former student. At the very least, that throws some doubt into whether it was a hate crime; if it's possible for Adam Lanza to engage in a mass shooting at his former elementary school without it being considered a hate crime against children, then it's surely possible that this shooting wasn't a hate crime. Of course that's not to say that it won't be considered a hate crime in the future! We'll have to wait for more information, assuming it comes.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

blank links

any way to fix the links? 71.223.94.49 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what links you are referring to. If you could reply to Slatersteven's question in the original discussion, it would be preferable. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale

See also: § Deadname, and § Request for Comment: How should the perpetrator be named in the article?

An editor has repeatedly sought to remove the birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, of the perpetrator.[2][3]. Please discuss. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS I asked WWGB to revert their restoration, which they refused to do. Again per ONUS, I have removed the content again from the infobox. As ONUS quite clearly states the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, editors seeking to include this content should state their reasons why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been there since the article was created and at this point onus should be on those wanting exclusion. The inclusion is DUE bases on its use by sources. Please self revert to stop this edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we just gonna throw MOS:DEADNAME out of the window now? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DEADNAME does not apply. The person is not living. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of logic is this? Brianna Ghey was murdered, yet we don't post her deadname in her article. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above at #Deadname, it's clear that MOS:GENDERID needs to be changed to reflect what editors seem to think it says but doesn't. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean what it should say? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific instance, I don't think it's at all inappropriate to use the birth name. The specific circumstances all tend towards acknowledging what even current sources are saying around this event. Like our sources, we use his preferred pronouns, and we acknowledge the masculine name he chose. But this person became notable under their birth name, and that name is still widely used. WP:DUE applies here. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't feel too different to me than if his name had been misspelled due to error at the police press conference. Aidyn instead of Aiden. I see no reason to keep inaccurate information that stems from an error made in a press conference and the initial rush of reporting. Filiforme1312 (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would the press conference actor's choice to identify by birth name constitute an error? Wikipedia may have taken that stance on gender, but the rest of the world is not obligated to adopt Wikipedia's policies. "Wikipedia says misgendering is bad" does not render an external source's choice of language/exposition inaccurate. 66.219.203.205 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is an error in the sense that it was not his name. Ill refrain from commenting on misgendering being bad or a form of harassment as this is WP:NOTAFORUM Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except our reliable sources are continuing to use the "misspelled" name. You may believe it's a mistake, but our sources do not. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are paragraphs in MOS:DEADNAME that do not apply, but the following are clear and do apply.
MOS:BIRTHNAME
A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article.
MOS:DEADNAME
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Filiforme1312 (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, both of those are within the "living" portion of the guideline and therefore do not apply. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can apply to dead people given that the basis of it is BLP (cf WP:BDP) but in this case the person was first notable by his deadname. We include deadnames in such cases EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're using the second clause of GENDERID, for a trans person whose name was notable pretransition (which is very arguable in this circumstance), the guideline still states (as well as the commonly used practice of it) that we should only include the deadname once, in the article lead. Including it elsewhere, like in the infobox and article body is still disallowed per it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this and have reverted back to the status quo. If Sideswipe9th wants to remove the birth name, they should get consensus to do that. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy language says, If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page. Emphasis added. This killer is dead, and therefore the policy language does not apply. Plus, the "deadname" of this indisputably dead person was the name by which they first became infamous. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point on the deadname of the deceased being the name by which they became infamous, so the second criteria of the deadname guidance applies is arguable. While it is true that Hales deadname was widely disseminated by the Nashville police and press, he had already transitioned at that point at which he killed his victims. Though unconventional, it is the case that until Hale had carried out this shooting, he was not a notable person, and his notability comes from the shooting.
As for the guidance not applying because it only applies to the living, the guidance itself is to treat pretransition names as a BLP privacy concern, and per WP:BDP such concerns are still valid for 6 months to 2 years post death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the guidance itself is to treat pretransition names as a BLP privacy concern... for living transgender individuals. You keep ignoring that very clear and obvious detail from MOS:GENDERID. If you want it to say something else, I suggest you start an RFC or a discussion at WP:VPR. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the BLP policy continues to apply for a time period after the death of the subject, any BLP privacy concerns also continue to apply for a time period after the death of the subject.
I am not ignoring that the guidance states living, and in fact that is something that has concerned me for a significant period of time and why I started a discussion on this two days ago. However even in the current version of the guideline, there is an inline link to BLPPRIVACY for treating the deadname of trans and non-binary individuals as a privacy concern, which carries with it the implication that we must continue to treat it as a privacy concern insofar as BDP continues to apply the BLP policy to dead persons for a period of 6 months to 2 years after their death.
I'll also add that several of the editors who have opposed removing the "living" qualifier from GENDERID, at the previously linked discussion, do still agree that the protections provided by it do continue for a period of time after death. And that the closure of the 2021 RfC on a similar proposal for non-notable deadnames also clearly stated that BLPPRIVACY based concerns, like the one we are discussing, continue for some time after the death of the individual. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the BLP policy continues to apply for a time period after the death of the subject, any BLP privacy concerns also continue to apply for a time period after the death of the subject. Only for people that we are uncertain are dead. We are certain this person is dead. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=Aiden%20Hale,Audrey%20Elizabeth%20Hale&hl=en
Notoriety was gained with their original name. Google trends show orders of magnitude more activity on the 'dead' name of this murderer everyone is trying to respect for some reason. 2601:246:5400:7930:4C22:D3F5:D582:AC76 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out what part of WP:ONUS states that the onus on exclusion of content is the responsibility of those who are seeking to exclude it? Because it actually states the opposite as I quoted in my initial reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop using logical fallacies? As you've been told already, our sources use the name extensively, and it thus satisfies WP:DUE (which is part of WP:NPOV, which states at the very top: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.). The policy you should be concerned with here is WP:CON, specifically Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. The birth name has existed in this article since the very beginning, and discussions around that have not resolved to remove the birth name in the time since the event occurred. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how asking for the part of the policy which supports your favoured actions over mine is a logical fallacy.
However even if you wish to ignore ONUS in favour of CON, that multiple editors have both disputed and reverted the content means that any presumed or implicit consensus the content previous had is now gone. And ONUS, BLP, and STATUSQUO state that disputed content should remain absent from the article until there is a consensus for inclusion, and not that the content should remain in the article until there is a consensus for exclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a transmasculine editor, I believe it is appropriate to mention Hale's deadname once - and only once - in this article since that's the name under which he gained notability, even though it appears he was no longer going by that name at the time of the shooting. I acknowledge that this is a delicate subject, but this is an unusual case given the circumstances. Funcrunch (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that this is certainly an unusual case. I feel reasonably confident that no-one can successfully deny that Hale had transitioned at some point prior to the shooting, and was going by Aiden Hale. Despite the widespread use of Hale's deadname by the Nashville police and media covering this event, I would strongly argue that Hale was not notable under their deadname, because at the time he started shooting he was not using his deadname.
However I do recognise that both the police and media continue to use Hale's deadname in their ongoing content in relation to this shooting. In these circumstances, making an exception to treat Hale's deadname as a notable one could be warranted. If that is the case, then there should still be only a single mention of it in the article's lead, per the standard application of GENDERID across all applicable articles. Hence when I made my revert last night, I removed the deadname from the infobox but not the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th Whether someone is notable under a name and whether they personally use that name are different questions. She was and is known by the name Audrey significantly more, regardless of whatever preferences she had. 2600:740A:3:144:927:F32C:A0DC:7ECC (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The GENDERID guidance as applied is based not on what name is notable for a trans or non-binary person, which would be a form of a WP:COMMONNAME argument.
Instead the guidance as applied is actually based upon what name the person was using at the point at which they became notable. This is why we have separate guidance and examples for trans and non-binary people who were notable either prior to or subsequent to their transitions. For this article, at the time that Hale started shooting, he was using the name Aiden. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The birth name/dead name serves no purpose, and any further addition will be removed per WP:DEADNAME. It is your responsibility to seek consensus no matter how long the name's been there. The sources only use the name because the police incorrectly identified the shooter and the person is trans, thus it became notable, otherwise there's no purpose for it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy That's not how we do things here. You can self revert, or we can take this to WP:AN/I where I think a strong case for blocks can be made for some editors here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how it works. You must resolve a dispute first per BRD, not edit war which you are doing. And other policies also apply, not just consensus. Your arguments that "sources use the name" don't satisfy WP:DUE. The name must serve a purpose, it doesn't. Also you aren't scaring anyone. Stick to discussion, not threats. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cite WP:BRD (which is an essay, where WP:CON is policy), but you fail to realize the Bold change was removing the birth name. You've been reverted. Now the burden is on you to discuss under that paradigm. Instead, you're edit warring to maintain what you prefer. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is cited in WP:CON itself, WP:EPTALK and WP:EW for dispute resolution, it's not just an essay. So you trying to game the system isn't going to work. Also "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." You still haven't shown what purpose the name serves other than being mentioned by others. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to tell you this, but pretty much every single thing you just said was wrong... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you're citing a name as WP:DUE because it's mentioned by sources. I'm still waiting for an answer on what purporse it serves. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Identification. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the only person here with a strong case for a block is you, @Locke Cole. Your uncivil attitude, combined with your insistence on inserting a deadname to an article about a crime a (now dead) person committed (and the person wasn't notable under the former name, no matter how much the name was reported), is the kind of things any other editor would immediately get indeffed for. You have a long history of blocks (hell, you were banned once), so you're already on thin ice. I'm trying to be as civil as I can, but it's hard when editors like you do changes against policy (reminder that WP:BLP also applies to recently deceased people, and this is still the case). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, @Funcrunch has a great point - the shooter was first reported under his deadname, so it should be mentioned, but only once. What I'm getting from Locke Cole's comments, however, is to use the former name more than once, which, again, is against MOS:DEADNAME. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree — while I see the rationale for removing his deadname entirely, I can certainly understand why some mention of it might prove preferable in this specific set of circumstances. Using it more than once, though... even setting aside MOS:DEADNAME, doing so would smack of WP:UNDUE weight. ● 2600:1700:87D3:3460:85C5:CB26:A7AA:3D4A (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Locke Cole is also violating the policy of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH by implying the editors are not being neutral, as he has done by placing a neutrality template. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hale wasn't in the public eye when alive. Many mainstream media outlets reported Audrey & Aiden as the shooter's first name, so both should be included in the lead, ibox & Perpetrator section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there has yet to be a discussion related to this template shouldn't it be removed per WP:WTRMT #8? Filiforme1312 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTRMT #8 is in reference to silent consensus, no? I don't feel that's been achieved. Is there something else I'm missing? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality template specifically talks about article content, not editor conduct. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI for those involved: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Remove_the_"living"_qualifier_in_MOS:DEADNAME Some1 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given its wide coverage it would seem odd not to include it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven Wikipedia doesn't include subjects just because someone covered them. WP:NOTNEWS. Does the name have any purpose beyond being a dead name under which Hale was erroneously identified as? I haven't seen anything such to warrant the inclusion of the name. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously mentioned, it's fine in the lead (see my suggestion in #Page protected), but nowhere else, if we go by MOS:DEADNAME (which still applies since the subject recently died). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as we need to point out to any reader who has read the "wrong name" this is him. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(which still applies since the subject recently died) Saying something over and over again does not magically make it true. It's quite literally inapplicable at all to this page beyond the concern over which pronouns to use (which this article, as written, abides by the perpetrators gender preference for pronouns). Whether they recently died or not is irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Page is briefly protected to slow the current edit warring and allow the above discussion to proceed in peace. Obligatory note that this is not an endorsement of the current version, which is merely the one in place at the time this was acted on at RFPP. Protection can be lifted as soon as there's a rough consensus on the naming, but if this is done by another passing janitor can they please also remember to restore the underlying semi-protection which was applied to fix a different issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say I'm not satisfied with the current version, even though it is technically mine - I should've searched for sources for the deadname. As for how I'd rather have it phrased, the second sentence should read Local resident and former student of the school Aiden Hale (formerly Audrey Elizabeth Hale) killed three children and three adults. (with refs inserted accordingly). It matches other BLPs I've seen (most notably, Elliot Page's). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by a banned sock
))
Thank you for protecting the page. Recruitment was going on, Sideswipe seems to be one of the people brought over and disruption was rampant.Justanother2 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justanother2 do not accuse others of bad faith or malfeasance without diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look them up for yourself, it's all in page histories.Justanother2 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having trouble with Wikipedia's policies ans guidelines despite your 1.5 year tenure here. Read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What EvergreenFir said. If you have an allegation against another editor the onus is on you to provide the proof. If you can't, or don't want to, then don't make the allegation. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notify

Inappropriate for this talk page. Go to one of the noticeboards. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let all know, whoever is paying attention at least. I declare that this article has been taken over by "special interests" who in the guise of seeking consensus seek to change both history and the news. This article is a train wreck of journalism practices and a dumpster fire. Justanother2 (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justanother2 Ah yes, making sure a dead person doesn't get called the wrong name is "changing history and the news". Sure, buddy, whatever you say. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request (adding link to legislator expulsion)

Add link to 2023 Tennessee House of Representatives expulsions in the text as so: "Jones and Pearson were officially expelled from the House on April 6, with the vote to expel Johnson failing by a single vote." MSG17 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2023 Nashville school shooting. There is consensus that "2023" should remain in the title, at least for now, per WP:NCE; there is also consensus that "Nashville school shooting" is more recognisable than and better reflects the sources than "Covenant School shooting". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


2023 Covenant School shooting → Nashville school shooting – This nationally & internationally highly-publicised mass shooting easily fits WP:NOYEAR. The national & international mainstream media use Nashville in their titles far more often than Covenant. Very few people (other than locals) would refer to this as the Covenant School shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Nashville's only notable school shooting. 2023 Nashville shooting & 2023 Nashville school shooting would both be better than the current title, which isn't the common name & won't become it. Covenant doesn't indicate where in the world it happened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't have an article doesn't automatically make the other school shootings in Nashville non-notable. It's also possible that the reason that we don't have articles on those shootings is that no-one was particularly interested in drafting and creating them.
The pertinent questions to ask are: in the past have articles on the other shootings been created and sent through AfD? And for the other school shootings in the city where the answer to the first question is no, are there sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG or the relevant SNG?
Doing a quick Google News search, on the surface there appears to be sufficient sourcing to create at least a stub/start class article on the 2018 shooting at Pearl-Cohn High School. I've not checked the others however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take a glance into this and was able to find two dozen potential sources for the 2015 dice shooting in about 15 minutes. (If anyone wants me to link them somewhere, feel free to ping me.) I do feel that the most noteworthy school shooting involving Nashville was this one, but that is a different argument than the "only notable school shooting" one. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Columbine wasn't in a town called Columbine, after all. Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support but specify the year (2023) Both the current and proposed title seem fitting for the topic at hand, with a preference towards a modified proposal which would include the year the shooting happened, which is 2023.
Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full protection?

It seems a bit overkill for a dispute that should of went to the talk immediately... 38.240.226.81 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoild have but didn't, alas. Anyway, discussion is here now. Full protection is a significant inconvenience for other editors, so hopefully consensus will be reached (or at the least, edit warring will become less likely) and the protection can be removed early. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, there was over a dozen reverts in a 48-hour period, so it isn't surprising that this went the WP:GOLDLOCK route. (Honestly, this might just need to go to WP:BLPN to figure out what to do given how long the primary discussion has been going on for and the reverted edits both showing a lack of consensus.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to a BLPN discussion would be an RfC. Something relatively simple, with two questions like: 1) Should we include the deadname of the shooter? Yes/No 2) If we include the deadname, how many times should it appear in the article? Once in lead/Lead + infobox/Lead + body/No limit; would cover the primary issues of the underlying disputes.
Obviously question phrasing and !vote options should be workshopped before launching it, and my quick wording is by no means optimal and just for illustrative purposes only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound much better than the noticeboard as it focuses more on the problem in the article than the edits made. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's try an RfC. We have to put an end to this squabble ASAP, whatever it is. Love of Corey (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think calling the birth name a "deadname" might be a little leading, as with "real name", but don't think I've heard of anyone having a problem with "birth name". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there is a disclaimer under the suggested questions that the phrasing was not optimal. If you would like another suggestion, then maybe something like:
"How should this article refer to the perpetrator's name?: (A) Option 1, (B) Option 2, (C) Both Option 1 and 2, (D) Custom response
In what format(s) should the name be mentioned?: (Q1) In the Lead? (Y/N); (Q2) In the Infobox (Y/N); (Q3) In specific sections? (Y/N); (Q3 Follow-up) Which section(s)?"
I believe it might be better to suggest different wording for Sideswipe9th's proposed format as mine seems more clunkier, but feel free to take ideas from it. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I took it more as an invitation than a disclaimer. Your idea's good, too. Just change "perpetrator" to something with half the syllables and significantly more precision, like "shooter" or "killer" or "subject", and it's refined. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're both (Super Goku V and InedibleHulk) correct. It was a disclaimer that my wording was not idea, and an invitation for others to propose alternative phrasings and questions.
On Super Goku V's proposal, my biggest concern with the first proposed question is that having at least three options, with the ability to write in more, would make an overall consensus almost impossible to determine. What I see as the benefit in my proposed version is that the first yes/no question deals with whether or not the deadname should be included, and then separately if it is to be included how frequently should it appear. That makes determining a consensus for inclusion/exclusion easier, because it's a straight yes/no, and then if there's a consensus for inclusion we can then have a separate consensus for how it's included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the format you've chose, and with InedibleHulk's changes I think such a poll/RFC might at least show us which way editors are leaning on the specific points (especially the "In what format(s) should the name be mentioned?" (which I'd change to "In which parts of the article should the name be mentioned?")). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V, InedibleHulk, and Sideswipe9th: Can we address Sideswipe9th's concerns and start an RFC in the next 24 hours? We're over two days into the full protection with no end in sight for the core issue (which I think question two covers well enough). Assuming no action on this after 24 hours, I may just run with the questions (with the slight modifications suggested by InedibleHulk). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC needs to be very specific. We are debating whether or not the deadname should be mentioned beyond its first occurrence in the article. Where it should be used again is secondary to the question of if it should be used again. If an RfC leads to a consensus that it is appropriate to use the deadname more than once, then we can talk about where it should be included. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see a WP:PAG-based reason to limit the number of times we identify the perpetrator by their birth name. I've seen a lot of misunderstandings of MOS:GENDERID and WP:BDP however. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you have tried to dismiss MOS:GENDERID by claiming it only applies to living people, when in fact it also applies to recently deceased people. Regardless, this can be discussed in an selective RfC about including the deadname more than once. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when in fact it also applies to recently deceased people [citation needed] —Locke Cole • t • c 15:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're unaware that our BLP policies apply to living or recently deceased people. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the consensus for that? Oh, right, there isn't any. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus Locke Cole is WP:BDP, and WP:NEWBLPBAN.
Starting with NEWBLPBAN as it's the simplest. That arbitration decision states plainly All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic. (emphasis mine) This is why earlier today FormalDude issued a contentious topic alert on your talk page, which contains the sentence This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. (wikilink and text derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert)
Now for BDP. BDP has two parts to it for when we currently extend BLP policy beyond death. The first part, which reads Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 9 April 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. covers people who have not had a confirmed death, and is most typically applied to missing persons. It operates under the presumption that until we have a source that states otherwise, we consider that person to be living until 115 years after the date of their birth.
The second part, which reads The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. is the application that matters to this article. Hale is a person who recently died, almost 14 days ago, and we have reliable sources that confirm he is dead. The standard practice across almost every biography of a recently deceased person that I've ever edited is that at minimum BLP will continue to apply for 6 months, and that consensus can extend it further as needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a minimum, it's just the first length given, as an example. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of WP:NEWBLPBAN whatsoever (other than what appears to be a veiled threat). With regard to WP:BDP: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. (emphasis in source) The bold, italicized part reads first. An exception is available, however: the policy can extend based on editorial consensus. Where is that consensus here? Finally, how do you tie this (assuming you demonstrate consensus for BDP) back to MOS:GENDERID given that it explicitly states "living"? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For how this ties into GENDERID, please see the sentence Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.
For only [applies]] to contentious or questionable material, the very fact that prolonged discussion on this point, as well as full protection of the article being necessary due to many editors adding and removing Hale's deadname proves that this is a contentious point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the pre-notability language is indeed there... after explicitly stating it applies to "living" people. I note with interest you've yet to point out the editorial consensus WP:BDP explicitly calls for. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking within the realm of explicit statements and not implicit statements, apart from yourself and Kcmastrpc at 18:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC), I'm not sure there are any other editors saying that it doesn't apply. I'm not counting ToBeFree's comment, as that was in the context of an administrative move they had made, and said that it's an editorial decision not an administrative one which they weren't making at that time. If there are editors who have said it, could you point out their names and timestamps of comments please?[reply]
Conversely there are multiple editors explicitly saying that it does apply: Pokelova at 04:16, 28 March 2023, EvergreenFir at 05:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC) and 05:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC), LilianaUwu at 08:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC), FormalDude at 15:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC), and myself multiple times in this discussion alone. The only thing we don't have from that is for how long, but BDP does default to an indeterminate period of up to 2 years so... Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also of relevance to this discussion, I would like to draw your attention to the February 2022 Gloria Hemingway move request, and the January 2021 post death discussion on inclusion of Sophie (musician)'s deadname.
Both of these discussions touch on the relevance and applicability of GENDERID after the death of the biographical subject. In the case of Hemingway, a significant number of sources include and continue to include her deadname and use he/him pronouns in respect to her. The Sophie discussion was on whether or not Sophie's deadname could be included in the article after death, as at least one reliable source published Sophie's deadname. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt BLP policy can be applied here for the simple reason that the murderers birth name is neither unsourced or poorly sourced, if you set aside that this article isn't a BLP and the concerns regarding BLP (living) can't apply either.
Hale became notable under their birth name, regardless of the circumstances around it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As both the WikiProject banner shell at the top of this talk page, and the text of the BLP policy state, the policy applies to all biographical content, on any page, anywhere on Wikipedia.
As for Hale being deceased, please see my reply immediately above to Locke Cole on the two parts of WP:BDP and WP:NEWBLPBAN and how they apply to biographical subjects for a period after the subject dies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I more or less agree with FormalDude. As I see it there's two questions that need to be resolved. Do we include Hale's deadname? And where should we include it if we do?
The only reason I believe the first question is necessary is that there are some editors who believe we should exclude it entirely. While I'm reasonably confident that an RfC on the first question will reach a consensus that it should be included, it is nonetheless important that we should ask it so that if it does find consensus for inclusion and an editor removes it later, we can direct them to the results of that RfC for why it was restored.
The second question is a natural follow on to the first. If we're including it, where do we do so? It's also implicitly asking how many times do we mention the name, as a !vote for "in the lead only" is equal to once, or a !vote for "in the lead and infobox" is equal to twice. If instead we were to ask explicitly "how many times do we use Hale's deadname in the article?" then we would also need to either ask a third question for the locations, or have subsequent discussions after the RfC is closed on that point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to launch the RfC today, or tomorrow, it's still going to take thirty days to run. With it being Easter, taking a couple of days to get this right seems like a more prudent idea.
With regards to the full protection however, if we can reach a rough consensus to leave the article in its current state with regards to Hale's name, until the RfC has been closed, then I'm sure that we could convince an admin at WP:RFPP, or the enforcing admin if they're active, to reduce the protection level so that other editing of the article can resume. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: happy to do this if there's a rough agreement from the regular contributors in this debate not to edit war over the name while the discussion takes place. There was an earlier unrelated semi-protection which will be reapplied when full protection ends. Or full protection can be briefly continued if the name issue continues to be heated in the article itself. Whatever works best. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus I think the early results so far below are supportive of unprotecting this page. If editors engage in edit warring at this point it should be handled via blocks (whether a WP:PBLOCK or full block I suppose is up for debate). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to have the page unprotected. Can we get an agreement to return to the status quo pending the outcome of the RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If by status quo you're referring to the version that had Hale's deadname in three places, I would oppose.
The current version is the most wrong, as it only includes the deadname once (wrong for editors who want it to appear multiple times), and in the wrong place per GENDERID (should be once in the lead only). Regardless of whatever consensus the RfC finds, this is simultaneously the least likely, and version that would cause the least harm. As a temporary wrong version, it's surprisingly perfect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: Ah, sorry, I was taking a short break due to the holiday. It looks like the discussion was resolved and the RfC was launched without needing me. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC below is answering the BDP question, your proposal is more than welcome still. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: On the query about it being a potentially leading term, deadname is standard terminology when referring to the former name of a trans or non-binary person. So standard in fact that it's was added to the Oxford English Dictionary as a noun (deadname) and verb (deadnaming) in June 2021. You can also find it in the current editions of Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Collins, and Macmillan dictionaries. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that. But a significant portion of the people we have asked and will ask don't or won't buy the underlying premise. It may seem "crazy" (or some better word) to you, but from the other side, this was a recently and deeply emotionally disturbed woman and the name the police use is the name she still had and used when she died. I think "birth name" allows for either possibility. Of course, you may not want to allow that, and that's understandable. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised. As the rather lengthy discussion timeline at MOS:GIDINFO demonstrates, we have had many RfCs and RMs on the topic of deadnames for both living and deceased trans and non-binary people. Using the term deadname in the RfC question is pretty standard and straightforward, even considering what Hale did.
If however you're still concerned that the term might confuse uninvolved editors, we can solve that by wikilinking deadname in the question, and possibly even including "former name" in parenthesis after. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was never concerned that uninvolved editors might be confused. I said I think involved editors don't or won't buy the underlying premise. Multiple reliable sources relay the fact that minutes before killing six people, this person signed a final message "Audrey". Many more attest to the fact that investigators, after digging deeper into the details than any of us have, consider her a dead woman and use the appropriate pronouns, despite everything many editors rightly believe about trans or non-binary people as a group. So far, I've seen no indication that anyone who knew her in life treated her like a guy called Aiden, though a few read that (after beginning her downward spiral last August) she would have wanted that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the Instagram message that News Channel 5 includes in their article, it was also signed Aiden and from an Instagram account with the name Aiden. That's pretty conclusive proof that Hale wanted to be referred to as Aiden.
I've seen no indication that anyone who knew her in life treated her like a guy called Aiden Sadly this is a very common reaction many trans people face when they transition. When this happens, it's a form of identity denial, as any person who engages in this is refusing to respect the self-identity and self-determination of the person who is saying "I am trans/non-binary, my name is X, and my pronouns are Y/Z". As a form of misgendering, when done intentionally it's one of the more egregious personal attacks you can engage in against that person. Putting my speculation hat on for a moment, but if Hale was being intentionally deadnamed and misgendered by those around him, that alone will have been a significant impact on any mental health issues he may have been having in recent months. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a parenthetical statement is less important, an optional alternative to the primary form of any describable thing. It suggests this, while proving nothing. And, again, I am part of a group who believe we are using the correct pronouns, same as your group. We don't consider it misgendering to call a woman "she" or "her". Only a man, of any kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have clarified my statement. "Useless" because not much is being achieved, and "unnecessary" because it won't result in anything anyway; we're going to need a more formal discussion for changes to actually take place. I believe now is the time for an RfC. If the RfC fails, something else can be proposed, and so on, instead of simply waiting. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the very first sentence of WP:RFCBEFORE states, RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. We're far better served by workshopping the RfC question(s) now, and then holding a hopefully single successful RfC, than risk holding multiple unsuccessful ones until we finally achieve some sort of consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting the RFC

A clearly written RFC is best, but even an RFC is better than none at all. Hopefully this version is serviceable enough for all the questions we need to ask, without bogging the discussion (about the RFC itself) down another few days.
I also plan to merge that RFC with the one already existing on this page, but we can cross that bridge when we get there.
Inviting comments from @Sideswipe9th, InedibleHulk, Love of Corey, Super Goku V, Locke Cole, and FormalDude:. I think that's everyone who had opinions on RFC wordings.
Soni (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni: Option 2 should probably be removed because it will almost certainly not pass. You could also clarify what "3a 3b 3c" and "4a 4b 4c" mean. Those are my only recommended corrections. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni: That is a terribly confusing RfC with way too many options. And there's already a consensus for the pronouns, see the FAQ. All the RfC should do is cover the base issue. I'd recommend the following:

The article currently mentions "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" once in the perpetrator section. Other mentions of the perpetrator (in the lead and infobox) say "Aiden Hale". How frequently should "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" be mentioned in the article?
A. Not at all. Do not mention "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" at all in the article.
B. Once. (Please specify where it should be included)
C. Mention it more than once. (Please specify where else it should be included)

And merging it with the existing RfC? I've never heard of that. Just make it a separate RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both RFCs are interlinked and to me, it makes sense to have them both run as subsections of the same RFC, as opposed to keep running multiple RFCs on this page every single time we have to establish consensus.
That said, your current wording is much better than mine, and I'll recommend just using that instead. I suspect we'll have editors still go back and forth and suggest adding more options, but my main concern is no longer needed. (We'll not have an RFC even after days of people saying "We should start an RFC") Soni (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni: The RfCs are related, but it is fine to have two RfCs at the same time, and it will prevent confusion. Anymore than two and I would probably agree with you. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude Understood. I still think 2 is still one too many, these not-policy-not-guidelines things can be hard to judge, especially without precedent (If there is precedent I am not aware of, please do point me).
Either way, we have a reasonable enough draft, so let's focus on that and getting consensus out before we have time for another tomats of conversation. Soni (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with FormalDude, the proposed RfC in Soni's sandbox is too complex, with too many options. It would be very difficult for a consensus from the RfC to be determined as its basically seeking the answer to two separate and distinct questions in a single question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soni's survey is not balanced. The Aiden-only supporters will all vote for option 1, but the Audrey supporters will split across options 2, 3 and 4. That is weighted in favour of option 1. While I prefer Dude's simpler question, it also splits the Audrey-voters between (B) and (C). There should be one question to establish if it's "Aiden only: or "Aiden + Audrey", then a supplementary question (if it's to be Aiden + Audrey), how often and where should Audrey appear? WWGB (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Like this?

How should the perpetrator be named in the article?
A. "Aiden Hale" only
B. Use both "Aiden Hale" and "Audrey Elizabeth Hale"

If B, how often should "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" be mentioned?
C. Once (please specify where)
D. More than once (please specify where)

––FormalDude (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (and sorry about the accidental rollback). WWGB (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both names should be in the ibox, lead & Perpetrator section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal would work well for me. It treats the two questions on which names to use, and how often should Hale's deadname appear in the article as two distinct questions. Determining the consensus to the first question will be easy as its an either or. Determining consensus for the second question might be easy, but it will depend on how many "more than once" location variations are specified. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack?

Wouldn't this be classified as a terrorist attack according to Human Rights Watch? Dwasirkaram (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwasirkaram which reliable sources label it that way? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the statement that was made by HRW was: Kids have a right to be safe at school. Nothing else to my knowledge. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

Remove the NPOV tag ((npov|talk=Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale)). This is not a major neutrality issue for the entire article, so that tag is inappropriate. Their birth name is already mentioned, the disagreement is on mentioning it more than once. Add ((Under discussion inline)) to the perpetrator's name in the infobox since that is what is being disputed. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's also about mentioning the birth name in the lead. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then add an inline tag to the name in the lead. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orrrr, we can get an RFC started and resolve this instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should start an RfC. We should also remove the NPOV maintenance tag as it should only be applied to articles that seriously lack a neutral point of view, and that is not the case here. This is primarily a MOS issue, and as such, all that is needed is an ((Under discussion inline)) tag. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When our article deviates on the most basic topic of identifying someone from what our sources say, that is a neutrality concern. Did you have more chairs to move on the deck, or are you done? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does identify someone from what our sources say. How many times it should be mentioned is not a neutrality issue, it is a style issue. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV. Since you didn't know, apparently. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The shooter’s former name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, should be included in the lead alongside their preferred name, Aiden Hale, and should be referred to when relevant, such as when she was initially identified by the police by her former identity. A lot of reliable sources which have been listed here and cited throughout the main article also refer to the shooter’s former identity, which further strengthens this argument as Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view.
Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested how you know about RS and NPOV when you only joined Wikipedia today. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to joining Wikipedia, I had read through talk pages of various articles as I was interested as to the discussions and various opinions that editors had on different subjects - naturally, that led me down to the shortcuts which some of these editors posted which pertain to Wikipedia’s policies, and I read through them, which includes the one on NPOV. This talk page was actually the reason why I created this account as I wanted to give my two cents on some of the discussions that were/are happening here. I presume you think that I’m a sockpuppet account and I can’t blame you - after all, most new Wikipedians don’t read through the policy extensively, like I have done, at least that’s the assumption you made of me that I’m going off of. Look at that, I just made an assumption! Oh dear… Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasslaywikia Can I interest you into maybe giving your thoughts in Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting#Is_the_NPOV_tag_appropriate? where the same discussion is being had, but in a more structured manner. I think this section is pretty redundant now, so to speak. Soni (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I’ve already expressed my views on the matter under the discussion tab there, but I’ve yet to cast a vote, which I’ll do so later. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah cool. I did not notice the comment in the discussion tab. Soni (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should the perpetrator be subject to WP:BLP extension per WP:BDP?

The perpetrator of this mass shooting is confirmed dead. However, that death is recent. Should WP:BLP be extended for the perpetrator as allowed by WP:BDP (Support extension, Oppose extension)? And if so, for how long (six months, one year, two years at the outside)? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does that have to do with whether BDP would apply? Being notable for one event doesn't then create an exemption from BLP and subsequent BDP protections for contentious information. SilverserenC 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for BLP, this feels like a very clear cut application of "Why BLP should apply to the recently deceased". This is an extremely charged event and understandably high profile. However, our BLP standards are what our standards are, and there's a clear requirement for BLP extension as well (To quote WP:BDP, Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.). There is already enough contentious material (including the gender identity), and there's every expectation there might be more. Apply BLP, and continue on with rest of article.
Soni (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: How should the perpetrator be named in the article?

How should the perpetrator be named in the article?
A. "Aiden Hale" only
B. Use both "Aiden Hale" and "Audrey Elizabeth Hale"

If B, how often should "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" be mentioned?
C. Once (please specify where)
D. More than once (please specify where)

Background: The article is (at the time of this RfC) under full protection, and mentions "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" once, in the perpetrator section. Other mentions of the perpetrator (in the lead and infobox) say "Aiden Hale".

Discussions that lead to this RfC: § Full protection? • § Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale • § Deadname.
––FormalDude (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • B and D - Reliable sources already refer to the shooter’s original identity, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, and was initially identified as their original identity by the police before the discovery that they identified as a trans man and went by the name of Aiden Hale. This is notable enough to warrant the inclusion of the shooter’s original name where relevant, and to say that it’s not worthy of being included goes against maintaining a neutral point of view.
Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

(further discussion on this comment moved to Discussion) Soni (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Yes, those are my actual words. There, they meant every dead and every trans person has a unique set of circumstances and should be treated as individuals. I believe the same about living and cis people. Or Spanish and old people. Or x and y people. Whether or not the leader of al Qaeda even had a gender, I'd still disrespect that person for the deeds. You seem intent on painting me however you want, regardless of what I say, so I don't want to talk with you anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a painfully obvious deflection. But hey, easy way to prove me wrong: Feel free to let me know of a single cis person whose gender identity you refuse to acknowledge.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a difference between acknowledgement and encyclopedic documentation. We can wax philosophy on the policies that govern wikipedia all day (which is what we're doing here), but do you genuinely believe that we should disregard what a significant majority of sources reported on in the first 24 hours of this event because of how strongly editors feel with regards to identity politics? I don't dispute that Adrian/Aiden quite likely felt that he was a male, but that doesn't change the fact this tragedy happened and the controversy that erupted due to that reality. We can only go on what a significant number of reliable sources have reported and I don't see how there is any injustice in documenting what has transpired. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, as I indicated in my above vote—I don't think we have to wax philosophy on Wikipedia policy to figure out how the shooter should principally be addressed. On that subject, WP:GENDERID is pretty clear—and it explicitly says "what is most common[ly]" reported does not matter. The only question is whether his deadname should be mentioned at all—on that point, I do think GENDERID is a bit ambiguous (for the reasons I noted above), but, if the portion that applies to living people doesn't apply, I would favor a single mention as to address potential reader confusion. I haven't really seen any argument that multiple references to "Audrey" are needed to avoid reader confusion. I have to admit there are portions of your comment I don't really understand. "I don't dispute that Adrian/Aiden quite likely felt that he was a male, but that doesn't change the fact this tragedy happened"—no one is saying it didn't?—"and the controversy that erupted due to that reality"—once "Audrey" is identified in the lede, I'm not actually sure why that controversy requires mentioning "Audrey" to be explained.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Which RS say Audrey is a deadname? I tried Googling. Found Tik-Tok, Twitter or worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all the sources that say Hale was a trans man who went by "Aiden". That makes "Audrey Elizabeth" a deadname by definition. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strange how no reliable sources say so, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, the sky is blue, but here's one. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Hale’s LinkedIn profile was still listed under their dead name." That's so contradictory. Is HITC even reliable? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for a source that specifically calls it a deadname, or are you just looking for a source to see if the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID applies? Since this page is for discussion of the Wikiepedia article and not general debate about the subject, I assume the latter:
  • The Tennessean source in the article is pretty squarely on point for the latter (says she identified as a man a used male pronouns, which settles the question of whether male or female pronouns should be used per the first paragraph of GENDERID);
  • Further supporting that, as you've noted, the police have said the shooter identified as transgender (and of course GENDERID concerns itself with "self-identification".
  • This Dallas Express article, in addition to the also supporting the aforementioned, notes she preferred the name Aiden
  • This CNN article, relying on a teacher source, said that, within the last year, the shooter publicly made a request on FB to be referred to as Aiden and use male pronouns.
  • And of course there are the other sources that documented Hale's use of male pronouns on LinkedIn and Facebook.
Hope that helps. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Preferring one name or set of pronouns isn't the same as not using or tolerating the other. Does any source say she stopped using "Audrey"? Because plenty say she used both the last time anyone heard from her. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the claim that she still used female pronouns? If so, by all means share! Otherwise, it would seem to be speculation that contradicts declarative statements like "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns." (Tennessean)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I said she used "both", I meant both names, so no. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, so we're on the same page in the sense that we both agree that GENDERID requires use of "he/him" pronouns when referring to the shooter. Glad we're making progress!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already used them in the article about fifty times before it was locked. Enough about pronouns. I was trying to verify whether RS identified "Audrey" as a deadname, by that word or otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Iamreallygoodatcheckers's !vote above)

Arbitration remedy suggestion

Maybe the best course of action is to have this article extended-confirmed protected for a while after the full protection expires to discourage edit-warring. Once consensus is reached and the article is stable it should be lifted. 212.29.41.197 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly the warring was occurring amongst all EC users, so I don't know how effective this approach would be. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's AR Comment

Biden said that Hale used two ARs in his original report to the public. You have in the Uvalde shooting page that Greg Abbott messed up the gun in his report to the public. Why no mention of Biden's mess up here? 2600:1700:19E0:EE00:647B:6D93:C39A:C7DA (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something that should be removed from the Uvalde shooting rather than added to this one. It's a trivial, trivial detail. Red Slash 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The inaccurate initial statements by Texas authorities in response to the Uvalde shooting is not at all comparable to Biden possibly being incorrect about a weapon. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just reread the Uvalde one and you're right, the situations aren't comparable at all. Red Slash 16:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I'd note though that the situation of Robb Elementary School shooting is fairly different. It's well accepted that the law enforcement response to that shooting was terrible. This was then compounded by incorrect information being provided by law enforcement and associated officials both about the shooting and their response in the immediate aftermath. While Abbott is fairly disconnected from all that, he too has blamed officials for giving him incorrect information that he relayed. Probably the gun detail still doesn't belong but it's possible it does there while not here since the situations are different. 01:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 April 2023

Change ((npov|talk=Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale)) to ((npov|talk=Request for Comment: How should the perpetrator be named in the article?)) as this points to the RFC that should resolve the need for the NPOV template. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for that change. And your oppose here appears to be purely vindictive with no basis in WP:PAG, let alone dispute resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Sideswipe9th, LilianaUwU, myself, and now Soni all agree that the NPOV banner is inappropriate and should be replaced with a inline tag. You're the only one claiming otherwise. Consensus is not a vote, but it's highly unlikely that one user is right and everyone else is wrong. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your hot take on dispute resolution is to pretend the dispute doesn't exist? Fantastic. How are you still here with that attitude? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of bad attitude, pot, meet kettle. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sticks and stones. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ashes to ashes, funk to funky? We all know Major Tom's a junkie. (I'm getting sidetracked here.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what's being said: As I understand, FormalDude is saying that the dispute can be sufficiently captured by an in-line tag, not that the dispute doesn't exist.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, it was placed appropriately. The litany of discussions above, and the RFC's that are running, are evidence of that. I oppose removing the tag while the issue is still being discussed, as one of the points of placing that template is to draw other editors attention to the topic. An inline tag is far easier to miss/ignore. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion veers into redundancy
A content dispute does not an NPOV tag make.
Per Template:POV, Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. has not been met in my opinion. You dispute it, of course, but I suspect you'd dispute almost everything said by others.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. This talk page is a massive wall of text that drowns out every other conversation, but I have not seen clearly what you think breaks NPOV. And more importantly, what WP:RS support your purported POV. All I see is a straightforward content dispute that you're escalating using tags that do not apply.
Wanting greater scrutiny does not itself make it okay to put a tag that does not work. You won't go around putting a WP:CENT notice or a Watchlist notice just to draw other editors attention to the topic. Also, since any argument in this matter is a massive timesink, I shall not be making any further replies to you. Soni (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already discussed the rationale for including the NPOV further up. I won't be re-litigating this again when it's just the same flawed arguments. The template is on the page, I'm merely asking that it be pointed to what is the current relevant discussion, the RFC itself. If editors want to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to posture over the tag again, go for it, but it won't be with me. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I found all your assertions in the section above lacking in policy and without merit. There were multiple (3? 4?) editors that disagreed with you there. You were practically the only one arguing against. The discussion got abandoned after 9 levels of reply-and-counterreply. Please do not attempt WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Soni (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 April 2023 (2)

I realize that this edit request relates to the above debate, but I think this aspect would be noncontroversial, as it only pertains to which sources are used after a claim and not the article text. I'm specifically concerned about this line:

Police initially identified [Hale] as a woman using his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, but authorities later reported he was a transgender man.[27][28][29]

Request: I'm actually not sure if it's Wikipedia policy to order references by number as opposed to weight (or degree of substantiation provided):

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit protected)) template. Izno (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize a consensus was needed for objective failed verification fixes? I'd point out that no one has objected to this request despite it being a very contentious talk page, but I assume that if you're finding a lack of consensus, then you oppose it? Hey if you don't care, I won't : ) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I opposed it, I would have said so. :) The changes suggested are reasonable on their face, but having a couple people agreeing that they're desirable in this context, since you admit it pertains to above debate, is a good way to get changes instituted by someone working the edit request queue. Izno (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake—I misinterpreted! Hopefully someone else sees this section and double checks the sources—to be honest, I imagine the substantive text will end up being modified in some way after all the debate settles out, which will probably necessitate altering the citations slightly, so I'd guess the failed verification sources will only stay up for a bit no matter what.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 April 2023 (3)

On reactions, mention Nashville Predators player Ryan McDonagh staying home to be with his daughters since her school was close to the shooting site and him rejoining later. 159.115.9.45 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is trivia and does not improve the article. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the NPOV tag appropriate?

We've been asked to come to a consensus, and I'm sure we're all tired of back-and-forths. Please add your !vote to the subsection below, and keep replies in the discussion section so that a clear consensus can be developed from this thread. Also, as this has been hashed already multiple times, probably keep !votes shorter. Soni (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes

Discussion (NPOV tag)

Any replies, replies to replies, and so on, go here. Soni (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open question to editors who think this is a NPOV issue. How and why is it so? How is using the name that Hale chose, the name that Hale had been using and had been requesting that people use for about a year a NPOV issue?

As a counter perspective, I would tentatively agree that it would be an NPOV issue if the dispute were over a controversial descriptor or label that we were applying to Hale. But using his name doesn't seem to rise to that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th It's not inherently an NPOV issue. I'm just referring to the fact that some are arguing that not including the shooter's former name (deadname) will not render the article neutral in perspective (especially when considering the fact that it isn't even mentioned once), possibly meaning that a neutral article wouldn't entirely exclude the deadname. I'm not saying I agree; I personally don't care. Yet if someone feels this isn't neutral, the inclusion of that tag is then justified. The tag itself simply states "The neutrality of this article is disputed", which is indeed a fact. And this won't be solved simply by adding ((Disputed inline)), as it is clearly obvious that this possibly involves more than just one or two mentions, depending on the results of the RfC. The NPOV tag is rather technical, really. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
especially when considering the fact that it isn't even mentioned once: That strikes me as a slightly strange argument since the shooter's birth name is currently included? So the NPOV tag is there because a hypothetical future version of the article might be objected to on NPOV grounds?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Struck that mistake, sorry.) Well, you do have a point there. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV. Our sources do not support the trans name to the degree editors here are pushing it, and omitting or censoring the birth name is likewise pushing the needle on neutrality against our sources. It's NPOV 101. But I see we're still doing the deck chairs thing, so on we go... —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting dead trans people, as much of a murderer as Aiden Hale was, is not a matter of NPOV. Will you start deadnaming me once I die in 60-70 years? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is one of the core three policies on content. The others are Verifiability and No Original Research. The specific concern about naming here is WP:DUE. At present, our article deviates significantly from the breadth of WP:RS. I will not engage your attempts to make this a personal attack against you, as this article has absolutely nothing to do with you personally. You are not Aiden Hale. Please stop taking what should be a collegial discussion about process and trying to make it personal. once I die in 60-70 years I will be dead long before you, and regardless, if there were an article on you I assure you I would steer far away from it. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I continue, I’d like to preface this by saying that this is the first comment (or reply, take your pick) to an article’s discussion page, and I’ll be more than happy to learn more about Wikipedia’s policies!
Now, without further ado:
I think that this comment sums up why some editors here are in favour of using the shooter’s former name, in that they don’t want to respect school shooters, nor should they. The shooter’s preferred name and pronouns should be used through most of the article to maintain a neutral point of view and consistency with Wikipedia’s policies, and when relevant, i.e. the initial identification by police in Nashville, by their former name. To say that respecting respecting the shooter’s preferred identity is not a matter of neutrality is absolutely inappropriate - they must earn that respect, and if that person in question has murdered 6 people, including 3 children, then I don’t think that person is entirely deserving of respect.
Before I conclude this reply, I’ll say that, unless you’ve committed something as heinous as the Nashville shooter did, it’s unlikely that you’ll be misgendered, and if knowledge of your trans identity is lost as time goes on, then you’ll probably be misgendered, but this isn’t relevant to the shooting. This is not intended to be a personal attack, by the way - apologies if it comes off as one!
Also, I’ve referred to Audrey Elizabeth/Aiden Hale as a shooter throughout the reply to maintain a neutral stance on the matter and to avoid conflict in regards to their identity. This issue seems to be unresolved despite extensive edit warring and discussion on the issue, and consensus much be reached soon before everyone collapses of exhaustion. Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like using our editing as a punitive measure against individuals mentioned in articles. I dont think this is really appropriate in any circumstance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would second this. And, as I've pointed out in other discussions, even though masked in neutral language, the idea that we should use a person's former identity in order to avoid "respecting" them is, transparently, an anti-trans idea. How do I know this? Simple: Would the policy ever affect cis people? Would anyone support referring to Osama bin Laden as "she" in order to avoid respecting his gender identity? No, of course not. So the policy would only "punish" trans people.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say that we shouldn’t refer to Hale by their preferred identity, I said that the idea of respecting a shooter put some users off (me, for example) of referring to Hale by their preferred identity when editing. I only think that Hale should be referred to be their former identity when relevant - see my reply to Filiforme1312. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this alternate phrasal. It's not about "respecting the shooter" but about using principles equally on everyone, including shooters. We apply the legal system and justice regardless of if we respect the people involved. All laws apply to all people, including mass murderers.
Even outside law... Even if someone is a mass murderer, I would not make up falsehoods about them. That is also not about respect, but more about the general principles applied on myself (and kindof, all of Wikipedia editors). Not only is your concept flawed (because it invokes respect towards specific people as opposed to the principles on "ourselves"), it is also discriminatory (because it would affect only trans people you do not respect, not all people you do not respect).
So, as much as editor are put off by this idea, I'd respectfully say they need to get over it and focus on our policies at hand instead. Soni (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this alternate phrasing greatly. It was incredibly inappropriate to demand respect for a shooter, and this is what I was trying to say, however I got carried away because of how it phrased. Thank you for the more appropriate explanation. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t say so. While I think that Hale’s preferred identity should be used throughout the article as a matter of neutrality, I don’t see the reason why we need respect a shooter because of their identity. By punitive, what do you mean exactly? I don’t think this would be punishing as Hale’s former name would only be used where relevant, such as in the lead to establish that they identify as trans and anywhere else that’s appropriate, such as initial misidentification of Hale by the police. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont weigh how often to use a name based on how often it is used by RS Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally the opposite of what WP:DUE says about proportionality (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery). So, yes, we actually do. And right now our article deviates substantially from how sources cover the perpetrator's name. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: even if you're of the opinion that the deadname provisions of MOS:GENDERID does not apply, as Hale had changed his name months prior to the shooting MOS:CHANGEDNAME would apply. An argument could also be successfully made that because this is not a biographical article about Hale, the paragraph beginning A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. from CHANGEDNAME would also apply here, which would require us to use Aiden as the primary name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also MOS:SURNAME tells us that once we've initially stated the name, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offense to the MOS, but WP:NPOV still sits far above that in the order of things I get concerned about (and WP:CONLEVEL applies here too). I do agree this is not a biographical article on the perpetrator, but as they aren't notable enough on their own, we tend to effectively have a mini-biography in these types of articles on these subjects. The last name is fine by me, I've never said otherwise: my concern has been the removal of the birth name from all but one part of the article; as this article is dealing with the event and a mini-bio of the perpetrator, IMO it's appropriate to include his birth name in all three locations (lead, "Perpetrator" section, and the infobox) as this both satisfies WP:DUE and doesn't leave our readers confused by the name swapping if they come in via a redirect.
I honestly think MOS:GENDERID should be taken out of the MOS and made a part of WP:BLP. I do think the wording can be simplified to consider WP:DUE better as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On your last paragraph, feel free to suggest that at WT:BIO. The former might find some support, though I'm not so sure about the later. Though a discussion for that other venue, there are valid reasons for why DUE cannot wholly apply to the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals, particularly for those who were notable prior to transitioning but who transitioned either later in life or who transitioned after they "left the limelight" for lack of a better term, hence why there is the proviso that we always follow the person's most recently expressed identity, not their most commonly expressed one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the trick is making WP:DUE a temporal concern: e.g. for trans individuals, greater weight would be given to recent sources in so far as their gender identification and names are concerned. Obviously this would be reliable sources, so no consideration would be given to generally unreliable sources. Might be something to consider at WP:VPI and see if we can get these policies to stop fighting each other. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On your point of NPOV taking precedence over MOS:BIO, I would direct your attention to Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays#Policy pages outrank guidelines, which in turn outrank essays. While that is an essay, it is one that is prominently linked on WP:PAG as an explainer for the differences between policies and guidelines. On this specific point, MOS:SURNAME, CHANGEDNAME, and GENDERID would be the most relevant advice that would apply to the content under discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so that's why. So the tag isn't justified. I did not notice that. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An explanatory note in tiny font at the end of the article is a token inclusion that would be missed by most casual readers. Balance would suggest the birth name be included at least once in the main content of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB:, unless I'm missing something, Hale's birth name is in the main content of the article. It is included in the Perpetrator section, where it is bolded, and it is also included as a note appended to the perpetrator parameter in the template.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the article looked for quite some time, then repeated edit warring got us to where it is currently. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure how that pertains to what I said. WWGB said that the article only features the perpetrators birth name in a note—I pointed out that the article features the birth name in bolded text in the main content and in a note.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the previous revision and comparing it to the latest revision at the time this reply was written, there has been a noticeable degradation in the writing style used throughout the article - proseline, although not against the policies of Wikipedia, is often found throughout the article (especially in the aftermath section) and significantly degrades both the quality and readability of the article - surely the information where proseline is used can be condensed and formatted better? For instance, the lead could be rewritten to something to the effect of ‘The 2023 Covenant School shooting took place in Nashville, Tennessee on 24 March 2023, and was perpetuated by Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who identified as Aiden Hale[4][5][6] at the time of the shooting. Hale, aged 28, was a local resident and former student of the school, and killed 3 adults and 3 children during the shooting, which started at 10:11 a.m. CDT. He was killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officers at 10:27 a.m. CDT, which ended the shooting.
The details regarding the school, such as it being a PCA school, can be included in the background section of the article. I’m definitely unsure as to how effective this rewrite of the lead would be, but I’m sure it’s a good starting to improve the quality of the article. The most glaring issues as I’ve mentioned are the proseline paragraphs present throughout the article, which can be addressed in a similar manner - should a new tab be created for such a discussion? Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean at least part of your proposal directly relates to the debate above—in your version of the article, the shooter's birth name is given primary and first reference. As @Locke Cole identified above, there's essentially a consensus that Aiden Hale should be the primary name that we use to identify the shooter, but the remaining debate concerns how often to include the shooter's birth name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don’t mind either way - Aiden or Audrey Elizabeth Hale would sufficed as both are names Hale is known by, however I chose Audrey for the propose because it has had more coverage in reliable sources so far and is more notable than the shooter’s preferred name - I’m pretty sure a Ngram or Trends graph showed this and was posted here sometime ago on this talk page.
In terms of inclusion, I think Hale’s former name should be included when relevant, such as in the lead paragraph. Because of what @Locke Cole said, I’m now interested into seeing how the article’s quality should be improved - suggestions on what to do next, such as creating a new tab for this, can be discussed here or at my talk page. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is this relates directly to the debate being have above. If you can't isolate your edits from that issue, then we should wait until a consensus is established.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. I’ll have to agree with this - there’s no clear consensus on the issue and we should wait it out for now before we start thinking about improving the article. Thanks! Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU I seriously think the circumstances surrounding Hales demise warrant the discussion we're having now. Furthermore, using do you seriously... in the manner you did could be considered as a form of ad hominem attack, specifically a type of insult or ridicule fallacy. This type of fallacy attacks the person's character or intelligence rather than addressing the actual argument made. This isn't the first time I've seen it either [diff], and I recommend you seriously consider how you address other editors in the future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 April 2023

On March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School, ((a private Presbyterian school in Nashville, Tennessee.)) Local resident and former student of the school((,)) Aiden Hale[4][5][6], ((also referred to as Audrey Elizabeth Hale)), killed three ((students)) and three ((adult staff members)). Hale, 28, was killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officers responding to the incident. ((The shooter's social media presence later revealed that he may have identified as a transgender man)).

The Covenant School ((founded in 2001 as a ministry of Nashville's Covenant Presbyterian Church)), is a private Christian ((elementary)) school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville. ((It enrolls approximately 200 students from pre-kindergarten to sixth grade)). Macaroniandbutter (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not all of those edits are correct. For example, the comma in the second sentence (preceding Aiden Hale) is incorrect—it would be correct if the sentence read: "A local resident and former student of the school, Aiden Hale, ...." There's also suggestions that substantively relate to the above debates, and so this protected edit request would be premature.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't know that these edits went to the talk page, I thought it anonymously went to admins... I was trying to point out a few of the glaring grammatical issues because it's genuinely disturbing how badly this article is written from a grammar, clarity, and style standpoint. I was trying to provide some specific examples but definitely messed up with that one. My overall point is that someone needs to go over this with a basic grammar checker because it's not okay as is. Macaroniandbutter (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The line he may have identified as a transgender man is... ungood, to be polite. There's no maybe about this, he was a transgender man. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing full protection with consensus-required on name/gender issues

Hi all. Seems like there's a lot of progress towards consensus on naming and gender issues. Also seems like the full protection is obstructing a fair few unrelated edits. A couple of editors have asked if full protection can be removed, and one suggested using one of the contentious topic measures instead. So let's give that a try by:

What that means is people are free to edit any other part of the article but edits regarding gender issues - including but not limited to the use and frequency of use of perpetrators name/deadname and gender identification - that are reverted in good faith should not be restored unless there is a consensus for them on this page. We're a fair way through an RfC on this topic, which should be a good start. We may need further discussion if there are other gender-related issues that arise, but let's see how it goes.

If the above becomes messy and unworkable we can apply the full protection for a bit longer. Happy to discuss, particularly if anyone feels that edit-warring or other disruption is likely to resume. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best course of action is to be cautious. Looking at the talk page alone, it’s clear that there’s still a lot of debate regarding how Wikipedia should address the shooter’s identity, and I think removing the protection may reignite the edit wars if consensus cannot be reached, not to say that it will happen, but it’s a definite possibility given the strong opinions on the topic by both sides of the ongoing debate regarding the shooter’s identity. Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article"

What are those viewpoints this talk page are referring to? Trade (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it’s down to the disagreements about whether or not Hale’s former name should be mentioned alongside their preferred name, for instance, in the lead to distinguish their trans identity. There has been a particularly heated debate about this, with one side wanting to exclude the former name from most of the article - the lead being the only exception, with the other side wanting to include it elsewhere when relevant - some also say that Hale’s preferred name should be excluded almost entirely as well except for the lead and believe that their trans identity should not be taken into account in the article, although this seems to be quite fringe. Both sides have differing opinions on how neutral this is - the ones advocating for the exclusion of the deadname say that it’s in line with Wikipedia’s policies about gender identification, whereas the other side says that is not neutral because of the nuances regarding the gender policies on Wikipedia, as they only apply to living persons, not dead ones, at least that I’m aware of. Some, including myself, think that this is also because people done want to respect Hale as they’re a school shooter - although, reflecting back on this belief, this really pushes the boundaries of the definition of neutrality on Wikipedia. Personally, I think Hale’s former name should be included to some extent and I’m not sure why it’s gotten this far, with some personal attacks being dashed out to users from both sides. I’ll end this by saying sticks and stones may break my bones, but words never will. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the recruitment part? Trade (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I have no clue. This is starting to delve into the realm of conspiracy, but if there are editors from both sides recruiting users to participate in this discussion to support a specific claim one side has made, then not only is that incredibly disingenuous, but also a severe case of gaming the system, especially if this is being done on a relatively large scale. I doubt that these claims are genuine - yes, there is a debate, but to say that people are recruiting others to push a narrative seems incredibly far fetched. If you or another user genuinely think that this is the case, then please contact an administrator, as really, this starts to go beyond the scope that regular Wikipedia users can alleviate. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knightoftheswords281 (talk · contribs) added the ((recruiting)) template in with this edit. Maybe they can state what kind of recruiting they were referring to and where they saw it on or off wiki. ((Not a ballot)) might be better if their hasn't been any canvassing witnessed and it's only suspected. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, early on in this article's history, there were a mysterious and sudden dump of politically-motivated IP editors that spent most of their time cliquishly operating on this talk page, berating their opponents, calling for them to be banned, and vitriolically voting on hot-button discussions with poor, similar rationales, which led me to suspect that there was some sort of off-wiki canvassing occurring. IIRC, there was one comment in particular that really alarmed be, but atlas since this was several weeks ago, I'm not entirely sure. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281: you added the template on March 28 after a series of IP edits, and the page was eventually semiprotected on April 4. Do you feel that may have resolved the issue? We're nearing a critical mass of templates on this page, it'd be nice to remove one if it was no longer required. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been semi-protected and I've seen less IPs over all on the talk page (and virtually no disruptive ones). I'm not exactly sure that ((recruiting)) is one of those templates that is to be removed (it always came off to me as saying "hey, people have meatpuppeted on this article in the past, that's not allowed). If templates are getting excessive on this talk page, we could just use ((banner holder)) to compress them down. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template can be removed, but it's really up to you all. It'd be nice to reduce the header-spam, and I think banner shells sometimes encourage people to miss notices they should be aware of. But this is your page and your decision, I'm just the janitor. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat boldly, and somewhat per the discussion here, I've now removed the recruiting tag from the talk page header. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, I do think ((Not a ballot)) might make sense as WikiVirusC mentioned, but the recruiting thing doesn't seem relevant (at least not anymore). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we were going to stick ((Not a ballot)) anywhere it would probably be on the two RfCs, and maybe the ballotish #Is the NPOV tag appropriate? discussion. But I also don't think we're at the point where we need it, for the most part folks contributing at the moment seem to understand how consensus is determined. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe reduce the number of Wikiprojects listed? Do we really need both Wikiproject Death, Law Enforcement, Crime and Serial Killer taskforce? There seems to be a high amount of overlap Trade (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Knightoftheswords281 who added the template, the only editor I can recall mentioning recruiting on the talk page was one who was later blocked for being a sockpuppet, but the comments from that editor on recruiting all came after the template had been added.
Honestly I think we're safe to remove it at this stage. If Knights can't recall the exact reason for why it was added, and there doesn't seem to be any ongoing disruption with regards to it, then it seems like it's served its purpose. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was rather alarmed at first as there were implications of this still being an ongoing issue, but I’m glad to see that this isn’t the case. The tag should be removed and if the issue were to arise again, I suppose we could contact an administrator. Yasslaywikia (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least protect the talk page again IP's so we don't have to deal with this meatpuppeting again? Trade (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already semi-protected. This talkpage has never been protected against IP edits, and there's no evidence that IPs are currently disrupting it. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Authorities later reported that he was a transgender man”

Can anyone provide reliable sources for this? The previous sources cited did not explicitly state that. It seemed to be the media organisations reporting that he was transgender, not authorities. Providing sources (with quotes) clears up the issue. starship.paint (exalt) 04:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PBS: "the police chief said that Hale was transgender". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times stated that Nashville Police Chief Drake said the shooter was transgender. KWTX-10 stated that Drake said this in a "late afternoon press conference". Drake later repeated this in an interview with Lester Holt on NBC News Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. These are good enough. Though, there are additional pieces of information. Then at a late afternoon press conference, the police chief said that Hale was transgender. After the news conference, police spokesperson Don Aaron declined to elaborate on how Hale identified. / Officials “feel that she identifies as trans, but we’re still in the initial investigation into all of that and if it actually played a role into this incident,” Drake said. I’ve quoted Drake in our article. starship.paint (exalt) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the combination of media/police sources here, as the "but" / "while" statement didn't make sense. Plus, it made the most sense to group police comments on Hale's gender / gender identity with the police chief's comment. I'm a little skeptical of the current wording, which, by my reading, uses "Media sources reported" in order to cast some doubt on whether Hale was trans—(1) there's a weasel word issue with that phrasing, (2) every statement in the article comes from media sources, yet we don't include "Media sources reported" before every sentence.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: I reverted your most recent edit (which to be clear I acknowledge was in good faith), as it didn't address the weasel words issue (saying "including" and then listing the only sources cited doesn't change the fact that "media sources" is still weasel-y) and one of your wikilinks was to a paper that hasn't existed since 1970. For the reasons stated in my last comment, I'm also still a little concerned on the neutrality of using "media sources" there and "the media", but I realize using Template:pov statement would be the appropriate way to address that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caution. Reinstatement of the "who?" tag may be a breach of "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". WWGB (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be technical about it, you didn't revert my addition of the who tag—you deleted the tag when you attempted to address the weasel words issue. I did, however, revert your deletion of it. But all this is a bit too close to wikilawyering for my tastes. Seriously, I'm happy to have a substantive conversation on the weasel-words issue if that's what you're looking for.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Media ... reported" / "media sources reported"

I've removed the "After the shooting, the media reported" line from the lede. Formerly, we used that kind of phrasing twice in the article—once in the lede and once in the perpetrator section, and both times to discuss Hale's trans identity. But, in addition to being a bit weasel-y, that strikes me as an npov issue. Every statement in the article comes from media sources, and the vast majority come from after the shooting. Yet we don't include "Media sources reported" before every sentence. (Can you imagine if we did? "The media reported that, on March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School ...." "Media sources reported that the Covenant School is a private Christian school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville." Or what about "After the shooting, the media reported that Hale drove a Honda Fit to the school."?). I've replaced the fact of Hale's "local residen[cy]" in the lede with his gender identity, since its his gender identity that's gotten far more attention (and obviously the fact that he was a local resident is still mentioned in the perpetrator section). --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Hale's birth name is restored to the lead after the RfC, then reporting that he was transgender would be relevant there. As it stands now, we seem to be attributing a characteristic to Hale that has no direct relevance to the shooting. For the same reason, we would not add that Hale was White as it had no relevance to the shooting. I'm not suggesting that transgender be removed for now as it may ultimately be more "relevant" to the surrounding content. If, however, the RfC determines not to mention his birth name in the lead, then I see no reason to report his gender status there. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB, yeah I definitely see that as a potentially valid point, but I'm not sure it's necessarily implied. We also don't have anything to support the theory that his status as a local residence or his former attendance in the school was tied to the shooting (law enforcement officials initially said they were exploring the possibility that he held some resentment towards the school, but they've yet to follow up on that). And surely it's possible to just describe someone in a sentence without suggesting that there's a connection between that description and the remainder of the sentence.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories