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

Names of victims

Consensus that victim names should be included in some form. Importantly, it should not be as a bare list, and editors should take care to ensure that names are used in an encyclopedic way. There is a strong consensus to include Tate Myre and a description of his actions in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. An extended summary precedes the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 15 December 2021 (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.

The top-line outcome is that there is a consensus to include names of victims, but the specifics are much more complex than can be captured in a bolded sentence.

To start, the most recent project-wide discussion on naming victims in mass tragedies occured in 2018 with a prior discussion in 2017. The consensus of these discussions is that decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific needs of each article. These discussions are over three years old at this point, and editors have had multiple discussions on new and old articles resulting in many different local consensuses. Similarly, journalistic styles in coverage have not been static and the body of reliable sources with which we engage is not the same as it was in 2018.

The main argument against inclusion, here and in previous discussions, is that Wikipedia is not a memorial and so we should not include (lists of) names of victims without a compelling reason. Editors argue that (lists of) names do not improve a reader's comprehension of the article and so should be excluded. These arguments are supported by the previous requests for comment (which were about lists of victim names), personal intuition, and a general rejection of supporters' claims that they are informative for readers.

An important distinction participants made is that while previous policy discussions focused on lists of names of victims, inclusion is not limited to lists. Names can be included in an encyclopedic manner rather than as a memorial-like list. D.C. sniper attacks lists victims as part of a timeline of events. Azana Spa shooting describes the victims along with the actions they took to prevent or stop the perpetrator. The discussion was about whether the names should be included or omitted, not whether there should be a list. While editors in opposition are generally correct that our coverage should remain encyclopedic, comments which focus only on lists of names largely missed the point of this discussion.

Editors opposed to inclusion variously point to other ratinales such as not news and notability. These arguments are generally weak. Other editors point out that most of these citationsa re misapplications of policy. WP:NOTWHOSWHO for example says that Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Editors point out that journalistic sources on this event have largely included names of victims, and they point to scholarly and editorial resources documenting the justifications for this industry-wide change in editorial policy. Participants point out that this is a misapplication of our notability policy which itself states that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists.

Supporters of including the names argue that the names are helpful for readers, that reliable sources routinely report the names of victims, that having our article focus on (memorialize) the perpetrator only can have negative societal consequences, and that there is a de facto project-wide consensus to include victim names in some form. Participants generally foudn these arguments stronger than those in opposition, and this is reflected in the margin of comments with nearly 70% of comments supporting inclusion (16-7). To briefly summarize these arguments:

Wikipedia is a reference work, and if readers come to the encyclopedia looking for information on the victims (which is covered in other reliable sources), it helps them if we have victim names in some form. Reliable sources list the names of victims, NPR went so far as to do a profile on each of the victims. Scholarly sources have found that media which focuses on perpetrators rather than victims tends to inspire further acts of mass violence by memorializing violence (Lankford and MAdfis 2017; Meindl and Ivy 2017; c.f. WP:NOTMEMORIAL) leading to the Ethics Committee of the Radio Television Digital News Association recommending "Stories of the victims should be given much more weight than the story of the shooter. We recommend naming the shooter infrequently and only when only the name is critical to understanding the story." In our own articles, one participant went through and found that 87% of our articles listed the names of victims in some form with only 9 of 71 articles omitting them.

Given the margin and weight of arguments, there is a clear consensus that victim names should be included in some form. Importantly, it should not be as a bare list, and editors should take care to ensure that names are used in an encyclopedic way. There is a strong consensus to include Tate Myre and a description of his actions in a neutral and encyclopedic manner.

Our policies are not written in stone, but evolve over time through an iterative process of editing and discussion. Sometimes we formalize them in documents. Participants made arguments more broadly about changing editorial practices, consistency across our own articles, and what our own best practices should be. It was publicized on the village pump, the talk page of the Biographies of living people policy, the administrator's noticeboard, and briefly by RfC-bot notifications. On the one hand, there was not sufficient participation to change written policy, but on the other it was widely publicized and broad in scope. While this discussion is not sufficient to change wider editorial policy alone, it should be taken as strong evidence that consensus has changed. Editors should consider further discussions on the wider issues, and absent that consider the arguments made here when making decisions on future articles on mass tragedies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the names of the four victims be mentioned in this article? I understand that it's easy to research their names even if they aren't on this article (names are well-known by now), and I do feel that in a shooting with numerous fatalities, names should be mentioned (I looked at articles here and almost all of them describing shootings with multiple fatalities give the names of victims). Nonetheless, I do understand that this event is "ongoing"; the death toll could potentially rise and it may be too "early" to list the victims. Bowser498 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing convention that the inclusion of victim names is determined by talk page consensus on a case by case basis. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They should be named. Tate Myre especially, he is a hero. HumanHistory1 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dunutubble (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
During the past couple of years, we've excluded the names unless there's a consensus to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case Myre played an important role in preventing more shootings from occuring. I think that the consensus here is that they should be named.
In addition to that, we had no trouble mentioning Crumbley in this article, so I don't see why we shouldn't name the victims as well. Dunutubble (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely name people who've been charged with major crimes when backed by RS. Jim Michael (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Over 90% of mass shooting articles include victim names. They are relevant, notable and an integral part of the incident being described. Omitting them is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source on Tate Myre being a hero? I don't understand the context. Love of Corey (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A college footballer has been hailed a “hero” by teammates and members of the community in Oxford Township, Michigan, after his death trying to disarm a school shooter. Source: The Independent - Does that help explain the context? -Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another RS that describes Myre as a hero. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

below: I meant "every school shooting". Bowser498 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise that "almost every shooting in the last few years with multiple fatalities has included the names" is completely wrong. Here is just a subset of such shootings, none of which include victim names: 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, Collierville Kroger shooting, 2021 Colorado Springs shooting, 2021 Hialeah shooting, Indianapolis FedEx shooting, 2021 Orange, California office shooting, 2021 San Jose shooting, Haynie family shooting, Milwaukee brewery shooting, Rochester shooting, Aurora, Illinois shooting, 2019 Dayton shooting, 2019 El Paso shooting, 2019 Fresno shooting, Midland–Odessa shooting, Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, Orinda shooting, 2019 Río Piedras shooting and 2019 Virginia Beach shooting. WWGB (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of some that do: Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, Virginia Tech Shooting, Columbine High School Massacre, Ecole Polytechnique massacre, Ross_Sheppard_High_School shooting, Brampton Centennial Secondary School shooting, Bremen school shooting, Dawson College shooting, Kerch Polytechnic College massacre, Ma'alot massacre, Bacha Khan University attack (partially), Winnenden school shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Jokela school shooting, Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) (partially), Cologne school massacre, Azerbaijan State Oil Academy shooting, Port Arthur massacre (Australia), Kauhajoki school shooting, etc. Only one of them is not a school shooting (in contrast, most examples you gave were not). Dunutubble (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were written before the consensus was established a couple of years ago that we exclude victims' names. Jim Michael (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked on the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article and the names of the victims are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:3A98:9136:4F3F:5291 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:3A98:9136:4F3F:5291-I just did too. Not only were you right, but I also noticed that most of these articles were low-quality stubs. If we contrast pages that name their victims between those that don't, we can see that the longer and higher-quality the article is, the more likely it is to include the victims' names. Dunutubble (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were written before the consensus was established a couple of years ago that we exclude victims' names. You got a link for that "consensus"? Because as far as I know, the only attempt to do that was rejected... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Only one of them is not a school shooting (in contrast, most examples you gave were not)" – Is there an actual reason for that, or is it just coincidence? We need more than just observations. What makes the victims of school shootings more relevant than the victims of non-school shootings? And if you don't believe there is a difference, then why bring up the observation? Jim is probably right that many of those victim list inclusions occurred at a time when that was more acceptable; recent RfC's tend to go the other direction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The names (which mean nothing to over 99% of people) don't help readers to understand what happened. They were 4 non-notable minors who are known only for being killed in a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They may not have made major changes to the world, but in this particular case at least one student tried to disarm Crumbley before getting shot, and prevented other students from getting murdered. It hinders the article's quality if we can't add relevant information. It's like trying to describe an Elephant without mentioning the fact that it's alive. Dunutubble (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That info can be included just as well without stating the victims' names. Omitting their names doesn't force the omission of anything else. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suspected shooter & his parents are named only because they've been charged with serious crimes. Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that was the case, the article is unbalanced. In the article as it is now, Ethan Crumbley is named around 30 times, the Crumbley parents (one or both) are named around 15 times, and the victims are named 0 times. JJMM (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There is no Wikipedia "rule" that says every involved person must be named. The Crumbleys are notable because they have been accused of a significant crime. They allegedly did some things that made them notable. The victims just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They did nothing notable. WWGB (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great explanation from WWGB. An encyclopedia is not the appropriate venue to memorialize the fallen, even if doing so would be an honorable thing to do. An exception to this is when the fallen were specifically targeted for a specific reason, implying some kind of involvement or relationship with the shooter. If the only motivation behind listing random victim names is to offset the shooter's recognition, then that is a political and/or cultural motive, not an encyclopedic one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Research has shown that the amount of attention given to mass shooters correlates with increased imitation shootings. Wikipedia is not news but it is a type of online media. There is both scholarly and media research showing it is best to avoid naming mass shooters frequently, and only when critical to understanding the event. Therefore, the issue is not just that it helps to focus on victims/survivors (their names, stories), but also that it helps to name mass shooters less frequently and to give them less attention…despite the notability of the event. Review the following:
-"Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders" in American Behavioral Scientist
-"Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?" from National Center for Health Research
-"Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation" in American Journal of Public Health
-"A Call to the Media to Change Reporting Practices for the Coverage of Mass Shootings" in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy
-"RTDNA Guidelines: Mass Shootings" from Radio Television Digital News Association Ethics Committee
JJMM (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this research doesn't hold any weight, though I can appreciate the significance of it being performed. The correct path for change on Wikipedia is to embed that doctrine into some element of the site's P&G, before editors would expect it to have any effect on open discussion, especially in an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tate Myre specifically. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the closing comments at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting: "The inclusion or exclusion of facts from an article can be done selectively to promote or undermine a POV (opinion). Not listing the victims names neither promotes nor undermines any particular opinion. The arguement made is fallacious, in that it misconstrues the definition of a premise." Claiming a violation of NPOV, as you've done multiple times in this discussion, is an invalid argument. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closing comments there were written by a regular editor, walk me through why you think that editor is a better or more authoritative arbiter of the situation than I am? I'll wait. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In content disputes, even admins are "regular editors" when they participate, so I don't see the relevance of your comment. This is about an opinion I shared that I happen to agree with. I think it speaks for itself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted the closing comment as an appeal to authority. Someone else saying something doesn't magically make it true, more valuable, or even factually relevant/accurate. It might be true to them, but the logic behind their statement is completely false. Just as your appeal to authority is completely false. These events have victims. If the assailant had marched into a school with a firearm and shot four holes in the wall, we wouldn't even have an article on the subject. But four people died, and that is what our sources say, so we shouldn't try to decide on our own what is "cruft" (i.e. original research), we should name them and where relevant provide small details on who they were as our sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "This is about an opinion" implies that I'm making a declaration of fact? Stop reading too much between the lines and take a breather. You disagree with an opinion, and that's all this is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media sources also publish winning lottery numbers, and daily temperatures in cities. Wikipedia does not. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But how are their names relevant to the article itself? Myre's actions directly influenced the event, but these are simply victims. They aren't relevant, nor are they needed for a summary of the event. Sources have the most information about the subject, so they would include the names. Wikipedia, not so much. On the topic of what readers want, what about the parents of one? What if they do not want their name mentioned? I'm in no way declaring this situation as true or factual, but if we base what we include on what readers want, that means balancing the wants of everyone who reads it. I don't want to know the names. I don't think there's a benefit to including them. Both opinions on name-knowing have no basis alone. Every argument for inclusion boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT is explicitly an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and does not apply here. This is a matter of editorial judgement, though. If you'd like to do something more objective, how about we look to reliable sources that cover this event -- which generally tend to include the names. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it's like what, fifty characters?" – And venturing down that path always leads to the follow-up question: If including them is beneficial, then why bring size or space into the equation? Why would you ever say, "No, that's too many to list?" Where's the threshold cutoff? Would that be some arbitrary number? Should September 11 attacks be treated differently? Is 60 too many (2017 Las Vegas shooting)? What about 23 (2019 El Paso shooting)? Size and space seem like the weakest arguments, IMO, because significance for inclusion (if that actually exists) should easily trump it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: The sheriff's and prosecutor's names are appropriate as both individuals are significantly involved and notable gubernatorial figures in relation to the event (evidenced by each of their own separately standing articles). I don't see any mention of a philanthropist, but if they are a relatively "random" person, then I agree that their name should not be mentioned. I also do agree that the undersheriff does not appear particularly notable and if there wasn't so much controversy on this page, I would remove the mentions of his name right now. I will wait for some consensus on this thread before I make that move. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-- Discussion cont'd below at § Replies to !vote by Cullen328 --
I would support a broader discussion on a policy change proposal here: maybe there should be a more clear policy on when victims' names should be included. I understand that journalistic standards on this are changing, and perhaps WP wants to change its policies, too. If people are interested in such a proposal, let's create a discussion for that separately in Village Pump; this could help clear up the back-and-forth on this topic for the future. My heart pulls me towards mentioning the victims' names, but I cannot find the policy rationale for it at this time. If there was a policy I could lean on, I would want to support the inclusion of the victims' names. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The victims have been covered by name extensively in the media. In time, there will be better sources to validate use of their names on this page. Until then, a continued censorship of their names on here, because it is considered irrelevant, only decentralizes detailed information that can otherwise all adequately be sourced in one place on this page if allowed. If the information were not made widely available because of public interest, an argument for the relevance of naming the victims may have more ground. All four were also notable in the community and at the school for athletics, leadership roles, etc. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of them named by the media prior to the shooting? You say they were notable in the community & school; if true, they'll be named in pre-shooting local media articles. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Care to point us to the policy or guideline that says individuals mentioned in a mass shooting event must have received prior coverage? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that the list is offensive, so claiming WP:NOTCENSORED is a straw man argument. Others have unsuccessfully tried that in the past. See the closing comments at the Dayton shooting link I posted above. Also local notability, such as a passing mention in a local newspaper, isn't enough to change things. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their notability is established by being victims of this event. Full stop. Anything else? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor above was arguing that they were notable before the event, hence my response. Notability only covers article creation anyway, but for argument's sake, each victim would likely fail WP:1E if you tried to create an individual article for them. Being recognized for a single event is not enough by WP's standards in most cases. It's all a moot point, but interesting you chose to defend it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you correctly note, 1E applies to articles on said subjects, but this article is about an event in which those 1E subjects were involved. When Victims of Oxford High School shooting turns blue, 1E would be reasonable to invoke. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locke, I think you missed my point, and I'm pretty sure the editor didn't realize WP:N only applies to articles, not article content. Hopefully they know now. We can move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing anything is obviously going to prove difficult given the information their names are currently associated with. This also establishes a point as to why using their names is relevant in this article, or at least, has no legitimate grounds for removal if posited. If an argument against withholding names stands, than any redeeming content of character that may be inserted here to establish these people individually, is lost. I’m curious to hear an argument that presents the suppression of this information as valid from a logical perspective. As it has been argued for the victims, it now seems possible to remove the accused’s name without changing the context of the information on the page. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The victims shouldn't be established individually. They were ordinary people who are known only for being unlucky to have been killed in a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you are correct. While the reasons to include the perp's name are somewhat stronger than including the victims' (see my comment above), they are also weak overall. Were the discussion about including the perp's name, I wouldn't stand in the way of excluding it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then what justifies the use of names for similar recorded events, specifically Columbine. Given the structure of similar pages, there seems no clarity here. If no one adds the content, so be it. But I’m not seeing a clear article for removal after it has been added, which has occurred here multiple times. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ONUS. Attempts to add content are always permitted, but there's nothing stopping a reversion, in which case if that happens, you are then expected to discuss (as we are now) on the talk page. Also keep in mind that editnotices like this one can be levied when editors attempt to bypass discussion on such heated topics. It has been a big problem in the past. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victims' names should be removed from older mass shooting articles. They're included in many because the articles were written before we stopped including them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They should be included. The information is present in mass. They are now victims and subjects of a legal case that is now significant in American history. This is not a localized event. Their deaths alone should validate their significance for the use of their names on this page. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlucky is also a poor term is explain their demise. You have decided personally that this event is no more important than a local car crash based on that logic. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a localized event. No one is arguing that. If you take a look at past discussions that resulted in omitting the names, the same argument about mass reporting of the names didn't hold up as a sufficient reason. Newspapers and other "breaking news" publications rank lower than scholarly, academic sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlucky" seems to me to be the perfect word to describe their deaths. They were not specifically targeted and any number of other people could have been killed instead of them and it would not really affect the event. --Khajidha (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* ... and where is "luck" (or lack thereof) listed as a reason to exclude subjects of an incident/event in a policy or guideline? Keeping in mind that 90+% of articles of mass shootings list the victims by name, where is the justification for going against the long standing (and correct) tradition? The onus is on those wishing to exclude them to provide a valid reason for doing so, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locke, since you have participated in many of these discussions, I know you're fully aware that WP:ONUS covers inclusion, not exclusion. While we can make the same arguments used in other RfC's, their consensus do not have any direct bearing on the consensus in other articles, which is why we must go through this every time. You know all this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The burdens for inclusion have already been met: their involvement is easily verifiable, there is no dispute that they are the victims of this event, and neutrality dictates that we provide complete context of this event and not just a cherry picked description that severely favors the perpetrator and his family over the actual victims. With the aforementioned tradition firmly entrenched, again, the onus is on those seeking to exclude this information to come up with a convincing reason to do so. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Let's break down WP:ONUS...
"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" – This means that being verifiable is not enough on its own to satisfy inclusion.
"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." – The significance of the names is being disputed, not who the victims are. Those who want to include them must gain consensus per the policy. It says nothing about those seeking to exclude, because if no action is taken, or there is no consensus, the result is exclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I already indicated, the burden has been met as far as policies are concerned: the victims are verifiable, they are relevant to the topic at hand (as this article simply would not be possible without them), there is no doubt as to their notability within this article, and omitting them puts this article in severe violation of NPOV. Meanwhile, the arguments to exclude boil down to IDONTLIKEIT. Closers of these discussions tend to ignore !votes that amount to IDONTLIKEIT. Now do you have a more compelling argument than simply not liking them being named? Or is that where you're going to leave it? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are already in the article, under Victims. I agree that the article's existence is pivotal on the victims, but what about their individuality? Yes, the victims as a group are important, but are the persons who were victims important? WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 06:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see vague references to ages and some other dry facts. I see very detailed personal information about the assailant, including the exact make/model of the firearm used. Walk me through the logic of promoting mass shooting porn here? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since our side discussion has now consumed way too much space, I'll just say I think you and I both know if "ILIKEIT"/"IDONTLIKEIT" was the only argument for either side, past editing disputes would not have resulted in discretionary sanction protection of the status quo. And if ONUS only applied to those seeking to exclude, then the names would be allowed in while we discussed removing them. That's never how these discussions go. I will leave it at that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, there is no "ILIKEIT" for inclusion. For me it was always about balance and NPOV. We should also follow the sources, which absolutely do cover the victims in some exhaustive detail. Our article is the outlier, relegating the victims to a sidenode/footnote with dry statistics that appear deliberately crafted to take away any potential for personalizing it for the reader. You also seem to keep operating under the assumption that I said ONUS applies to exclusionists: I never capitalized it or wikilinked it. The burden is on those wishing to exclude to justify their position better than IDONTLIKEIT. Which is all we seem to have right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I responded above about why NPOV doesn't apply, so you may want to refer to that. There are also claims of INDISCRIMINATE and the desire to avoid cruft mentioned from those who oppose. Clearly this is not just a case of IDONTLIKEIT as you say. If this discussion were to end in a draw or no consensus, then the result is exclusion. So if the ONUS (or burden) of consensus truly fell on the shoulders of those opposing, then no consensus would result in inclusion. That is not the case, which is why you are misinterpreting how ONUS applies. You might continue to believe ONUS doesn't work that way, and well fine, that's your prerogative. I'm trying to gracefully bow out here, and these will hopefully be my final comments. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to a closing by a 3rd opinion who just basically name-called why they were ignoring NPOV concerns, a 3O by a non-admin/arbiter I might add. Hardly some damning indictment of NPOV concerns. The names of victims is not "cruft", any more than the name of the assailant and the make/model of the firearm used in the killings is "cruft". Stop trying to ignore our sources, NPOV and historical precedent to introduce bias into this article. ONUS applies to those of us wishing to include, yes, however, logically, the onus is on YOU to provide a rationale for ignoring our sources, ignoring bias/NPOV concerns, and ignoring historical precedent. There needs to be a damn good reason for that, certainly something more substantive than "cruft"... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the comment was made by an admin is irrelevant, and I disagree that the make/model of a firearm is a good analogy here. There are many benefits to a reader in knowing that information, but since I have consumed a lot of space already with my comments, I'm not going to delve any deeper into that. Please don't make unfounded claims that I'm ignoring sources. I am very much taking them into account. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the killer was specifically hunting these particular people, then their names are cruft. We name the killer because he actually did something. We shouldn't name the victims because they were just unlucky enough to get in the way of a bullet. --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The provision to consider victim names on a case-by-case basis was implemented in November 2017.[1] Any reference about inclusion or exclusion of names prior to that date does not take account of the current scheme. Also, case-by-case means just that. What is it about THIS incident that does or does not warrant the inclusion of victim names? Forget about WP:OTHERCONTENT and focus on this shooting. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus reading of that discussion by you and the closer is flawed: the discussion was about adding a line to exclude ALL lists of victims, and the oppose !votes clearly won out in that argument. Sadly, some !voters said it should be "case by case" (which I read as saying to maintain the status quo, not that we need to debate each and every article as a matter of policy). There is no consensus (nor has there ever been) for omitting victim names from articles describing the mass event they were involved in. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of policy/guidelines that cover the content in question, then it always falls back on WP:ONUS, which is why we're having this discussion. Go ahead and try to bypass this discussion if you truly believe it is irrelevant. Enough of those attempts will lead to an editnotice like this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even edited this article, knock it off with the veiled threats. Do better. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was not meant to be a threat, especially to you, and I apologize if it came off that way. You were saying that debate is not needed in every article about victim names. I was saying that is true UNTIL reversion happens. The comment "Enough of those attempts" refers to editors in general and not you specifically. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As information and resources are continuously made available about this event, resolutions for the display of this information will hopefully become more agreeable. That information has not been made clear yet. I assume the facts will necessitate themselves at the correct time. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they did something more than be in the wrong place so that they were in the path of a bullet, I can't see any reason for them to be named. --Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is easy: because our sources name them. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR dictate that we stick to what our sources say and not try to introduce bias into the subject just because some editors personally don't feel their names are valuable (which honestly says a lot more about the people objecting to their inclusion, but I digress). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to be included, 2) you don't want to know what the inability to let the dead rest in peace and constant need to remind the families of the worst days of their lives says to me about some editors. --Khajidha (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna leave the introductory paragraph of WP:NPOV here, as it's all relevant to your misunderstanding of this dispute:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

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.

As to #2, if it says anything other than being respectful to their sacrifice and their loss, then your perspective is skewed and you truly are hopeless. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like "...some editors personally don't feel their names are valuable (which honestly says a lot more about the people objecting to their inclusion...)" is a disingenuous attack meant to disparage reputation. That is uncalled for. Keep it civil. A disagreement over the inclusion of names has nothing to do with caring about the victims. I also have no doubt that if you ask any family member or friend how they'd like their loved ones to be remembered, it wouldn't be about their involvement in this attack. It would be for their impact on others, how they lived, and their life's accomplishments, not about the moment in time that all came to a tragic end. Other than for awareness to prevent future tragedies, it would be insulting to them to place more focus on that aspect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to include "their impact on others, how they lived, and their life's accomplishments," because there are editors who do not even want to include the names of victims. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can go to the sources to see how the families have dealt with this, and how the public is memorializing them. Meanwhile, we're here debating whether or not we can even say their names aloud while glorifying the assailant and his choice of firearm. You enjoy that imaginary moral high-ground, I'm quite comfortable with my perspective down here. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely accept that there are multiple viewpoints with good intentions. Editors' stance on inclusion, whether for or against, does not encapsulate how those editors feel about the victims. This is simply a procedural debate that will continue long after this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the accused glorified? Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding right? Assailant is listed in the lead, the infobox, repeatedly in the article prose (along with the accused family), and the weapon of choice is not only listed in detail, someone decided it was wise to include the image from the gun's page so we wouldn't forget which weapon was used. Meanwhile, we deviate from the sources and minimize the victims to just age ranges and severity of wounds. Oh, I forgot to mention that we helpfully rank the severity of the shooting so anyone keeping score at home can know we're really serious about making sure we rank killing sprees. Way to go guys, quality work here by all editors involved! —Locke Cole • t • c 01:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not glorifying; it's neutrally describing. None of the info in the article or sources promotes him. Jim Michael (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so far from neutral it's literally HILARIOUS to see you claim that it's neutral. Just... wow. Like I've said before, stuff like this seriously makes me question opposers' motivations. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you view it as non-neutral, you should say how. Simply declaring it as POV and then saying it's "HILARIOUS" when people ask you why is doing nothing and can be viewed as condescending and uncivil. Of course, the assailant is going to be mentioned multiple times, because that's who he is, as bad and terrible as he is. He shot. He is charged. So, yes, his name is going to be put more times than one. About the gun image, perhaps it is better to start another topic here about that, since talking it here would be deviating from the victim discussion. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can read all my other replies here, where I've gone over this numerous times. I'm not going to repeat myself for your convenience. As to the gun image, thank you for helping make my point about POV being hilarious. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we are promoting the shooters 'point of view'. A lot of content is going to stem from his actions because of what he did. But that doesn't mean we're promoting only his point of view. What do you think a neutral POV might look like, and what's wrong the current one? Perhaps with an example, we can adapt something.
As for your comment about the gun image, that's not imparting any real information to anyone, nor is it telling anyone how to improve it. If you would rather, I can start the topic later myself if you do not want to. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency being established here. There has also been little logical argument to legitimize censoring their identities -outside of emotional or moral appeal, and indifference - despite it being made public information and easily sourced. Without any bias being presented, this has become clear.

Their names being listed have nothing to do with memorials or personal opinions. Removing legitimate information, which has been added to an article, and is accurately sourced (multiple times), is counterproductive to the purpose of these articles. If no one adds it, fine. That has been the case for many similar pages. But, there are also pages where content such as this has been added, and it is considered legitimate. Here, attempts have been made to add this information, and it has been removed time and again. Currently, the page misrepresents the number of fatalities in the victim section as well. Any argument establishing a purpose for using the accused personal information, while the article is currently unable to present basic accuracies, is largely an embarrassment to the work being done here. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The victims were unknown to over 99% of people prior to being shot. How do their names help readers understand what happened? Jim Michael (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The victims were named in the vast majority of sources for this event, how does excluding them not violate NPOV? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have different standards & criteria to the media, who are businesses that chase (potential) customers. Excluding the victims' names doesn't introduce a bias. The article doesn't promote anyone. Jim Michael (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the article only presents the POV of the assailant, in often unnecessary detail, while relegating the victims (without which this event would not be notable) to dry statistics and ranking the number of them dead compared to other mass shootings (further objectifying them for the reader). This isn't complicated: it is 100% a NPOV violation as the balance of the article is almost entirely shifted to the assailant. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This mass shooting is notable, but not because of the identities of the victims. It'd be equally notable if different students had been killed & injured instead. Those killed were unlucky, and those injured also unlucky but to a lesser extent. The shooting - not the victims - is what's notable. Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This mass shooting is notable, but not because of the identity of the assailant. It'd be equally notable if a different student had shot up the school. This student was just the one who happened to take a gun in and shoot the school up. The shooting - not the assailant - is what's notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's also true. However, the shooter is central to this. Therefore the accused should be named but the victims shouldn't. The accused's parents usually aren't named, but in this case they are because they've also been charged in relation to the shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More central to this than the people who died to make the event notable in the first place? I think not. And our sources don't either. Stop trying to impose your point of view over that of our sources. Just because you think they are irrelevant doesn't somehow give you veto power over what our sources state. If anything, WP:NPOV says neutrality is non-negotiable and this entire exchange is just tilting at windmills for you and those like-minded editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"More central to this than the people who died to make the event notable in the first place?" The shooter and his parents would be facing charges even if no one were killed. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody had died, then we likely wouldn't even have an article on the incident. As to the parents and the shooter, they would be facing different (and lesser) charges if no one was killed. The event, as presently described, is not possible without the victims. And then there's the little matter of still needing to follow the sources instead of editorializing this and violating NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to !vote by Cullen328

Regarding your comment about trends, maybe we can stop that. Do we have a policy regarding crimes and detailing them? Perhaps a guideline? Would an essay suffice?
TL;DR 1. How are the victims important? How do we know?
TL;DR 2. How can we combat a poor balance of perpetrator-victim effectively? WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhoAteMyButter, you should not expect other editors to do basic and simple research for you. I posted a link to an NPR article covering the victims above. Try going to Google News and search for various relevant strings like "what we know about the victims of the oxford high school shooting" and variants thereof, and you will find articles like this one. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhoAteMyButter, Cullen328 does have an excellent point, but I did decied to look into your request for personal reasons. So, here is a list of the 46 references in the article that fits what Locke Cole mentioned. I also threw in a few additional sources from websites that are not listed as a reference.
Sources that mention those who died

1: Detroit Free Press - 2: BBC - 3: NPR - 4: WDIV - 5: CBC/Radio-Canada - 6: CBC/Radio-Canada (2) - 7: Detroit Free Press (2) - 8: CNN - 9: CNN (2) - 10: Detroit Free Press (3) - 11: NBC News - 12: CNN (3) - 13: Global News - 14: USA Today - 15: The Detroit News - 16: NBC News (2) - 17: WJBK - 18: Insider - 19: USA Today (2) - 20: Detroit Metro Times - 21: CNN (4) - 22: The Detroit News (2) - 23: Detroit Free Press (4) - 24: The Detroit News (3) - 25: WICU - 26: WJBK (2) - 27: CNN (5) - 28: The Independent - 29: Detroit Free Press (5) - 30: WJBK (3) - 31: The Detroit News (4) - 32: The Detroit News (5) - 33: USA Today (3) - 34: BBC (2) - 35: CNN (6) - 36: NBC News (3) - 37: CNN (7) - 38: WXYZ - 39: CNN (7) - 40: Newsweek - 41: MLive/Advance Publications - 42: Bleacher Report - 43: MLive/Advance Publications (2) - 44: Detroit Free Press (6)] - 45: Detroit Free Press (7)] - 46: Detroit Free Press (8) - 47: CNN (8) - #48: WOOD - #49: Vice - #50: The Manila Times - #51: CBS Sports

I hope that helps clear up the issue. If you have questions, a comment, or you notice an error, please feel free to reply after this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what point you are making. Are you saying multiple sources print the victim names, so Wikipedia should too? Well, the temperature today in Washington DC is in hundreds of newspapers, but you won't find that in Wikipedia either. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WWGB, but it is going to be 43°F today. :P For a sincere response, this partially goes back to the comments between Locke Cole and WhoAteMyButter. As you can see, an understanding was reached, but WhoAteMyButter made a request that they should have done themselves given the work involved. Additionally, there is a comment Locke Cole made in a separate section that was hyperbole, but got me curious for certain reasons. So, I decided to sate my curiosity. This had a number of positive results: There were a few references that were from the same source that needed fixing and there were some sources that were used when they not have been. But, the main thing is that it should satisfy part of WhoAteMyButter's request and it goes along with part of Locke Cole's point. (Only part as while it might not be too clear here, there was a decrease in coverage about those who died as coverage shifted more to those who are charged with having committed crimes.) Regardless, there was more than one reason for my reply. I hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really just compare murder victims to the daily temperature in a major metropolitan area? False equivalency, in case you don't know that you just used a logical fallacy.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I question why people are so set on naming victims in these shootings. You don't see people clamoring to get names of victims in to every earthquake, hurricane, or fire article. What is the difference here? Random deaths are random deaths. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I question why people are so set on ignoring our sources on these events. You don't see people clamoring to get the names of every single other minor person included because they just add them and nobody cares. But for some reason the victims are this huge issue even though the article would not be possible without them. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that everyone has their own reason, so I cannot really answer your first question. I will point out that there are those who are confused and baffled why only those who were shot were excluded from being named in the article. I will point out that it is hard to call it random deaths as it wasn't an Act of God event. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point, some of us are trying to understand why the information is being prohibited when there is clear evidence for its use in the article. The counter argument seems based largely on the fact that none of these people were significant prior to their deaths. If these deaths are random and insignificant, then why are they all over the national news? National laws and amendment rights are created or changed by events such as this. Again, this is not a localized event, and comparing names of victims of mass murder to the weather on the news is quite a stretch. Natural disasters also target indiscriminately. No one is putting a hurricane on trial for murder. And arguing the killer targeted indiscriminately is pure speculation at this point because further information justifying that position has not been made available yet. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about sources in general? On Google News, searching the event (with a limited date range of just before the event occurred):
  • 300+ mention the shooting
  • 300+ mention Crumbley
  • 300+ mention "Ethan" and "Crumbley" (quoted separately)
  • 290 mention Myre
  • 100-120 mention at least one of the other victims
So first it can be seen that not even a majority mention the victims (with the exception of Myre). Perhaps other searching methodologies will produce different results (feel free to add them below), but this is a good start. Aside from this objective observation, there is an inherent problem with relying on primary sources published close to an event's occurrence. Secondary sources, particularly academic in nature, are preferred to show how much detail from primary sources is retained over time. Those that are retained then qualify as having sustained significance. That is very difficult to judge early on when those sources have yet to be written. So naturally, we move to the question of how names benefit the article: Does their inclusion have any impact on the reader's understanding of the event? This is a reasonable question to pose in the absence of secondary source analysis. Some supporters attempt to answer, while others deflect saying the question is invalid to begin with. They cite the number of sources and NPOV as all the justification needed. But obviously not all sources are reporting the names, and the claim of having a majority even seems unfounded if the observation above represents a reasonable assessment.
In addition, we are told to: "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." This may very well be an appropriate "some case", but I think it leans more problematic in the sense that we keep having this reoccurring debate in mass shooting articles with only primary sources to keep falling back on. A newspaper article and encyclopedia article are two very different things. In a Venn diagram, there would be very little overlap.
And finally, while it's not a policy or guideline, it's worth reading WP:VL for some helpful insight as to how the inclusion of names seems to be more predominantly associated with articles written on US mass shootings. It appears be much less so in other English-speaking countries. That, of course, presents another interesting angle if accurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: you've linked one essay that does not have any consensus, while an essay to the contrary point exists (Wikipedia:Casualty lists). That you can easily find hundreds of sources including the names is not an argument against including them at all, many articles would be written about entirely different aspects of the shooting (for example, an article about police investigation or the parents being arrested would not have a great reason to mention them). We're trying to write a summary of the topic in general and clearly their names are a relevant part of the topic according to many reliable sources.
Can you please explain how excluding their names helps anyone? It makes our article less informative and requires it be worded in a less natural manner. Arguing about "significance" is a bit of a red herring here -- you haven't shown how it makes the article better to leave the names out. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the first point you chose to respond to was a side note about an essay. One little aspect within it is perhaps worth considering, maybe not, but let's not expand that to mean the whole essay. Seems counterproductive to counter something I wasn't even addressing and repeating what I said about not being a policy or guideline. As for the source count, anyone is free to do with that what they will. Hearing others refer to "the sources" as if they're nearly unanimous, or even the "vast majority of sources", warranted a quick comparison that doesn't quite vibe with the way those phrases were being used. We don't even have the WP:BESTSOURCES yet. All we know at the moment is that multiple primary sources report the names and multiple primary sources omit them. If you'd like to do a deeper analysis and further break down those numbers, please do.
"you haven't shown how it makes the article better to leave the names out" Speaking of red herrings, this question diverts from the actual task at hand which is: supporters must show how names improve the article. Verifiability isn't enough on its own when inclusion is challenged. Of the opposition, some may simply feel the details are trivial; they neither help nor hurt the article. It wouldn't make any sense to have to prove an article is made better by exclusion, and there is no such obligation.
"It makes our article less informative..." To date, no one has been able to properly articulate how adding names makes it more informative, so how can one possibly declare omission makes it less informative? How about clarifying for all of us what is so informing about the names and then maybe we'll get somewhere. More characters and lines of text does not automatically make it so. Stating "two men, ages 32 and 65, were killed in a vehicle collision" is just as sufficient as stating "32-year-old John Doe, along with 65-year-old John Hancock, were killed in a vehicle collision", only with less bloat that allows the reader to focus quickly on the details that actually inform. If you disagree, by all means, please enlighten us. You'd be the first to answer this age-old question that never seems to get answered in these debates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot)We need to avoid falling into the media trap of over-focusing on accused murderers and downplaying the victims.. Unfortuately that isn't a trap, nor is it something we can or should 'fix'. The names of perpetrators of awful crimes or evil deeds are almost always better known than the people they harm or rape or kill. That is often history, it isn't a "media trap", nor can we fix it. Only their family, friends and community are going to remember these names, but why should it be otherwise? What is achieved by memorialising the individual names HERE? Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, (and other editors supporting excluding these names), there is a core content policy based reason for including these names, and that policy is the Neutral point of view, which says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Emphasis added. In this case, the names of the four who died have been mentioned by hundreds of reliable sources worldwide, and the sources that have devoted deep, analytical coverage to this crime are far more likely to name the victims and describe them than those sources who provide brief, superficial coverage of this crime. Names carry weight. They have connotations and implications and create and strengthen memories. They are evocative. Readers appreciate names because they help bring topics to life. If we mention that a flood inundated four villages, readers want to know the names of those villages. If we mention that five creeks drain into a river, readers want to know the name of those creeks. We should always try to write articles that engage our readers in compliance with our policies and guidelines. I happen the main contributor to a Good article, namely Harry Yount, which went through a peer review process. I just reviewed that article and counted 24 other people mentioned. 12 are blue links with Wikipedia articles and 12 lack articles, but the inclusion of their names adds value for the reader even though they are not notable people. Adding well referenced names to the prose of articles is a good thing, within reason, whether or not those individuals are notable. The number of names is important when making editorial judgments. Four names is easy for readers to absorb, without being overwhelmed by something that is a list rather than prose. "Let's invite George, Sam, Emily and Gertrude to our dinner party" is easy to understand and remember for a while. On the other hand, mentioning the names of the 60 people killed in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting would not be natural prose and would be more like a list or a roster. Four is reasonable even if 60 is not. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your interpretation of policy, which seems 'novel', to say the least. Of course it 'personalises' and 'memorialises' to name the individuals and it would be very strange indeed for a news source to not do so. especially a 'local' source around the time of the event. But what encyclopaedic purpose will the names be to readers outside the US in 5 years time? Are we deemed so insensitive that we cannot realise that each of the killed had loved ones mourning them and wished to be given the opportunity to live their lives? How does it help to know the identity of the x-year old girl or boy or n-year old teacher? The event is noteworthy, not the poor souls caught up in it. I believe it may sometimes be intrusive to name people - we don't have permission. I know someone whose close relative is periodically (though rarely) mentioned in UK news sources because of the awful circumstances of her relative's death. Each time this happens, my acquaintance goes into despair for several weeks. This may be rare, but we should be cautious, other people's lives and other people's grief is not 'public property' especially not on a 'world-reach' site like WP. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen328, for being one of the few that have actually attempted to tackle what should be a relatively easy question to answer. We need more engagement like this, and for those who are truly open to change and aren't stuck perpetually defending one side of the argument, this kind of healthy debate is what's needed to move toward compromise. It lends some insight into other uses of non-notable names worth pondering further.
From the procedural angle, unfortunately this can't be answered by a single policy alone. Core content policies "complement each other", "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another", and "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines". WP:VNOTSUFF is a component of another core content policy, WP:V, which states "...not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted...". We know this is meant to work in harmony with NPOV, not against it. So putting the two together, we can conclude that while all significant viewpoints should be included by default, consensus may determine that some do not improve the article and therefore should be omitted. But how can this be? Is one being permitted to create a loophole that contradicts the other? A closer look at NPOV might hold the key. The opening line begins with "All encyclopedic content..." Bingo. NPOV instructs how to handle content already determined to be encyclopedic, but it's the other two core content policies that help us make that determination. So no, the two are not directly contradicting, and neither one needs to be assessed in isolation.
One reason why this debate lingers on, is that we rarely have the high-quality sources needed to determine "encyclopedic". To build on Pincrete's point, primary sources like newspapers and other news outlets are selling a product, overly-humanizing various aspects at times to pull at emotional strings. Why do newspapers plaster tragedies and crimes on their front page? They are also influenced from a cultural perspective, which is why we see disparities in how they report in different parts of the world. We, on the other hand, are not selling a product; we are trying to write an encyclopedic article with a focus on long-term significance. The ability to scrutinize a highly-verifiable detail is well within the parameters outlined in policy. Hopefully we can identify a pattern from all these debates and pull from the ashes a compromise that gets codified in policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Noting that Love of Corey has repeatedly reverted the inclusion of Myre's name in sentences which discuss him, apparently believing that this needs further discussion. While this overall thread has been about including all of the victims' names, I think the case for Myre's is far clearer -- he's discussed individually -- and haven't seen many comments here which oppose him particularly. Therefore I think his name should be included. It's a bit absurd for our article to mention that they're considering renaming the school's stadium after someone without mentioning who for... no reason that anyone has mentioned here at all. I've also tried to discuss Love of Corey's revert on their talkpage but my message to them was reverted without explanation. If they also refuse to reply here, I will revert them again, it's unreasonable to revert multiple times without any attempt at discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were reverted because clearly this discussion on whether to include the victims' names or not is still ongoing. Love of Corey (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey: have you read through the discussion? Looking at most objections I find it difficult to think that they'll apply to including Myre's name in that context. There is no rule against editing an article during an ongoing discussion and reverting just because this discussion isn't closed is not constructive. Do you have a reason that Myre's name should not be included? Elli (talk | contribs) 00:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same as all the others: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey: WP:NOTMEMORIAL states Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements., not that non-notable victims cannot be mentioned at all. No one is proposing an article on Myre, indeed I would support deletion of it per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But that does not apply in this case and just citing the shortcut doesn't make it so. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, given the clearly controversial nature of this discussion topic, we must wait until the entire discussion is closed with a clear consensus being declared as reached. Love of Corey (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey: no, we don't. This is not an RfC. This is a talk page discussion which does not need to be closed. Uou are ignoring WP:NOTBURO to argue for your opinion here. You've gone from presenting a case for your position to simply objecting procedurally based off of a policy which does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is as good as an RfC as it gets. Love of Corey (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not tagged as an RfC nor was it originally presented as one. The fact that some people started making bolded !votes does not change that. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but for austerity's sake, I've started an RfC in the talk page. Might as well make it official! :) Love of Corey (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Left a comment there. I'll refrain from editing the article on the topic until the RfC reaches a consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the RfC's closure, I think it's even clearer now that this discussion is clearly meant to be an RfC in all but name. Love of Corey (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should let the discussion run for 7-10 days and then ask for an uninvolved editor (preferably an admin) to close the discussion with a decision. That has happened elsewhere before. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We'll see what happens, I'm stepping back from this. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey: I would like some clarification here. Are you saying that a consensus to use Myer's name does not exist from your point of view? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the consensus is not there yet. If I said something to the contrary, then I apologize. Love of Corey (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no problem. I just saw that it wasn't entirely clear from my point of view. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding closure

Was there some predetermined timeframe set? RfC's of this nature typically run their course for 3-4 weeks, but I also understand this was not advertised as an RfC, so we will likely get less community feedback this time around. I suggest leaving it open until 12/16, which is 2 weeks from the start date (unless, of course, more time is needed). --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to treat this as a RfC given that this is a talk page discussion and the RfC below was closed as premature due to this discussion being ongoing. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially was hoping to see this wrapped up seven days after the start, especially as discussion seemed to be slowing down, but with the folks coming via bot request and likely from the attempts to promote the discussion, I think two weeks is workable. I've requested an uninvolved admin to close the discussion, asked in advance so whoever volunteers has the time to carefully consider the discussion above and keep up with any new discussions that may emerge rather than trying to quickly do it all at once at the end. Obviously if it appears there is still constructive discussion ongoing this can be extended. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The names get in the article after the discussion is closed, correct? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The names get in the article if that is the consensus. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (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.

Gun Photo and Accused

The photo of the weapon is unnecessary. It doesn’t serve a legitimate purpose other than to visually promote the weapon itself. The information about the weapon used in the shooting is already listed in the article, which is enough.

The accused section also seems misplaced. This information should be relocated into the background or the court case proceedings so that the accused isn’t given as much personal attention. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's there because it helps the article. Readers understand the background of this event, and I also don't see how posting an image of a gun "promotes" it of any kind (it's also in an article about a mass murder of children-don't think that makes it appear too glamourous).
I have reverted the edits removing it because there is no consensus on the talk page to do so. I will accept its removal if the general consensus does not support the image. Dunutubble (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how it helps the article? Bingobunnybaby (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert an edit while waiting for a response on an ongoing discussion, please. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how it helps this article? Bingobunnybaby (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see its usefulness, but at least wait until you hear from other users on this. You're not getting reverted for nothing, you know. Love of Corey (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks Bingobunnybaby (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have often wondered why shooting articles go into such detail and imagery of the weapon. Most readers would be satisfied to know that it was a handgun, long run, assault rifle etc. As an outsider, I cannot begin to understand the American gun culture, but I see no benefit in reporting that the weapon was a "SuperBanger XYZ123", or showing a photo. Readers will know what a handgun looks like, without requiring a photo. Personally, I find it rather ghoulish. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an image of the gun helps. It's black, has bullets, looks like a handgun. Nothing unusual or special. I believe the gun model should be linked in text, not the image caption. I don't see how having an image helps, there isn't much it can contribute. It's a handgun. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 04:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So can we agree to remove it? Bingobunnybaby (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Probably should let this ride for a week or so. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a visual aid, but it seems like there isn't really an argument for keeping it when it could just be linked as WhoAteMyButter mentioned. As a suggestion to why from WWGB's comment, I believe the likeliest reason is that an uncommon weapon was used in a past shooting, causing it to be added to that article and leading to an unintentional pattern of including it on future articles by default. That is current the best reason I can think of at this time. Regardless, I believe that the image should be removable at this point and this discussion be closed early, given that there has been significant traffic to this talk page and there have been no replies in defense of including the image. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

time of shooting

Please change 12:50 to 12:51 p.m. [2] and change 12:55 p.m. to 12:56 p.m. [3] 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:51 was when police first received 9-1-1 calls. We don't know if the shooting occurred seconds before then or minutes before then. 12:50 is just an approximation. Love of Corey (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If 12:51 p.m. was when the police first received calls, then 12:51 p.m. would also be when the shooting started. This excerpt is from one of the sources above. "About 12:51 p.m., Ethan emerges from a bathroom with the gun his father bought four days before. He fires at students in the hallway, killing four and wounding six students and one teacher." Here is an excerpt from another source above. "Officials say the suspect surrendered five minutes after police were called when officers confronted the teenager in a school corridor." Here is another source I found. This text is one of the bullet points: "At 12:51 p.m., the shooting starts in the school" [4] 73.167.238.120 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: This page is currently describing a current event. As of this edit, the event only happened 8 days ago. Per the relevant template, information may change rapidly and stories immediately following it may be unreliable. Because of these reasons, I don't see this as a uncontroversial edit, and thus I would say consensus is required before making the change - which edit requests are not appropriate for. Other editors are free to disagree with this analysis and move forward with the request, as always. —Sirdog (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

4 people were killed in this shooting not 3. Two males and 2 females Tate Myre, a 16-year-old, Madisyn Baldwin, 17-years-old, Hana St Juliana, 14-years-old, and Justin Shilling was the fourth student, and latest victim Godschild2021 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, article says four killed. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing that it says three were killed? Please point to a specific place in the article where it currently says that. If you're referring to "Three students were killed at the scene, and eight other people were injured, including a teacher. On December 1, a fourth student died in the hospital as a result of injuries sustained during the shooting," that is an accurate description of the sequence of events. Moncrief (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories