2600:8805:c980:9400:85d6:7993:e151:919 (talk) →We dont have to "respect" someones pronouns or delusionals about their gender because they are evil: new section Tag: New topic |
InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) →Biden ice cream criticism: Two scoops of bullshit, yum. |
||
Line 464: | Line 464: | ||
*'''Leaning exclude''' - I disagree that this would be COATRACK; the president's "poor" joke before speaking about this shooting would be relevant enough for a mention here if sufficient sourcing covered the comments. However, I don't believe it to be established enough in mainstream coverage to warrant a mention, per [[WP:DUE]]. All I've really found is [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ice-cream-nashville-shooting-remarks/ Snopes], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/28/nashville-shooting-christie-slams-biden-joke/11554133002/ USA Today], [https://local21news.com/news/nation-world/biden-slammed-for-joking-about-ice-cream-in-first-appearance-following-nashville-shooting-white-house- CBS 21]. Not enough really. [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #E2062C ;"> ''Iamreallygoodatcheckers''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b>]]</sup> 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Leaning exclude''' - I disagree that this would be COATRACK; the president's "poor" joke before speaking about this shooting would be relevant enough for a mention here if sufficient sourcing covered the comments. However, I don't believe it to be established enough in mainstream coverage to warrant a mention, per [[WP:DUE]]. All I've really found is [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ice-cream-nashville-shooting-remarks/ Snopes], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/28/nashville-shooting-christie-slams-biden-joke/11554133002/ USA Today], [https://local21news.com/news/nation-world/biden-slammed-for-joking-about-ice-cream-in-first-appearance-following-nashville-shooting-white-house- CBS 21]. Not enough really. [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #E2062C ;"> ''Iamreallygoodatcheckers''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b>]]</sup> 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Include''' See my comments below.[[User:Derpytoucan|Derpytoucan]] ([[User talk:Derpytoucan|talk]]) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Include''' See my comments below.[[User:Derpytoucan|Derpytoucan]] ([[User talk:Derpytoucan|talk]]) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Exclude''' This is the place for criticism or praise of the Covenant School shooting, not Joe Biden. He has his own article for that. Besides, the last version removed didn't even say who "criticized" him, and the sketchy source only claimed he "was mocked". [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Other coatrack concerns=== |
===Other coatrack concerns=== |
||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Covenant_School_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1147144870 This portion] removed by {{U|Kieronoldham}} is clearly much more balanced than the deep-dive on Biden's reaction. It mentions both liberal and conservative takes. I'm personally not sure if we should include it or not, but it certainly shouldn't be removed based on Kieronoldham's reasoning. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0">Formal</span><span style="color:black">Dude</span>]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 03:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Covenant_School_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1147144870 This portion] removed by {{U|Kieronoldham}} is clearly much more balanced than the deep-dive on Biden's reaction. It mentions both liberal and conservative takes. I'm personally not sure if we should include it or not, but it certainly shouldn't be removed based on Kieronoldham's reasoning. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0">Formal</span><span style="color:black">Dude</span>]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 03:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:30, 30 March 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The year shouldn't be in the title
If the title were 2023 Nashville shooting, the year would likely be justified. The year isn't usually in titles of attacks that include specific locations, such as Columbine High School massacre & Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to vary. The majority of articles under the sub-categories of Category:School shootings in the United States use no year rather than a year. Meanwhile, three of the four sub-categories of Category:2020s mass shootings in the United States have a majority using the year than no year. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- As per usual, Jim is cherry-picking and using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to try to overcome WP:NCE, which says this:
In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors:
- When the incident happened.
- Where the incident happened.
- What happened.
- There is no exception made for school shootings as some category that is excluded from WP:NCE. I'll note that Jim has also chosen two very high profile examples which aren't named per WP:NCE, but rather per WP:COMMONNAME. Which actually brings me to my next point: almost all of our sources refer to this as the "Nashville" mass shooting/massacre. The school name is not used in any of our sources. Of course, since this event is so recent, there is no COMMONNAME to use yet, but this is why NCE prescribes when, where and what happened as the title for an event with no clear name. @Jim Michael 2 Do you have a WP:PAG-backed reason to justify having the year omitted? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, @Jim Michael 2, stop abusing edit summaries like this and use the talk page. You literally did nothing productive there whatsoever. And you're seriously showing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS with that diff and this section (which is just the latest incarnation of you not liking what the community has decided). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not cherry-picking or going against rules or consensus. The large majority of our articles about attacks at specific locations don't include the year, whether they're high-profile or not. I gave examples of high-profile ones, but many relatively low-profile ones such as Pearl High School shooting, Heath High School shooting & Chardon High School shooting also have the same clear, concise, yearless format. It's more precise to use the school's name in the title than its city.
- In that edit, I removed a gap that shouldn't have been there; there's no rule that all edits need be major. There's nothing disruptive about my edit summaries. You tried to push against clear strong consensus to add mini-bios of victims - which included very trivial things such as hobbies & favorite foods - on Robb Elementary School shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are literally cherry picking. You're choosing a very narrow category (school shootings) instead of all mass shooting events to base your opinion on, which, AGAIN, is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I removed a gap that shouldn't have been there; there's no rule that all edits need be major.
There actually is a rule about making pointless edits, and theres also a rule about using "good edit summaries". Your edit summary had nothing whatsoever to do with the line you removed (which had no visual impact on the article). Just stop. Respect the consensus at WP:NCE. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- I'm comparing like with like. Those which have the settlement rather than a specific location are much more likely to need the year. The many at other non-school locations which don't have the year in the title include Milwaukee brewery shooting, Mayfair Mall shooting, Don Carter Lanes shooting, Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack, Indianapolis FedEx shooting, Collierville Kroger shooting, Columbiana Centre shooting and Highland Park parade shooting. It's usual to not include the year when the location is specific, and that isn't limited to shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you just not understand WP:NCE or do you just not care? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think Jim is correct one this. From WP:NCE and WP:NOYEAR,
Examples of some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title:
- Only "where" and "what"
- Tenerife airport disaster
- Where: Tenerife airport
- What: deadliest accident in aviation history
- Chernobyl disaster
- Where: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
- What: worst nuclear power plant accident in history
- Virginia Tech shooting
- Where: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
- What: deadliest school shooting in U.S. history
- Charlie Hebdo shooting
- Where: Offices of Charlie Hebdo
- What: shooting of journalists and cartoonists
- Locke Cole, why do you keep pointing to NCE when it is clear that it doesn't contradict Jim's suggestions? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. LC is frequently hostile to me since I became one of the many people who oppose his attempts to include a lot of detail of victims' lives in articles about mass shootings in the US. Being civil is of course compulsory on WP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Jim, I understand you enjoy using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a specific form of whataboutism, but what I do to improve articles is not what is being discussed here. Whether or not the article has a year in its title is, and your behavior around that by continually editing against established consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm showing what we usually do & have done for years. I've moved this article once, which is far from continual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Except you're not. WP:NCE documents what the community has decided we should name articles on events. That a few articles about school shootings deviate does not change that community consensus or somehow make it right. It's literally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Doing something wrong repeatedly doesn't suddenly make it right. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article you cited claims to be a guideline and exceptions may apply. And you have to agree the accusations of whataboutism are silly. People don't just edit Wikipedia, they also read it, and "2023 Covenant School Shooting" would sound silly to a reader.
- In general, you are right. Sadly there are so many mass shootings that there are frequently "duplicates" (i.e., "Nashville shooting" wouldn't bring a specific one to mind). In this specific instance, Jim is right because the event is not called the "2023" anything and won't be until there's another one at that school.
- This hostility is weird to watch as someone who is a casual editor. 2603:7081:1603:A300:1CD3:CB15:725:5934 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Except you're not. WP:NCE documents what the community has decided we should name articles on events. That a few articles about school shootings deviate does not change that community consensus or somehow make it right. It's literally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Doing something wrong repeatedly doesn't suddenly make it right. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm showing what we usually do & have done for years. I've moved this article once, which is far from continual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Jim, I understand you enjoy using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a specific form of whataboutism, but what I do to improve articles is not what is being discussed here. Whether or not the article has a year in its title is, and your behavior around that by continually editing against established consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir You're citing the historic perspective examples (all of which are renowned events where NCE is no longer necessarily being used, but WP:COMMONNAME). Specifically, WP:NOYEAR says this:
Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it.
What "historic perspective" is there in an event that just happened yesterday.[W]hy do you keep pointing to NCE when it is clear that it doesn't contradict Jim's suggestions?
It quite literally does. 🤷♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. LC is frequently hostile to me since I became one of the many people who oppose his attempts to include a lot of detail of victims' lives in articles about mass shootings in the US. Being civil is of course compulsory on WP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think Jim is correct one this. From WP:NCE and WP:NOYEAR,
- Do you just not understand WP:NCE or do you just not care? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm comparing like with like. Those which have the settlement rather than a specific location are much more likely to need the year. The many at other non-school locations which don't have the year in the title include Milwaukee brewery shooting, Mayfair Mall shooting, Don Carter Lanes shooting, Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack, Indianapolis FedEx shooting, Collierville Kroger shooting, Columbiana Centre shooting and Highland Park parade shooting. It's usual to not include the year when the location is specific, and that isn't limited to shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are literally cherry picking. You're choosing a very narrow category (school shootings) instead of all mass shooting events to base your opinion on, which, AGAIN, is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- Also, @Jim Michael 2, stop abusing edit summaries like this and use the talk page. You literally did nothing productive there whatsoever. And you're seriously showing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS with that diff and this section (which is just the latest incarnation of you not liking what the community has decided). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think that this is a case where I'm not a fan of having the year in this article eventually, but it likely won't help removing the year now. Since the place is specific in the name, unlike 2023 Hamburg shooting, it's much easier for me to justify a removal. I would recommend waiting a bit before a move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, I think that I'm gonna open up a discussion on this one. I think that while there is merit in waiting, the arguments to remove the year are much stronger. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
the arguments to remove the year are much stronger
What arguments? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean we suddenly toss out WP:NCE which has community backing. For something that happened less than 24 hours ago there is nohistoric perspective
to fall back on as WP:NOYEAR suggests. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, I think that I'm gonna open up a discussion on this one. I think that while there is merit in waiting, the arguments to remove the year are much stronger. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be the 2023 Nashville shooting or the The Covenant School shooting as there's only ever been one. The rules lay out that "if there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a 'Bloody Sunday'), use that name," and in reading all major news outlets covering the event, it's being referred to as the "Nashville shooting," in which case the only missing descriptor is the year. Cgrnt1694 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cgrnt1694 You may wish to chime in at #Requested move 28 March 2023 (below). The thing with common names is that it requires
historic perspective
. This typically allows our reliable sources to settle in on a name, and doesn't have Wikipedia effectively engaging in citogensis by choosing a name for the media, and making a self-fulfilling prophecy occur where the name we chose ends up being used by our RS. The time required for historic perspective has generally been accepted to be at least a few months to (more desirably) a year. This allows research articles and other quality secondary sources beyond the mainstream media to come up with their own names for this event. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)- As someone who's coming late to this debate and knows nothing of relevant Wikipedia guidelines, rules etc., I'll chime in that all these sorts of events---shootings, transportation disasters, terrorist attacks, environmental incidents---might best be labeled with the year as an ending or a parenthetical. e.g. "Covenant School Shooting---2023," "Bhopal disaster (1984)."98.114.190.60 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cgrnt1694 You may wish to chime in at #Requested move 28 March 2023 (below). The thing with common names is that it requires
Deadname, gender, pronouns
Many have brought it up, but while we know the shooter was a trans man named Aiden Hale, the article uses a lot of gender neutral pronouns (better than she/her) rather than he/him while also deadnaming him. I get he's a murderer, but think of the people who are reading the news articles about this shooting that will see the fact someone's deadnamed and treated like their identity doesn't matter. Aiden won't see the deadnaming because he's dead, but those attacks against his identity will affect others reading about him. All I ask is if new information is presented, make sure to use he/him pronouns and his actual name. Thank you once more for at least eliminating the she/her pronouns and please put in his actual name. Thank you Isiah9903 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should continue to avoid the identity of the shooter entirely until the media figures it out. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- As for the name which is unavoidable, we should use Aiden per MOS:GENDERID I think. But are there any sources that say this? They all seem to say Audrey. If we put Aiden on the article we need at least one or two. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's WP:SYNTH, but a tweet from the police department of the guns used has the name "Aiden" on one. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be synth, but I don't see Aiden here. I see Audrey. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Look at the handle of the gun in the second image, on the right hand side. It's written on the gun, not something stated by police. (Hence my uncertainty about SYNTH.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not synth, but not a reliable source either. We need something much stronger to override the official police statement and the entire press. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Look at the handle of the gun in the second image, on the right hand side. It's written on the gun, not something stated by police. (Hence my uncertainty about SYNTH.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be synth, but I don't see Aiden here. I see Audrey. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The perpetrator used the name "Audrey (Aiden)" in the text to her friend/cousin, Paige Averianna Patton, on the date she killed/died. 216.106.235.57 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's WP:SYNTH, but a tweet from the police department of the guns used has the name "Aiden" on one. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- And now Rreagan007 is repeatedly inserting "transgender woman" without a citation. Nosferattus (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please tell me how you "know" the shooter was a "trans man"?? The sources only say she identified as transgender, and have consistently only used she/her pronouns in reference to her. Show me a reliable source, or preferably multiple, referring to her as a trans man or using pronouns other than she/her.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Local newspaper The Tennessean: "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns."
- New York Times: "Officials used “she” and “her” to refer to the shooter, but, according to a social media post and a LinkedIn profile, the shooter appeared to identify as male in recent months."
- NPR: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns."
- WPLN, the local Nashville NPR affiliate in question: "MNPD says Hale is a transgender man."
- Let me know if you'd like more. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Given these sources, and the fact that Washington Post is now also reporting an official update from a police spokesman, Don Aaron: "Audrey Hale is a biological woman who, on a social media profile, used male pronouns", which NPR also seems to be reporting on in their statement: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns", I am fine adding this information to the article. Whether this means we should actually use he/him is, I think, still up for debate. The police spokesman said the perp "on social media, used male pronouns", so is this alone enough to presume that the perp was using those pronouns at the time of death? Or should we wait. I'm good either way.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would personally lean towards the local news sources' (The Tennessean and WPLN) unambiguous statements that the shooter was a trans man—along with the clear statement of "used he/him pronouns" from NPR and other sources—and make the potentially WP:BOLD edit of changing all pronouns to he/him. I think it's fair to assume, at least for now, that the most recent public presence of the shooter reflects the pronouns they chose to use at time of death. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is enough sources to use he/him per MOS:GENDERID. However, it’s unnecessary to edit the article to add them in now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Given these sources, and the fact that Washington Post is now also reporting an official update from a police spokesman, Don Aaron: "Audrey Hale is a biological woman who, on a social media profile, used male pronouns", which NPR also seems to be reporting on in their statement: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns", I am fine adding this information to the article. Whether this means we should actually use he/him is, I think, still up for debate. The police spokesman said the perp "on social media, used male pronouns", so is this alone enough to presume that the perp was using those pronouns at the time of death? Or should we wait. I'm good either way.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- We need to use the pronouns and name that is primarily used in reliable sources. Right now the NYT and WaPo have chosen to use Audrey Hale and are just avoiding pronouns; I think that's what we should do at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should switch to he/him pronouns, as The Tennessean is doing. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm starting to lean towards this now, since it does seem that the shooter was a transgender man, not a woman, as was first reported. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand this comment. A transgender man (male gender) is a woman (female sex), as far as I understand. And a transgender woman (female gender) is a man (male sex). Surely Wikipedia's style guide hasn't gone so far as to actually require authors to work with anything else as a premise. I really hope not. I know there are plenty of people that argue otherwise, but my understanding is that a transgender woman actually being a woman is very much a minority view, and very much debated. Maybe I'm wrong here in terms of the general acceptability but I've been quite taken aback by the editing of this Wikipedia article. Using Audrey's legal name seems only reasonable here. I mean, if she was known as "Smiley McSmiley Face" rather than "Aiden" I can't imagine that being used here (sure, I'm arguing from an extreme example there). And this "deadname" idea, while fine in general discourse, doesn't seem relevant in a legal situation like this. Audrey is her legal name, as far as I understand. tobych (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. Legal status is irrelevant; using a trans person's chosen name is a matter of respect. Funcrunch (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand this comment. A transgender man (male gender) is a woman (female sex), as far as I understand. And a transgender woman (female gender) is a man (male sex). Surely Wikipedia's style guide hasn't gone so far as to actually require authors to work with anything else as a premise. I really hope not. I know there are plenty of people that argue otherwise, but my understanding is that a transgender woman actually being a woman is very much a minority view, and very much debated. Maybe I'm wrong here in terms of the general acceptability but I've been quite taken aback by the editing of this Wikipedia article. Using Audrey's legal name seems only reasonable here. I mean, if she was known as "Smiley McSmiley Face" rather than "Aiden" I can't imagine that being used here (sure, I'm arguing from an extreme example there). And this "deadname" idea, while fine in general discourse, doesn't seem relevant in a legal situation like this. Audrey is her legal name, as far as I understand. tobych (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm starting to lean towards this now, since it does seem that the shooter was a transgender man, not a woman, as was first reported. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should switch to he/him pronouns, as The Tennessean is doing. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- And we want to respect a mass murderer and child killer because ... ? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Respect doesn't even have to factor into it, because consensus and the preponderance of reliable sources say the shooter's pronouns are he/him, so that's what we use. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- we want to respect trans people reading this article so they don't feel like their right to self identify is up for debate depending on what they do. Aiden Hale is dead, it doesn't matter if we do or don't respect him personally, but you can't set a precedent that trans people are only who they say they are as long as they earn it. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- And we want to respect a mass murderer and child killer because ... ? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- "They/them" are not misgendering. Every human being on the face of the planet is "they/them" in addition to whatever else they identify as, because "they/them" are neutral with respect to gender, which is different from the use-case of neuter gender. By English language convention "they/them" is always valid to refer to a person, regardless of whether or not their gender is known, and in the absence of rigid clarity and consensus among cited sources, should probably be the preferred use here. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Singular they is not universally accepted in English and can often sound unnatural. Gendered pronouns should generally be used in articles unless a person has expressly stated a preference for they/them pronouns. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- We don't and use he/him instead, per MOS:GENDERID. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Did she ever actually legally change her name? Without a formal name change, it might as well be a nickname. 162.118.117.210 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hale was a "he", and a legal name change is not required to respect the name and pronouns of trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- what are you talking about?? What respect is due?? 83.223.224.34 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the right place to be the harbringer of due justice to those who are evil. We care more about accuracy than morality. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wrong 2600:8805:C980:9400:85D6:7993:E151:919 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- what are you talking about?? What respect is due?? 83.223.224.34 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hale was a "he", and a legal name change is not required to respect the name and pronouns of trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The most objective truth is that the attacker was a female. Another undisputed fact is that that female identified as a man. These two facts ought to be included in the article. Whether the gender self-identification of the Audrey Elizabeth Hale (CNN) should permeate the entire article by the editors using "he" I think is a step too far. While editorially I think it is generally better to stick with objective sex instead of subjective gender self-identification of the subject, I think the best compromise at this time is to avoid using pronouns. Several sources including the CNN have taken that route. They refer to Audrey Elizabeth Hale as "the attacker" "the shooter", etc. Al83tito (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hale was a trans man who went by he/him pronouns. A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. That is the objective truth. Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deadname
Can we use the correct name for the perp? 72.89.27.178 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- MOS:GENDERID is part of MOS:BLP, which includes the recently deceased. --Pokelova (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Crumpled Fire fwiw, WP:BLP applies to the recently dead so I think GENDERID would too. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/us/nashville-school-shooting-tennessee Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do we not consider this to be a reliable source? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/us/nashville-school-shooting-tennessee Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Came out recently?
The suspect may have come out recently. From Snopes:
Speaking to The Daily Beast, an unnamed source reportedly close to Hale's family said she "recently announced she was transgender, identifying as he/him."
I'm not certain whether this is worth including, please discuss. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Unnamed source and reportedly don't sound like such good terms to have for inclusion of information like that. Especially since we can't know if they actually knew much about the person's life. Close relatives often claim they knew all about someone, but were actually completely ignorant. SilverserenC 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- An unnamed source who still chooses to use "she" in the same breath as acknowledging the person prefers "he/him" also raises a small red flag. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I agree with you now. I had the thought that a recent coming-out may have (say for instance: if it was received very poorly) had some kind of impact on the motive or timing of the shooting, and thus this comment may have been more relevant to future developments than it seems, but if so then we'll just have to wait for stronger evidence. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am bracing myself for the police releasing the manifesto and reading about how he was motivated by general lack of acceptance of his transition or the christian values of the school he targeted being oppressive. this is already going to be a huge hit to the fight for trans rights which we are already losing, and if that happens it's going to be really bad. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I agree with you now. I had the thought that a recent coming-out may have (say for instance: if it was received very poorly) had some kind of impact on the motive or timing of the shooting, and thus this comment may have been more relevant to future developments than it seems, but if so then we'll just have to wait for stronger evidence. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- An unnamed source who still chooses to use "she" in the same breath as acknowledging the person prefers "he/him" also raises a small red flag. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
weapon type should be removed
Listing the specific weapons should be removed. They do not need to be named/ made known. "Gun violence" is enough to describe the shooting. No need to give details that may create interest in these weapons. 2406:E003:18DE:1C01:86B7:16AC:532C:6E7A (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see your NOTCENSORED, and raise you a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Touché. I had the infoboxes for Columbine, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, etc in mind; but definitely worth removing for now if unsourced. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see your NOTCENSORED, and raise you a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed them as they were unsourced, they also are not mentioned in such detail in the article body, and infobox values typically need to exist in the body as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Once reliable sources discuss the details of the weapons extensively, those details should be added back to the article. Hint: None was a lever action 30-06 Winchester hunting rifle like the one I owned as a teenager over 50 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- JBW95 continues to add them without adding sources, I've removed them again. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's a source that gives the types of all three: KelTec SUB2000 (as CNN says), a Grunt .300 Blackout, and a S&W M&P9 Shield EZ. Shall it be included?[1] Etnguyen03 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Newsweek is generally not considered a reliable source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Etnguyen03: Could you link the CNN article? Per WP:CNN it's a reliable source A09 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are a few sources I found while I'm at it: CNN (Kel-Tec)[2], Euronews (Grunt)[3], and Guardian (S&W)[4]. Etnguyen03 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's a source that gives the types of all three: KelTec SUB2000 (as CNN says), a Grunt .300 Blackout, and a S&W M&P9 Shield EZ. Shall it be included?[1] Etnguyen03 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- JBW95 continues to add them without adding sources, I've removed them again. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Once reliable sources discuss the details of the weapons extensively, those details should be added back to the article. Hint: None was a lever action 30-06 Winchester hunting rifle like the one I owned as a teenager over 50 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dude you took issue with the name of the gun, but forget the external video is showing the perperator armed and walking in the school💀. Illchy (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- (In fairness, while I disagree with the person's stance, I will note that the external video was not added to the article at the time they had posted that comment.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Firearms
Again the media and the reporters go for sensationalism instead of fact. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault style pistol or assault weapon. Those phrases are used to make an ordinary tool seem scary.
I mean firstly they don't need to list the weapons at all, just say firearms were involved and be done. Its like when columbine happened they listed the guns used and soon after, Several of the guns they used went from 50 to 100 dollar firearma no one really bought to costing 400 dollars with some manufacturers even making clones briefly in the early to mid 2000s. So don't mention what types to prevent copycats and sickos.
Secondly they shouldn't mention the types because it is irrelevant. The ownership of guns didn't cause this person to shoot up a school, it was something else whether it be mental illness, twisted sense of morality, even a twisted sense of religion but its never the guns fault. Loneviking (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well a nuclear bomb or double trailer truck doesn't make someone into a terrorist but I doubt you will convince people you should just say explosive or vehicle if a terrorist uses one to kill people. Actually why say firearm at all? Just say weapon. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't a soapbox to express your opinions on gun control. Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources are highlighting the guns used. Couruu (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly understood terms and/or have legally-defined meanings. I am less certain of "assault style pistol". It appears News Week addressed this issue previously and concluded:
- "While the term assault pistol has been cited by the government and may have been used in the past to name certain models of semi-automatic pistol-type weapons (including at least one model that bears remarkable similarity to the firearm used in Monterey Park), it's not a well known or understood descriptor." Source: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-assault-pistol-real-type-gun-1776538
- I would think "semi-automatic pistol" or "handgun" would be the more appropriate descriptor, and these terms seems to be the ones employed by many news reports. However, I would defer to more experienced editors. I don't think the current terminology is technically incorrect, but the uncommon usage of a term may lead to more confusion for readers than a more commonly used term. ProbitasVeritas (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would contest that the terms assault weapon, "assault rifle", and "assault-style gun" are all legally vague terms specific to the United States. Within the United States they are not even consistently defined across jurisdictions; this may also be a conflict with MOS:COMMONALITY.
- Putting that aside, the reason why the term "assault-style pistol" is important to the article is that the gun in question has been explicitly included in other "assault weapon" bans[5]. The efficacy of such laws are not in question here, but the fact is that these weapons were purchased legally, and Tennessee has no such laws on the books. EatTrainCode (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Because the term "assault style" has no consistent definition (and to note, has no definition at all in Tennessee) and is inherently politically charged, I don't believe it has any business being used in that context on Wikipedia. It could be used when explaining ban proposals or whatever, but not in simply describing the weapon. I've just left it as "two rifles". Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rahman, Khaleda (28 March 2023). "What we know about the guns used in Nashville school shooting". Newsweek. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
- ^ Levenson, Eric; Alonso, Melissa; Salahieh, Nouran (28 March 2023). "Covenant School shooter was under care for emotional disorder and hid guns at home, police say". CNN. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
Three weapons – an AR-15, a Kel-Tec SUB 2000, and a handgun – were found at the school
- ^ Khatsenkova, Sophia (29 March 2023). "Nashville: Has the same gun type been used by mass shooters in the US?". euronews. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
- ^ Pilkington, Ed (29 March 2023). "Nashville shooting: what it reveals about Americans' love of military-style guns". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
- ^ "Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California". Retrieved 5 September 2020.
Victim ages
I just wanted to specify something I saw on TV regarding the ages of the victims. They said two of the children were 9, while the third one was 8, almost 9. I tried digging for a source to confirm this, but all news reports are currently stating that all three were 9. I assume this detail will be specified in the near future, but I wanted to mention it here for accuracy. Rowing007 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Any reliable source backing up your claims? A09 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- What station was that? Some of them upload their news segments to YouTube and others will include them in an article on their website. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It was on CTV News Channel, this morning (March 28, 2023). I casually had it on when I heard the ages as noted above. More than half-an-hour later (my TV can only rewind up to 30 minutes on live programming; I tried backtracking to find the snippet, but no luck), I looked at this Wikipedia article (and a subsequent search of any source I could find), and I was only met with the statement that all three were 9, hence my confusion and my posting about it here. I would not be surprised if there are additional details that emerge in the coming days which explain the exact ages. Everything is still so fresh and information still so limited that I assume initial reports have merely simplified the ages. Or the report I heard on TV this morning could be completely wrong. Who knows? We'll see as more details emerge. Rowing007 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I heard it, too.
It came from a short man (the mayor, if I recall) who spoke briefly and generally about the dead to start the first press conference, after saying he'd let the chief identify them. And then the chief did, presumably more knowingly.InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) - Gotcha. CTV News didn't upload that to their YouTube channel as far as I can see, but I was able to find the news conference posted by CBS News on Monday with the mentioned line. I will note that both CBS News and CTV News have reported their ages as nine on Tuesday afternoon. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- That video of the police chief stating the ages is solid proof. I managed to find a few sources mentioning age 8, likely referencing that very press briefing statement by the police chief: [1] [2]. The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of sources state that all three were age 9. We also don't know yet exactly which of the children was 8. Rowing007 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk's undone edit: Yes, yes, yes. 3:04 in the YouTube video posted above quite clearly says "Two of them were age 9, one was 8, about to be 9". I am quite capable of identifying the police chief and differentiating him from the mayor. Thanks for correcting yourself, but perhaps do so before posting a reply, next time. Rowing007 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- In hindsight, of course, we all could do better on some things. Mild thrashing accepted. Good luck, brother, the truth is out there! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk's undone edit: Yes, yes, yes. 3:04 in the YouTube video posted above quite clearly says "Two of them were age 9, one was 8, about to be 9". I am quite capable of identifying the police chief and differentiating him from the mayor. Thanks for correcting yourself, but perhaps do so before posting a reply, next time. Rowing007 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- That video of the police chief stating the ages is solid proof. I managed to find a few sources mentioning age 8, likely referencing that very press briefing statement by the police chief: [1] [2]. The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of sources state that all three were age 9. We also don't know yet exactly which of the children was 8. Rowing007 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I heard it, too.
- It was on CTV News Channel, this morning (March 28, 2023). I casually had it on when I heard the ages as noted above. More than half-an-hour later (my TV can only rewind up to 30 minutes on live programming; I tried backtracking to find the snippet, but no luck), I looked at this Wikipedia article (and a subsequent search of any source I could find), and I was only met with the statement that all three were 9, hence my confusion and my posting about it here. I would not be surprised if there are additional details that emerge in the coming days which explain the exact ages. Everything is still so fresh and information still so limited that I assume initial reports have merely simplified the ages. Or the report I heard on TV this morning could be completely wrong. Who knows? We'll see as more details emerge. Rowing007 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
More Audrey info
Audrey died three days after her 28th birthday, please add - Thanks. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Unless sources mention that as important, it's trivia that we would not include. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh. Well I just found it on a website about the life of Audrey. Besides, every suspect has a story behind it, especially in early life. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Some of our articles about mass shootings include the perpetrators' dates of birth, but most don't. Those which do include Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting & Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. It's relevant enough to include & should be if it's reliably sourced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Jim Michael 2. Most stories involve those incidents needs to have some early personal information involving the suspect but not all. Date-of-births are important as well as where he/she live previously (just to name a few). 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh. Well I just found it on a website about the life of Audrey. Besides, every suspect has a story behind it, especially in early life. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to Audrey's Deviantart profile, her birthday is the 10th of September. I recommend we do not state her date of birth until confirmed by officials. VonVivik09 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Deviantart is not WP:RS. A09 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine why she would put 09/10/1995 as her birthday if this was not the case, although, I understand your reasoning. Do we have any confirmation from reliable sources that her birthday was 3 days before the shooting? VonVivik09 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Deviantart is not WP:RS. A09 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Pronoun inconsistencies
This page is really inconsistent with using the pronouns of the perpetrator. at some points it uses she/her, while others it uses he/him. Doesn't wikipedia respect the pronouns of transgender people? 24.94.27.97 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with this. Until there is a consensus of media and official sources the article should use they/them pronouns. GBRSean (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Audrey Hale used he/him pronouns on his linkedin page and neighbors who said he identified as transgender used he/him pronouns. There's no reason to use they/them pronouns for someone who we know used he/him pronouns. That would only be further confusing and distract from the topic of the shooting by drawing additional attention to his gender identity/pronouns. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently he also went by the name Aiden so why is that not even mentioned in the article, let alone used consistently to refer to him? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- "They/them" are gender neutral, rather than neuter gendered. Every person on the planet is a "they/them" in addition to whatever else they identify as. Use of "they/them" is 100% correct. I support the use of "they/them" until clarity may be had, and also in an effort to distance Wikipedia from participating in misgendering simply because cited article sources misgender (either from lack of knowledge, or from willful malice) HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Using they/them instead of he/him, when most sources now acknowledge the shooter was a trans man who used he/him, is itself misgendering. As a trans person, if I tell you my pronouns are she/her and you address me as they/them, you don't get to go "I'm not misgendering because it's technically correct!" 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it isn't misgendering, they/them are gender neutral. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- they/them pronouns being gender neutral doesn't mean they aren't misgendering. if you know someone's pronouns and you choose to use different pronouns you're misgendering them, regardless of what the pronouns you choose to use may be. you don't know what you're talking about. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Derekeaaron1 you're wrong. 'They/them' are by definition non-gender specific. You might not like it, but you can't misgender someone by using a non-gender specific term. Logic and common sense are not on your side with this one/ Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion wandered into off topic. WP:NOTFORUM applies as latest comments in this thread have no connection to perpertrator. A09 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- they/them pronouns being gender neutral doesn't mean they aren't misgendering. if you know someone's pronouns and you choose to use different pronouns you're misgendering them, regardless of what the pronouns you choose to use may be. you don't know what you're talking about. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Audrey Hale used he/him pronouns on his linkedin page and neighbors who said he identified as transgender used he/him pronouns. There's no reason to use they/them pronouns for someone who we know used he/him pronouns. That would only be further confusing and distract from the topic of the shooting by drawing additional attention to his gender identity/pronouns. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Seven Guns in Several Stores
Just came in, Hale legally purchased a grand total of seven guns from several different local gun stores in all across Nashville. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Source, please? — Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- NBC News mentions seven firearms purchased from five (not seven) different local gun stores. Funcrunch (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- NPR: "Chief Drake said during a Tuesday press briefing that the shooter had legally purchased seven firearms from five local gun dealers. Three of those weapons were used in Monday's attack."
- CNN: "The shooter who killed six people at a private school in Nashville purchased at least seven guns legally and locally, according to Metro Nashville Police Chief John Drake. Drake said those seven firearms were purchased from five different gun stores in Nashville. Three of the guns were used during the shooting at Covenant School Monday, he said."
- NYT: "The shooter purchased seven firearms from five local gun stores and stashed them around the house, Mr. Drake said, using three of them on Monday to kill three 9-year-old children and three adults." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- That is true. Hale being under care for emotional disorder. Hale was still able to legally obtain weapons. Cwater1 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cwater1: Any WP:RS backing up your claims about emotional disorder? A09 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/28/us/audrey-hale-nashville-school-shooting/index.html Found this Cwater1 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cwater1: Any WP:RS backing up your claims about emotional disorder? A09 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Pronouns (again)
There seems to be a rough consensus the past day to use he/him pronouns for the perpetrator based on new information. A number of WP:RS are using he/him or confirming the perpetrator was a trans man according to the police (Independent, The Guardian, WaPo, NPR). There are still some sources (e.g., Fox News) who seem to contradict this, but given that the police are saying Hale was transgender and used he/him pronouns, I suggest we adhere to WP:GENDERID and use them as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would also suggest changing "used male pronouns" in the Perpetrator section to "used he/him pronouns", as per usual Wikipedia style (see articles like Ari Fitz, Miles McKenna, R.D. Riccoboni, Utica Queen, and so on). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just changed it to
masculine pronouns
which is the linguistics term for he/him in English. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- you do not have to identify as male or masculine to use he/him pronouns, which is why the vast majority of trans people do not refer to he/him pronouns as anything other than "he/him pronouns." they may be referred to as "masculine" in linguistic terms, but that is really outdated to the point that some younger people might not recognize the term. for clarity and for inclusivity we should use the term "he/him pronouns" when speaking about he/him pronouns. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just changed it to
- Agreed; at this point it makes sense to use he/him pronouns in this article. There's still going to be a fair amount of confusion regarding the name, but I fear that's unavoidable at this stage. Funcrunch (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The shooter was a trans man, so he/him is justified. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC) - Commenting to point to another discussion on pronouns made after this section. I closed it to centralize discussion. Please see Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting#Gendered Pronouns EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Some1: Why did you remove all pronouns in favor of using "Hale" everywhere? That goes against editorial consensus here. A source is not required to use the same pronouns as we use in the article; that's never been the case. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Just a thought
Since the sources differ on what name to use for the suspect, perhaps A. Hale could be used as a compromise? I know that it isn’t commonplace to refer to mass shooters with just the first initial, but it’s still technically correct in either case. Some might consider it a good idea from an ethical standpoint too, since by partially anonymizing them it would avoid giving the shooter too much “fame”/attention. It might also be a prudent measure if, as is suspected to be the case in the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, the suspect’s gender transition turns out to be less than sincere. Since Hale is dead, we may never know for sure. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per my understanding of MOS:GENDERID, I think the shooter's full name as reported in reliable sources, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, should be stated once, and from then on he should be referred to as simply "Hale" in the article (which would be standard practice anyway). If enough reliable sources state that the shooter changed his name to "Aiden", that should be included as well. But it seems clear that he gained notability under the name Audrey, even though most trans people would consider that a deadname. (I'm trans myself, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- He only gained notariety under the name Audrey because people are using his deadname. The notariety was gained while he was using the name Aiden, and this is an actively developing story that will most likely result in Aiden being used to refer to him moreso than Audrey. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's a WP:DEADNAME, but the shooter is more notable under "Audrey Hale" than "Aiden Hale". That being said, DEADNAME exists for WP:BLP reasons. Hale isn't a living person anymore, so there's not much of a compelling reason to err on the side of caution to protect his privacy. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- @Chess: See up here and the few posts below in that thread. BDP does have exceptions for the recently deceased, and there is precedent to change away from someone's deadname even when that deadname is more notable and the person is deceased. The question is what editorial consensus will be in this case. (Seeking that consensus might be better spun off into its own section?) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Using someone's preferred name is not just about protecting their privacy it's about being respectful of their identity- more importantly, this issue effects all trans people not just this individual, and if we decide to just stop caring about people who we don't think it matters for then we're not even trying to make the world/wikipedia even marginally welcoming to trans people. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- A couple sources treat "Aiden" as an alternate name, and perhaps the suspect did as well. This was what he wrote in one text:
See you in another life
Audrey
(Aiden)- So I've changed one of the sentences in the article to read:
Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who also went by Aiden, was identified by the police as the shooter.
WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- There are a lot of reasons he might have written it that way that have nothing to do with his actual preferred name. It's very common, especially early in transition, for people to continue to use their deadname while the people in their life get used to it or with specific people who do not accept them for who they are. It's my understanding that he used Aiden on social media aside from linkedin, which nobody updates unless they're looking for work, and that indicates to me that he was using the name Aiden and not Audrey whenever possible. I think he should be referred to as Aiden and it should be mentioned in the lead that he used to go by and is often referred to by the media as Audrey. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying but this is a difficult situation as we have very little to go on here, either from reliable sources or from pages maintained by Hale himself. We can't ask him so we shouldn't speculate on why he used Aiden in some places and Audrey in others. I think it's unlikely that we'll get consensus to remove Hale's deadname from this article entirely. (Again, I'm speaking as a transmasculine person myself.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- why does not speculating mean assuming that his birth name was the one he preferred, rather than the one he consciously chose and allegedly even wrote on a weapon used in the shooting? it's widely accepted, at least by my community, that if someone chooses a name for themselves you use that name unless they specifically say they want to keep their old name in rotation. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should remove any mention of his birth name. I could see an argument for referring to him as Aiden/Audrey throughout the article, but in my opinion there is no justifying referring to him only as Audrey when we know he chose the name Aiden and went by that name on social media. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It has come out that the person he was sending messages to was someone who didn't know he was trans, which would explain why he included his birth name in that message.
- https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-contacted-authorities-after-speaking-nashville-shooter-audrey/story?id=98182991
- https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/us/covenant-school-shooting-nashville-tennessee-tuesday/index.html Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- We now have a source stating that the shooter did indeed ask to be referred to as Aiden.
- NYT: "Maria Colomy, a former instructor at the Nossi College of Art & Design in Nashville, said she taught the shooter, whom the police have identified as Audrey Hale, in 2017, and later saw Facebook posts in which her former student asked to be called by a new name, Aiden, as well as by male pronouns." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying but this is a difficult situation as we have very little to go on here, either from reliable sources or from pages maintained by Hale himself. We can't ask him so we shouldn't speculate on why he used Aiden in some places and Audrey in others. I think it's unlikely that we'll get consensus to remove Hale's deadname from this article entirely. (Again, I'm speaking as a transmasculine person myself.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are a lot of reasons he might have written it that way that have nothing to do with his actual preferred name. It's very common, especially early in transition, for people to continue to use their deadname while the people in their life get used to it or with specific people who do not accept them for who they are. It's my understanding that he used Aiden on social media aside from linkedin, which nobody updates unless they're looking for work, and that indicates to me that he was using the name Aiden and not Audrey whenever possible. I think he should be referred to as Aiden and it should be mentioned in the lead that he used to go by and is often referred to by the media as Audrey. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 28 March 2023
2023 Covenant School shooting → Covenant School shooting – I think that WP:NOYEAR and WP:NCE has a much stronger case here than in other recent shootings. Since the title is much more precise in its location (naming a specific school), and given that history has usually not seen a major notable shooting happen in the same precise location as opposed to maybe a city (for example, there are numerous shootings in Pittsburgh but only one at Sandy Hook Elementary). The precision of the location in the title is too specific to justify more, and I believe WP:CRYSTALBALL could potentially be implied (albeit weakly) if we keep a year in here, potentially suggesting that there are more shootings, notable or unnotable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per the proposal. The proposed title is reasonable, makes sense per WP:NOYEAR, and there's precedent in relation to other article titles of similar events. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Striking vote. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Support as the standard, concise title format for this type of article. It includes a specific location, so there's no need for the year.Move to Nashville school shooting because the national & international media is using Nashville far more often in its article titles than Covenant, so it's the best title. Due to being highly-publicised & the only notable school shooting in Nashville, it fulfils WP:NOYEAR. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- The "standard, concise title format" is prescribed at WP:NCE. It would be utterly amazing if you accepted that. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please tone down the comments...they're starting to seem uncivil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- What a time to be alive, equating requesting consensus be respected to being incivil. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comments like "What a time to be alive" and "It would be utterly amazing if you accepted that." seem to ride the line of incivility. Could you please tone down your wording? Maybe just say "please respect consensus" instead of what you said earlier. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- What a time to be alive, equating requesting consensus be respected to being incivil. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please tone down the comments...they're starting to seem uncivil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Jim as with all of the past move discussions we've both been involved in on this, the standard community consensus naming convention is spelled out at WP:NCE. That means that until this event has a common name, which it won't for at least a year, the When, where, what standard naming format should be used. In this case, this means that the article should be named 2023 Covenant School shooting or ideally 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The "standard, concise title format" is prescribed at WP:NCE. It would be utterly amazing if you accepted that. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per WP:NCE, the title format for events is When, Where and What happened. WP:NOYEAR suggests the year can be omitted for titles where the event is so recognizable that the year is irrelevant, but that also requires
historic perspective
, and for something that happened less than 24 hours ago it's far too soon to be claiming this is the WP:COMMONNAME. If anything, I'd support moving the page to 2023 Nashville shooting which is what the vast majority of our sources refer to this event as. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- I never understood the
historic perspective
argument given that the same argument can be tossed back in the courts of the argument's proponents. Yes, we have a day of precedent, but that means that there's no argument to support inserting the year either, especially considering that in practically every "year or no year" dispute, the subject event is the only kind. People also frequently mention WP:NCE, but there's a reason why at the top of the wider page, it states that [this wider guideline
]is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
. I also strongly oppose moving this article to 2023 Nashville Shooting, which violates WP:DESCRIPTOR by being needlessly vague and broad. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- The
historic perspective
argument is one that requires a significant amount of time to have passed from the event to be accurately assessed. One day is nowhere near enough time, and as such Locke Cole is correct that the primary convention on When, where, what of WP:NCE should apply. Additionally all of the examples listed at NOYEAR largely follow the common name for those events from the sources that discuss them. - The boilerplate
is a generally accepted standard
text is something that is on all Wikipedia guidelines, and comes from the {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} template. It's not specific to that guideline and no extra meaning should be read into it by its presence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The
- I never understood the
- Support - this is a specific location, at that point, there really is no point to disambiguate further. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
this is a specific location
Does WP:NCE say it applies to non-specific locations only? Regardless, there are many schools with the name "Covenant" in their name, so omitting the year makes it ambiguous, especially as it's very likely this will not be the only "Covenant" school to have a mass shooting at some point. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose both titles - Both are too vague, as a simple google of "covenant school" will show that this is not even the only covenant school out there, as results show there are also ones in Virginia and Texas. Also complying with WP:NCE, I think we should have the title as "2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting" or "Nashville Covenant School shooting". - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Good point, but a point has to be raised in that this is the only Covenant school that has been subject to a shooting. I am neutral on the latter Nashville Covenant School shooting suggestion of yours. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fair point of yours also, and I understand where you're coming from. I'll keep your comment in mind in this RM and future ones. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure about this when it’s not a standalone title, but generally the title formatting for "Covenant School"s is Covenant School (State), which if following this format within this title would be: Covenant School (Nashville) shooting BhamBoi (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Good point, but a point has to be raised in that this is the only Covenant school that has been subject to a shooting. I am neutral on the latter Nashville Covenant School shooting suggestion of yours. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment – If the consensus of this debate ends up being to exclude the year from the title, I recommend changing the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting, 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting, & 2021 Oxford High School shooting articles back to their original titles, without the year included. Silent-Rains (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the year should be removed from those titles as well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree and concur with Jim and Silent on all of these. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. The year should only be removed from those article titles if there is a common name in reliable sources for those events, and that removing the natural disambiguation of the year would not cause article ambiguity. A quick Google search for each of those shootings did not turn up a common name that lacked a year, as every source I skimmed, except those local to Santa Fe, specified a year in their ongoing coverage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support. The year in the title is unnecessary disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support per NCE's "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." First thing that came to my mind with the included year was, "there was more than one shooting? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I also support adding Nashville to the title because that's more useful than the year. People will more likely search for Nashville school shooting than use covenant as a search term. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:NCE is absolutely clear here that in the absence of a common name from reliable sources, the article title should follow the When, Where, What pattern. A shooting that happened a day ago is far too early to have a common name from sources, and the lack of a When would make Covenant School shooting non-descriptive. That being said, 2023 Covenant School shooting is also a pretty bad title for the Where part of NCE, as there are multiple Covenant Schools in the US and elsewhere. A more descriptive title would be something like 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting, Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per NCE. The inclusion of the year adds a time context to the event. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support Distinctive enough, three words long and more consistent with how reliable sources and the people who know them actually write and talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per NCE and precedent of this format being used for school shootings as outlined below. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as per emerged convention (see "Precedent" below). Dan100 (Talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I do want to mention that this discussion mirroring past discussions. For whatever reason, there appears to be a conflict between articles in the sub-categories of Category:School shootings in the United States and the recent sub-categories of Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year, specifically 2021 to 2023. Sub-category Category:Elementary school shootings in the United States has fifteen article with twelve not using the year. Sub-category Category:2023 mass shootings in the United States has all articles with a year, with one exception. I do think that there needs to be some consistency with these types of articles, but I believe that would require an RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe the year should always be in the title. Helps people sort through which was which. The precedent section below makes a good case. Dream Focus 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per NCE and the mountain of precedent below. We should remain consistent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NCE Esb5415 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NCE and precedent cited below. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
"Precedent"
Above, both Nythar and (struck since Nythar struck their !vote) Jim Michael 2 claim there is precedent for naming school shootings without the year. Let's test that theory. I went through the list of school shootings in {{School shootings in the United States}} that have articles, and (surprise, surprise) the vast majority of them in fact do include the year in the title. The outliers are typically the ones you'd expect, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, etc. But here's the rest:
- 2023 Michigan State University shooting
- 2022 University of Virginia shooting
- 2022 Central Visual and Performing Arts High School shooting
- 2022 East High School shooting
- 2022 Oakland school shooting
- 2021 Oxford High School shooting
- 2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting
- 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting
- 2018 Noblesville West Middle School shooting
- 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting
- 2018 Marshall County High School shooting
- 2017 Aztec High School shooting
- 2017 North Park Elementary School shooting
- 2016 Townville Elementary School shooting
- 2016 UCLA shooting
- 2015 Northern Arizona University shooting
- 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting
- 2013 Sparks Middle School shooting
- 2013 Santa Monica shootings
- 2008 University of Central Arkansas shooting
I stopped there. I could go on though, but I think the point is made: most articles on "school shootings" utilize the naming convention put forward by the community in WP:NCE. For an event that just happened yesterday, there's little reason to deviate from that. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see your point. But, well, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting isn't even the common name. That would be "Parkland high school shooting", the most common name found in reliable sources. But I suppose that's beside the point. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
That would be "Parkland high school shooting"
And I'd support that move, because we're dealing with thehistoric perspective
that WP:NCE (and WP:NOYEAR specifically) calls out as prerequisites to deviating from the when/where/what naming convention. Let's go discuss moving that page, if we're gonna move anything... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- When the location is in the title (rather than merely the settlement/area) it's not even the majority of titles that include the year, let alone the vast majority. Those without the year are far from being outliers; they greatly outnumber those with the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you think that a Where, what naming convention pattern is sufficient disambiguation for the majority of these sort of events, then I would suggest that you seek a consensus to change the text of WP:NCE, which currently clearly states that the majority of articles should use the When, where, what pattern. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, there could be a case for TITLECON here. BhamBoi (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the claim that
most articles on "school shootings" utilize the naming convention put forward by the community in WP:NCE
appears to be incorrect. Looking at the primary sub-categories of Category:School shootings in the United States, you have the University and college sub-category where 20 of the 32 do not use the year, the High School sub-category with 36 out of 46 that do not use the year, the with 11 out of 15 that do not use the year, and the sub-category this article belongs to with 12 out of 15 that do not use the year. That makes a total of 79 out of 98 that do not use the year and 21 that do. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)- For your University and college sub-category, it appears there's a combination of counting redirects (which are irrelevant), and miscategorization (as there are articles not about school shootings categorized in that list). This is why I went with the navbox, because as a rule they don't include redirects (makes the navbox less functional) and it's easy to pick out articles not directly about school shootings. It's the same thing for the High School sub-category you linked to. All of those italic titles listed are redirects. Redirect naming is much more lax than article naming. Working from the navbox list, 70% of article titles included the year, while < 30% did not. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- When only those whose specific location is included (such as Thurston High School shooting) rather than only the settlement (such as 2022 Oakland school shooting), the clear majority don't include the year. Although this shooting is very recent, it's very widely publicised, so it clearly fits the no year criteria. As far more media sources are using Nashville in their headlines than are using Covenant, there's a good case for including Nashville in the heading. Nashville shooting is a dab page, so Nashville school shooting would be a better title. 2023 Nashville shooting & Nashville Covenant School shooting are also better than the current title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- For your University and college sub-category, it appears there's a combination of counting redirects (which are irrelevant), and miscategorization (as there are articles not about school shootings categorized in that list). This is why I went with the navbox, because as a rule they don't include redirects (makes the navbox less functional) and it's easy to pick out articles not directly about school shootings. It's the same thing for the High School sub-category you linked to. All of those italic titles listed are redirects. Redirect naming is much more lax than article naming. Working from the navbox list, 70% of article titles included the year, while < 30% did not. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Edit which firearms are included
The 3 firearms that were used are an M&P Shield 9 ez, an AR-15, and a Keltec Sub2000, which you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=35&v=UeXLhQv11tY Bageltre (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those weapons are already specified in the infobox; besides, this source does not state what the firearms are, just shows photos of them. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Actually — only the Kel-Tec is specified in the linked source for the infobox, not the other two.
- Can anyone find a reliable source that notes the other weapons? (I found Newsweek, but they're iffy.) If not, they should be removed pending better source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- you can visibly see them holding the keltec and the ar15 in the video linked previously at ~20 seconds. I haven't been able to confirm the M&P Bageltre (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- For us to judge what the weapons are based on the released photos and videos would be considered original research. We need reliable sources that state what they are. All I can find is Newsweek, which is not considered a reliable source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bageltre: Any WP:RS backing up your claims? ID-ing guns through video is WP:OR (even if correctly identified). A09 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- you can visibly see them holding the keltec and the ar15 in the video linked previously at ~20 seconds. I haven't been able to confirm the M&P Bageltre (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- In the article they are shown as "lone star" and is incorrect. The correct name is Lead Star Bryanfox1 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove the part regarding Gun laws in Tennessee
This isn't the page for that and it is very clearly politically biased, so it should not be included. Bageltre (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which part, specifically? Also, do you think the material is WP:UNDUE? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this is what @Bageltre is referring to:
- "Gun laws in Tennessee are considered lax, with a recent 2021 bill allowing all those aged 21 and older to carry a loaded handgun in public, openly or concealed without requiring a permit. There were also no requirements for background checks or trainings for handgun owners, with rifles and shotguns being able to be purchased by anyone over 18 and can be carried open and unloaded. Two additional bills aimed to loosen gun regulations in the state were being debated in the legislature in the months before the shooting."
- I also agree that this is unnecessary. I don't see why Tennessee's background check laws matter when the shooter did not have a criminal record, nor how trainings for handgun owners would have affected the shooter. A person being able to carry a loaded handgun in public without a permit also does not matter because the shooter had a rifle as well. Silent-Rains (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I was the one that added that part. I felt it should be included since the shooter is listed as having a handgun and rifles on them at the time of the shooting. It was in the background section, as I had seen multiple different articles of both local and national sources reference the gun laws alongside discussio of the shooting and the perpetrator. (Sorry for any mistakes I'm on mobile) Leaky.Solar (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is WP:UNDUE because the firearms were acquired legally and background checks did not matter in this case. The shooter used weapons that were not allowed to be used in the public anyway and the laws don't matter. If it is relevant again to this story then maybe it should stay but for now it should be removed.
- Also, what is a scholarhistorian? BageItre (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, the status of if one was under mental health care didn't seem to apply. I'm not familiar with the Tennessee laws at this time so my facts may not be straight. Hale was under care for emotional disorder. Cwater1 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (3)
In the infobox, under Weapons it currently reads:
Weapons |
|
---|
The cited source only specifies the Kel-Tec gun; the other two are not specified. The other guns can be deduced based on the images and videos put out by police, but the only sources I can find that actually specify them are Newsweek (not listed as reliable in the WP:RSP) and the Gun Violence Archive (whose reliability does not appear to have been previously discussed).
If either of those two sources is considered reliable for these purposes, then the [1] citation should be moved to the Kel-Tec and appropriate citations should be added next to the other two.
If not, as I assume is the case for now, the citation should be moved and the other two guns made generic as per sources in the article text:
Weapons |
|
---|
2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not done for now: The infobox has been updated using this CNN source. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just to add to this, Newsweek only says that they "appear" to be these, not that they are. So, I don't think we would need to consider if the Newsweek article was an exception or not as Newsweek is not saying it as fact but as a probability. As for the Archive, it is used in just a handful of articles, though the articles it is used it are Mass shooting, 2022 in the United States, [[Gun violence in the United States], etc. However, I can't get the link to work as it keeps getting stuck in a loop, so I wasn't able to see what they actually said. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Add timeline
I was thinking about maybe add a timeline of the event. This source may help. [3]https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/03/us/timeline-covenant-school-shooting-nashville/index.html Cwater1 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable Silent-Rains (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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:
- 2021 Oxford High School shooting: "President Joe Biden and U.S. Representative Elissa Slotkin, whose district includes Oxford High School, expressed their condolences over the shooting."
- 2022 Sacramento shooting: "President Joe Biden called on the United States Congress to work on new gun control measures."
- 2022 Buffalo shooting: "President Joe Biden offered his prayers for the victims and their families."
- Robb Elementary School shooting: "Biden highlighted that other countries have "mental health problems", "domestic disputes", and "people who are lost, but these kinds of mass shootings never happen with the kind of frequency they happen in America. Why? Why are we willing to live with this carnage?" Biden said that he was "sick and tired" of mass shootings, declaring "we have to act", and calling for "common sense" gun laws."
- Highland Park parade shooting: "President Joe Biden stated that he was shocked by the "senseless" gun violence and has offered the "full support of the Federal government" to the affected communities. He also called for gun control measures."
- 2022 Raleigh shooting: " U.S. President Joe Biden said he and his wife Jill were grieving with the victims' families."
- 2022 Central Visual and Performing Arts High School shooting: "President Joe Biden posted on Twitter, writing "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."
- 2022 University of Virginia shooting: "US President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden issued a joint statement about the shooting, which offered their condolences to the families of the victims, thanked first responders for their swift response, and condemned gun violence."
- 2022 Chesapeake shooting: "President Joe Biden shared his condolences and called for gun reform in the U.S."
- 2023 Monterey Park shooting: "He later offered condolences and ordered flags at the White House to be flown at half-staff."
- 2023 Michigan State University shooting: " Joe Biden expressed condolences, and called for gun control."
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)
- 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)
- Do you have a reliable source to say that my reply is original research? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The lack of reliable sources in your reply implies that it's original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Silent-Rains: Please see WP:BURDEN. A09 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The lack of reliable sources in your reply implies that it's original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source to say that my reply is original research? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sources for statements: Oxford,[1] Sacramento,[2] Buffalo,[3] Uvalde (there's something wacky with that source), Highland Park,[4] Raleigh,[5] Missouri high school,[6] Virginia,[7] Chesapeake,[8] Monterey Park,[9] & Michigan.[10] Silent-Rains (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)- 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)
- @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 "
- 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)
- Exclude. The "ice cream-gate" is no more than a conservative beatup to attempt to smear Biden. He was speaking at a business forum, where he made a light-hearted comment to the audience. He addressed the shooting with appropriate commentary and demeanour. It has been demonstrated that his ice cream comments were taken out of context.[4] WWGB (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- A similar statement made by a right leaning politician, and used by the left to smear that politician, would be feautured on that person's Wikipedia article without question. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Exclude. The ice cream comment and reactions to it have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The political affiliation of Biden is (or should be) irrelevant to whether or not to include this pointless trivia. Funcrunch (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- INCLUDE - Biden's icecream jokes and blaming Republicans for the shooting made international news so it does reach the newsworthy threshold for Wikipedia. Now whether it'll be permitted to get past gatekeepers here, that's another story. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest you relax a little with the accusatory tone. Nobody else over here is really sympathetic to what you're saying. (I mean that not as a critique of your views but instead just to inform you) No point getting agitated because viewers will just think you're flailing around. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Include If there are RS and sufficient coverage there should be no debate regardless how editors feel the media is spinning this story. This is an encyclopedia right, or are we editorializing now? Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- We don't include random trivia not related to the subject of the article. That is exactly what WP:COATRACK is about. SilverserenC 12:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not trivia or WP:COATRACK, Biden was panned widely in RS in relation to the subject of the article. To not include could be considered white washing. WP:REDACTION applies here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- We don't include random trivia not related to the subject of the article. That is exactly what WP:COATRACK is about. SilverserenC 12:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning exclude - I disagree that this would be COATRACK; the president's "poor" joke before speaking about this shooting would be relevant enough for a mention here if sufficient sourcing covered the comments. However, I don't believe it to be established enough in mainstream coverage to warrant a mention, per WP:DUE. All I've really found is Snopes, USA Today, CBS 21. Not enough really. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Include See my comments below.Derpytoucan (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Exclude This is the place for criticism or praise of the Covenant School shooting, not Joe Biden. He has his own article for that. Besides, the last version removed didn't even say who "criticized" him, and the sketchy source only claimed he "was mocked". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Other coatrack concerns
- This portion removed by Kieronoldham is clearly much more balanced than the deep-dive on Biden's reaction. It mentions both liberal and conservative takes. I'm personally not sure if we should include it or not, but it certainly shouldn't be removed based on Kieronoldham's reasoning. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- They self-reverted, but we should still consider whether this is relevant or not. The last sentence in particular seems to hold little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't waste time. Work aside from political aspects and adherences to conform to sterile impartiality. Public perception of Wikipedia can be improved without selectivity re: political affiliations.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this means. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not trying to speak for Kieronoldham, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they mean that the political aspects ie "hot takes" shouldn't be prioritized or given more weight than the more objective and factual components. Otherwise we may see editors and ip coming out of the woodwork to POVpush and distract from getting consensus on less subjective details, IMO. Not a bad idea, but it could be easier said than done for admins. Is there any kind of protocol for these types of articles yet? This happens so frequently there really should be, otherwise it must be exhausting. DN (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this means. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As any fyi as I am unsure if this has been settled or not but wanted to mention that the entire part has been removed again by @InedibleHulk along with comments by Rep Tim Burchett and the comments by the Highland Park parade shooting survivor. The comment left was that it was "Beyond their jurisdictions" If this was discussed and settled in the Tucker Carlson section below, I might have missed it. Leaky.Solar (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- That works for me. Mentioning every politician's reaction would definitely get us into COATRACK territory. Limiting the reactions to only those who are related to or involved with the event (e.g. those who have jurisdiction over the area where it occurred) seems like a good way to prevent that. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't waste time. Work aside from political aspects and adherences to conform to sterile impartiality. Public perception of Wikipedia can be improved without selectivity re: political affiliations.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- They self-reverted, but we should still consider whether this is relevant or not. The last sentence in particular seems to hold little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Political gaffs might be due in an article about the politician but they don't pass the 10 year test for an encyclopedia article about the event. Springee (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Tucker Carlson’s response
Tucker Carlson portrayed the shooting as evidence of a supposed transgender war against Christians, see: [5]. I added this to the reactions section of the article but it was reverted. Carlson is in an odd position because, while his political commentary is quite extreme (and frequently not based in fact), he’s also very popular in the US, frequently ranking #1 in the list of most-watched cable news shows (if his show can be called news). Being popular doesn’t make him right, but it might at least make him notable, particularly if other conservative pundits begin echoing the same opinions (which they seem to be doing). Should his reaction be included or not? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think those sources alone justify inclusion. See WP:DAILYBEAST and WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since Carlson is an expert on neither transgenderism nor Christianity, his comments are irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Given that Fox News has argued and won in court on the basis that Carlson's words should not be taken literally, I think that warrants exclusion. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- bwahahah good one Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I removed everyone who's not officially responsible for and to Nashville on some level. Less bullshit that way. People known for ruffling feathers are especially unwelcome (in a perfect encyclopedia, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- And I get that NBC is even more famous than FNC, but I must insist, LightNightLights (talk · contribs), unnamed social media users and gun control advocates are known (broadly speaking) for ruffling feathers. Maybe if someone on Ogles' level of notability reacts to him about this event, we can cite that critic. Sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @LightNightLights: I may have botched the ping above, sorry, sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The ping worked, no worries; Wikipedia Mobile takes a while to notify. I'm currently writing a response. LightNightLights (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- My point in restoring the response-criticism text was more that it *is* sourced, despite your removal reason that "[the removed text is] someone's reaction to him, not his [reaction] to [the shooting]" (diff). While I get the point that Ogles is notable and that the mentioned groups are for-better-or-worse "
known for ruffling feathers
", we do have a source that mentions the criticism, and I don't think we can just ignore that. I'm also leaning towards including it here than Ogles's own article, since part of the source (what it deemed as notable) mentions a parent whose child was killed in a shooting that "the tragedy of the latest mass shooting is listening to Tennessee politicians who refuse to call it a shooting but who engaged in behavior that caused this to be more likely when they glorify guns". Maybe we can check if there are other sources that mention Ogles's statement and see if it's due to mention the criticism. LightNightLights (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)- I think it's a slippery slope. What happens if other unspecified masses online start hating on Ogles' haters, as divided keyboard warriors are historically wont to do? Do we include them, too, without saying who they're supposed to be? If you insist more than I do, fine. But I think we should attribute opinions, even if those said to hold them don't have articles or do only go by usernames. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk For what it's worth, the article mentions: "... faced criticism from gun control advocates and Democrats on Tuesday after a 2021 photo resurfaced ..." I'm okay with attributing the criticism to gun control advocates and Democrats. LightNightLights (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see that. But which Democrats? Just Veronica Escobar? Which gun control advocates? Fred Guttenberg alone?Everyone else in this section is identifiable. These vague characters are outliers, and conspicuously so. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hm, while it's true that they are vague groups of people, there is a Democratic House-representative (Veronica Escobar) and a gun-control-advocate parent (Fred Guttenberg). While I'd be willing to check other sources to see more individuals criticizing Ogles (and looking at headlines of a cursory search seems to imply that many articles *do* mention criticism of Ogles), this whole issue seems to be about MOS:WEASEL and that guideline allows statements like this, however subpar ("views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source [emphasis in original]"). LightNightLights (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- (Regarding Special:Diff/1147173239, see Special:Diff/1147175097.) LightNightLights (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As one Democrat is not Democrats and one gun control advocate is not advocates, I don't think those words accurately represent the source. It's a bad habit in online news, where a single official is also often spun into "officials" for a headline and lede, then clarified a few paragraphs later. Anyway, enjoy your break, I look forward to seeing what you find (even if I might not like it). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hm, while it's true that they are vague groups of people, there is a Democratic House-representative (Veronica Escobar) and a gun-control-advocate parent (Fred Guttenberg). While I'd be willing to check other sources to see more individuals criticizing Ogles (and looking at headlines of a cursory search seems to imply that many articles *do* mention criticism of Ogles), this whole issue seems to be about MOS:WEASEL and that guideline allows statements like this, however subpar ("views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source [emphasis in original]"). LightNightLights (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see that. But which Democrats? Just Veronica Escobar? Which gun control advocates? Fred Guttenberg alone?Everyone else in this section is identifiable. These vague characters are outliers, and conspicuously so. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk For what it's worth, the article mentions: "... faced criticism from gun control advocates and Democrats on Tuesday after a 2021 photo resurfaced ..." I'm okay with attributing the criticism to gun control advocates and Democrats. LightNightLights (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's a slippery slope. What happens if other unspecified masses online start hating on Ogles' haters, as divided keyboard warriors are historically wont to do? Do we include them, too, without saying who they're supposed to be? If you insist more than I do, fine. But I think we should attribute opinions, even if those said to hold them don't have articles or do only go by usernames. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- My point in restoring the response-criticism text was more that it *is* sourced, despite your removal reason that "[the removed text is] someone's reaction to him, not his [reaction] to [the shooting]" (diff). While I get the point that Ogles is notable and that the mentioned groups are for-better-or-worse "
- The ping worked, no worries; Wikipedia Mobile takes a while to notify. I'm currently writing a response. LightNightLights (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- buddy. it was a targeted attack. the shooter had a manifesto. the police said all this themselves. tucker might be in the wrong as he's not being more delicate about the situation, but he isn't lying yk. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody has reported the contents of the manifesto yet. Hearsay and speculation are not reliable sources. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- the police chief of Nashville himself said it was targeted.... Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Targeted means Hale had chosen the location in advance, as opposed to spontaneously. Targeted does not mean it was specifically intended to be an attack against Christians. That may or may not turn out to be the case, but we don't know so yet. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- and you derived that meaning from where exactly? " Targeted does not mean it was specifically intended to be an attack against Christians."
- you literally have no clue about what happened (none of us do as of now) and you're openly speculating after yourself arguing against speculation. show a little consistency s'il te plait Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Countless reliable sources quote the police chief and police department spokespeople as saying they have no motive yet. Just because Tucker disagrees does not make it so. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Targeted means Hale had chosen the location in advance, as opposed to spontaneously. Targeted does not mean it was specifically intended to be an attack against Christians. That may or may not turn out to be the case, but we don't know so yet. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- the police chief of Nashville himself said it was targeted.... Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, which parts of what Tucker said is he not lying about? LightNightLights (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at their edit history, it would appear they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather in part to push their ideological viewpoints. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- kinda sad that a random IP doesn't want to bother continuing what's been a so-far respectful decision so you just baselessly claim [[[Wikipedia:NOTHERE]] as you've got nothing else of substance to say here. what ideological viewpoints did I even push? I simply stated that tucker was wrong in the fact he's not being more delicate in how he's delivering the news regarding this, but his core point is not really wrong. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- And what's this "core point"? LightNightLights (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've realized this is veering into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Feel free to hat. LightNightLights (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. Not worth it. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- good point Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- check other reply Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've realized this is veering into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Feel free to hat. LightNightLights (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- And what's this "core point"? LightNightLights (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- kinda sad that a random IP doesn't want to bother continuing what's been a so-far respectful decision so you just baselessly claim [[[Wikipedia:NOTHERE]] as you've got nothing else of substance to say here. what ideological viewpoints did I even push? I simply stated that tucker was wrong in the fact he's not being more delicate in how he's delivering the news regarding this, but his core point is not really wrong. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- it's my belief that tucker isn't necessarily lying so far in his characterisation of the 'war' etc. obviously it's hyperbole, but the point he's tryna get across regarding a clash of beliefs isn't of itself incorrect Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at their edit history, it would appear they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather in part to push their ideological viewpoints. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody has reported the contents of the manifesto yet. Hearsay and speculation are not reliable sources. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't think Carlson's take is important, and it's not reliably sourced (see FormalDude's comments about Rolling Stone and The Daily Beast). Also, it appears to be too early to speculate about Hale's motive for the shooting (if there is one at all). Perhaps the manifesto will reveal more about the motive; I'm sure the authorities are investigation that as we speak. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Include The Names of The Police Officers?
Shouldn't the name of at least the 2 police officer(Rex Engelbert and Michael Collazo) be included? Sticktheok (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why? They were just doing their job. What is notable about that? WWGB (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Conversely why are officers names in the Uvalde article? Not because WWGD believes they're notable but because RS reports on them and we're an encyclopedia that presents information relevant to the event in a neutral manner.
- If there are RS and sufficient weight, include it unless there is policy that says not to. After all, what does it matter whether or not the officers were or were not just "doing their job"? Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Uvalde shooting is a bad example to use as there are really good reasons given. To breifly quote,
[...] Steve McCraw, Texas Department of Public Safety Director, testified during the Texas Senate Committee Meeting on the Uvalde School Shooting that the police response was an "abject failure and antithetical to everything we have learned over the past two decades" and that the police could have stopped the shooter in three minutes.
In contrast, the two officers are being mentioned by sources as heroes: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Very different situations. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Uvalde shooting is a bad example to use as there are really good reasons given. To breifly quote,
- Stopping a notable mass shooting from getting worse is pretty notable, as RS note. Not enough for a standalone article, but clearly important characters in this context. I disagree that naming should only (or mostly) be for shaming. It also just helps to tell a story when the players are introduced. Calling both officers "officers" or one "one" and the other "another" is needlessly vague, given that they're as publicly known as their chief, John Drake. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
remove the shooter's name from the lede
FOLKS, the very thing these scumbags crave when they commit such depraved actions are fame. the b*stard had a manifesto. let's remove the name from the lede so as to not give that publicity. it'll obviously have to be included somewhere in the article, so the remaining body should suffice Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As an encyclopedia, the desire to deny recognition to those who do bad things should not affect how articles are written. Virtually all other articles on here about mass shootings feature the shooter's name in the lede. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- guess that should change then. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Becausewhynothuh? if you want to change that, try your hand at the Village Pump. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 10:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you do end up going to the Village Pump, you should review and keep in mind the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy. This has been discussed in the past on other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting censoring anything though. it would just be a relatively minor change as the name would have to be mentioned later on anyway, but removing it from the lede could have the positive effect of Wikipedia not participating as an active fame-giver for the shooters. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. I should have been a bit more clear. If you look at the Aurora discussion, you will see that there was a discussion called "Inclusion of the name of the suspect" that I linked to. The discussion was about potentially removing the name of the suspect. Some of the participants cited WP:CENSOR, which is the policy mentioned above, in support of keeping the name in that article. While this is just about removing it from the lede, I would believe that it would incur a similar response. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- oh figures then. thanks for the heads up Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. I should have been a bit more clear. If you look at the Aurora discussion, you will see that there was a discussion called "Inclusion of the name of the suspect" that I linked to. The discussion was about potentially removing the name of the suspect. Some of the participants cited WP:CENSOR, which is the policy mentioned above, in support of keeping the name in that article. While this is just about removing it from the lede, I would believe that it would incur a similar response. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting censoring anything though. it would just be a relatively minor change as the name would have to be mentioned later on anyway, but removing it from the lede could have the positive effect of Wikipedia not participating as an active fame-giver for the shooters. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- guess that should change then. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather see the names of the victims removed. These people simply had the bad luck to be in the path of a bullet. Their names add nothing to our understanding of events. It seems horrific and ghoulish to post their names here as a constant reminder to their families. And, no, it doesn't matter that "reliable sources" are so sensationalist to include them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is an absurdly bad take lol what. The point of their names being included is remembrance. You can’t just forget the innocent victims of horrific actions. Nearly ever single article on a horrific crime like this commemorates the victims, although sadly, the scumbag perps often get a lot of the attention😒 86.99.168.243 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't intended to be a memorial, though, it's an encyclopedia. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Remembrance"? Of people you NEVER met. Leave the memorials for the family, friends, and community affected. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Category Query
Here's the current list: Categories:
- 2023 active shooter incidents in the United States
- 2023 in LGBT history
- 2023 in Tennessee
- 2023 mass shootings in the United States
- 2023 murders in the United States
- March 2023 crimes in the United States
- 2020s crimes in Tennessee
- Deaths by firearm in Tennessee
- Murder in Tennessee
- 21st century in Nashville, Tennessee
- Child murder
- Crime in Nashville, Tennessee
- Elementary school shootings in the United States
- LGBT in Tennessee
- Mass shootings in Tennessee
- Mass shootings in the United States
- Transgender history in the United States
We currently have 11 crime based categories, 8 Tennessee based categories, and 3 LGTP related categories. The thing is this was a targeted attack on a Christian school connected to a Christian church yet there's nothing in the category listing that covers this. I'm not an expert on categories but shouldn't there be something like Category:Massacres of Christians (probably excessive), Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence or Category:Persecution of Christians? If others can suggest more appropriate categories that's fine, as I say I'm not an expert on categories, but the current choice seems to ignore the victims and intended targets which is wrong. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- add hate crime Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- good point about the victims but I suggest we wait till the manifesto is released and the details come out so that we can appropriately delineate this article. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As has been stated: there is no source yet that this was specifically an attack on Christians. A manifesto exists but has not yet been released or reported on, and police have said repeatedly they have no motive yet. Those categories have been added and then removed because of that very reasoning. It may well be the case that this was an act of anti-Christian violence or hate crime — but the sources for that aren't there yet. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- ☝🏻 Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234, the facts show this was an attack on Christians. Now whether Hale's manifesto explicitly states the school was targeted because it's Christian, or she simply targeted the school because she hated what they taught, or she chose it because she hated her time there or the culture there, doesn't negate the fact it was a hate crime. Note too that while she lived at home, she had significant problems with her parents who are, as I understand it, Christians themselves. That may be a contributing factor in her choice of target. Are you saying a pro-KKK type mass shooter who just 'randomly' chooses to attack a Black church can't be accused of a race crime unless his manifesto explicitly states such? I guess I'm not really sure what level of evidence you're demanding. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- jeez relax man. listen, by Sunday, it will be termed a hate crime either way. just show some patience and wait for the facts to come out bro Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Any evidence at all of this claim from any reliable source is what Wikipedia demands. That's the bar, and nobody here has found anything that fits the bill so far. You're welcome to look on your own, but I suggest waiting for the details of motive to inevitably emerge, and not getting yourself banned in the meantime for insisting that acknowledging the shooter is trans means Wikipedia is "partisan" or has "opted out on the science". 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- well said Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 - We must have reliable sources label the event as a hate crime or bias-motivated before we can use that label. No matter how obvious it may seem to people. I think the Pulse Night Club shooting is a good example of how prematurely labeling events can be detrimental. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- 2nd the above, Wikipedia isn't a news site and so we are in no rush to change things that could spread possibly false information. It'd be irresponsible if we did. Planetberaure (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234, the facts show this was an attack on Christians. Now whether Hale's manifesto explicitly states the school was targeted because it's Christian, or she simply targeted the school because she hated what they taught, or she chose it because she hated her time there or the culture there, doesn't negate the fact it was a hate crime. Note too that while she lived at home, she had significant problems with her parents who are, as I understand it, Christians themselves. That may be a contributing factor in her choice of target. Are you saying a pro-KKK type mass shooter who just 'randomly' chooses to attack a Black church can't be accused of a race crime unless his manifesto explicitly states such? I guess I'm not really sure what level of evidence you're demanding. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- ☝🏻 Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Head of School Katherine Koonce Killed Whilst Charging Hale?
Just saw a news article which suggests Koonce may have been killed whilst confronting Hale. It's likely too early to update the article as it's unconfirmed, but I'm noting the details here for future reference.
Koonce was in the middle of a Zoom meeting - with whom isn't stated, when gunshots rang out. She immediately ended the call and headed straight out. Metro Nashville police chief John Drake said he is sure there was a confrontation based on the position of Koonce's body, but can't say precisely what happened with Hale before she shot her.
Prior to the shooting Koonce had prepared The Covenant School by “seeking advanced level active shooter training” which “saved countless lives” when the shooting occurred. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, the source of these claims is an interview Nashville City Councilman Russ Pulley gave exclusively to Fox News Digital. This is the original source, and the interview's quotes have since been repeated by The Telegraph and The Independent. All three are reliable sources as per RSP (as I don't believe this counts as politics, for which Fox News' reliability is in question, and it wasn't given to a talk show on the network). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Pronouns...
IMO, the beginning of the article, as currently written, is rather confusing...In the first paragraph, it identifies the shooter as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" - a very female sounding name - but then shortly, thereafter, we read that "Hale sent a message...that he planned to die today." (emphasis mine)
Up to this point though, there was no discussion of the fact that Hale was a female to male trans-person (this doesn't come until a ways later in the article), so I think that's rather confusing....Yes, there is a note "b" by the pronoun, but IMO there should be more clarity from the plain text of the article, without someone having to click on a note.
It seems to me that there are two possible solutions to this issue (to maintain clarity while avoiding misgendering):
1)Discuss the shooter's gender identity earlier in the article.
2)Avoid using pronouns for him at all, until the fact that he was F->M trans is mentioned. So, in that sentence for example, it would read that "Hale sent a message...that Hale planned to die today."
Personally, I prefer the first option, but either could work. -2003:CA:8708:3F11:AE24:B40F:B794:1F57 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- We should just use an explanatory note about the pronoun usage at the first pronoun just like we do in the Bella Ramsey article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really see how that's a comparable situation...."Bella" and "Isabella May" (the names listed at the beginning of that article) are both female, and then the article proceeds to use female pronouns for her. So not a lot of confusion is likely in that case. The note in that article is more than sufficient. But this article is quite different, as it identifies the shooter with a female name, and them proceeds to use male pronouns, thus causing confusion. Like I said, I think the plain text of the article should be much clearer, without readers having to click on a note. Of course if the primary name Hale is identified as is switched to "Aiden," as some have suggested, this would no long be an issue. But so long as Hale is indentified primarily as "Audrey" then it remains confusing. -2003:CA:8708:3F11:AE24:B40F:B794:1F57 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like someone added an explanatory note to explain the he/him pronouns. I just tweaked it to change "male" to "he/him" to describe said pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The way I had it referred to Hale as "I". The fuller quote was "basically a suicide note. I'm planning to die today." I still think that's the clearest way, and something like "Hale, who used he/him pronouns,..." would work better than an interrupting note people have to click. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are other uses of he/him pronouns in that section though, before Hale's trans identity is mentioned later in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, the very first word is "Hale". This could easily be
Hale, who used he/him pronouns, sent a message
... I won't do it while we're still discussing this, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)- The full name "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" is currently in the lead, hence the desire to avoid confusion. (Though I suppose the explanatory note could be moved up to the lead, that might make things more confusing rather than less.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- We could add his gender identification there, beside the police's, and save the pronoun preference for the beginning of the Shooting section. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've "gone ahead" with the first bit. I'll defer to anyone on whether trans adults prefer to be called men/women or males/females. I'll also accept pure reversion, but won't be as happy about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would have "purely reverted" but did not as I knew you edited in good faith. I'm still not entirely comfortable with calling attention to his trans status in the lead in this way; I think an explanatory note might be better. But I'm open to other input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to avoid confusion, being upfront is the way to go. More than nine times out of ten, someone identified as "Audrey Elizabeth" is a woman and calling her "him" does jar the unaware. Your parenthetical change is fine, but I feel like it still slightly appears as though it's "trying to hide" or "distance itself" from the main identification line. I'll suggest "and trans man" after "former student", but that's my final offer. Take it or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the subject were, say, a cis woman named Michael, I'd agree with you about being upfront to avoid confusion. But given the state of "dialogue" around trans people in the U.S., the wording in this article should be considered extra-carefully. I'm hoping for more input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- You brought up "the desire to avoid confusion", I was trying to agree with you. I don't know what "dialogue" you're talking about now, I'm a Canadian. I think we write for a global audience, so don't have to tiptoe around anything the way a mainstream corporate paper might, but if there's something potentially harmful you're trying not to say, yes, be as careful as you need to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the subject were, say, a cis woman named Michael, I'd agree with you about being upfront to avoid confusion. But given the state of "dialogue" around trans people in the U.S., the wording in this article should be considered extra-carefully. I'm hoping for more input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to avoid confusion, being upfront is the way to go. More than nine times out of ten, someone identified as "Audrey Elizabeth" is a woman and calling her "him" does jar the unaware. Your parenthetical change is fine, but I feel like it still slightly appears as though it's "trying to hide" or "distance itself" from the main identification line. I'll suggest "and trans man" after "former student", but that's my final offer. Take it or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would have "purely reverted" but did not as I knew you edited in good faith. I'm still not entirely comfortable with calling attention to his trans status in the lead in this way; I think an explanatory note might be better. But I'm open to other input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The full name "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" is currently in the lead, hence the desire to avoid confusion. (Though I suppose the explanatory note could be moved up to the lead, that might make things more confusing rather than less.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thinking it over, I think "preferred" beats "used". From the message I saw, he didn't refer to himself in the third person. Pending evidence to the contrary, I also doubt he used the words to mean other women. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I prefer to say "went by [x/y/z] pronouns" but most editors don't agree with me on that. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I prefer to say "went by [x/y/z] pronouns" but most editors don't agree with me on that. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, the very first word is "Hale". This could easily be
- There are other uses of he/him pronouns in that section though, before Hale's trans identity is mentioned later in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
It looks like the issue had been fixed, but then someone went and removed the information again, so we're once again back at square one. I haven't gone yet and looked through the edit history, but I did see that someone above commented about "the state of dialogue." I would note though that Wikipedia is not censored. Our job is simply to present accurate and relevant information in a clear manner, not to omit things because it doesn't fit with a desired narrative. -2003:CA:8708:3FB4:1366:9663:457D:FCF6 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @StarryNightSky11: You two might want to settle this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Baptist News Global article
Here’s an article that delves into the relationship between the school (and its affiliated denomination) with LGBT issues. [6]
I’m not sure whether it’d be considered a reliable source or not (BNG is a Christian publication, albeit one that tends to be far more progressive on social issues than the aforementioned organizations are; it has more of a mainline Protestant perspective). But I think it’d represent a unique perspective, mostly because secular news organizations tend to shy away from writing too directly about explicitly religious/theological issues, while this site shows no such reluctance.
The article also points out that there was sexual abuse of students taking place at the school at the time the shooter attended. It’s a topic that has to be handled with extreme delicacy (so that readers don’t get the impression that the article is blaming the victim or empathizing/sympathizing with the shooter in any way), but I think the article I linked to did a good job of this.
In fact, according to the article, it seems that what happened at Covenant in the 2000s ended up being the catalyst for the Southern Baptist Convention′s recent, widely-publicized reckoning with sexual abuse in its own institutions. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the content about sexual abuse for now. Unless we can say how it is related to the shooting, it probably doesn't belong here. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've never edited a wikipedia article (although I read a lot of them), and so I'm not sure all the details for determining what constitutes a Reliable Source per Wikipedia protocols. (I'm a Wikipedia layman, so to speak). My understanding is that the context of the source is to be considered when assessing its reliabiity, and that while the presence of bias doesn't necessarily preclude a source's inclusion it is to be considered when assessing its reliability. I'm sure that's harder to do in matters of religious news, which generally don't receive a lot of attention from non-biased sources. Most who write on those issues have a dog in the fight so to speak. As a Christian pastor (neither Southern Baptist nor Cooperative Baptist nor Presbyterian), who reads a lot of religious news and church history, including quite a bit of Baptist News Global, I do think it's relevant to the discussion that the linked-to article in question comes from a source that is far from unbiased on the matter, and seems to be using the issue to prosecute broader fights within Baptist denominational politics that goes back decades. The linked-to article is also labelled "Analysis" on the top of the page, (Baptist News Global separates its articles between "News" "Analysis" and "Opinion").
- The article source, Baptist News Global, was formed by the merger of two Baptist news agencies, one of which, the Associated Baptist Press, was founded after the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (a more theologically liberal Baptist Fellowship split from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1990 in part over whether women should be ordained.) For those not familiar with Baptist history/controversy, those within the Southern Baptist Convention holding more theologically conservative positions on a variety of religious and political issues managed to organize themselves and gain control of Southern Baptist denominational structures and institutions in the 1980s and 1990s and began purging those they deemed overly theologically liberal from denominational positions within the SBC, leading some of those more theologically liberal (in terms of the SBC) churches at the time to split and form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, in part with the express goal of ordaining women which the theological conservatives who gained control of the organization opposed. There's still a lot of bad blood because of how that went down in Baptist circles, both within the SBC itself, but especially between the CBF churches that felt pushed out of the SBC over these matters. Baptist News Global which was formed in the aftermath of that split, and which is an official partner of the CBF (the churches that left), frequently focuses much of their opinion/news analysis on criticizing the SBC. Often this is over serious and legitimate issues of power abuse the SBC including the sex abuse crisis, but it's also on other related theological issues which were related to the original split, especially issues of gender and LGBTQ topics.
- Some of that history I think explains why an issue involving a shooting and past sexual abuse issues involving a non-SBC Presbyterian church is throughout the article being tied to other issues of contention between the CBF and the SBC, including LGBTQ issues (the article references the Nashville Declaration and highlights shared theological positions on those disputed issues between the SBC and the Presbyterian Church of America (the Covenant Church and School's theologically conservative Presbyterian denomination).
- Again, that's not to say the article may not contain accurate information, and I've read the linked articles/blog posts in the article regarding past issues in the Covenant Church, around the sexual abuse issues. When the manifesto is released that may prove to be the issue, but until there is a tighter connection demonstrated, I think inclusion of this source and the speculation in the source is probably jumping the gun from a source with a pretty strong axe to grind. 69.77.212.43 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
More Info on the House Hale Lived in & Where She Hid Her Guns
https://nypost.com/2023/03/28/photos-reveal-inside-of-nashville-shooter-audrey-hales-house/
Hale hid 7 firearms from her parents whilst living in their house, using 2 assault rifles and a handgun in her attack. Her parents were under the impression she'd only had one firearm which she'd gotten rid of - they didn't believe she was fit to own firearms, plus her mother has very strong anti-gun beliefs and is a devout Christian.
This seems to be slightly different to what's currently claimed in the article - two shotguns and other evidence seized, but accuracy on this matter likely isn't essential. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:5890:1A4F:E6E6:D17E (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting". WWGB (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- As stated above, New York Post is not considered a reliable source. Additionally, the article doesn't state how many guns were inside of the home nor recovered. This page already notes that the shooter purchased seven firearms in total.
- Also, the shooter uses he/him pronouns. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be leery of saying she used "assault rifles" as this is a loaded term with little actual meaning. Even the press has been consistently saying "assault-style" rifles, which is even more meaningless but I suppose could do for consistency's sake. Most accurate would be "semi-automatic rifle" since that's what they were.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:849:B18F:23BC:9DAA (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
High Functioning Autistic Triggered by August 2022 Death of Idol?
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.
I don't think I've seen it claimed elsewhere but a source close to the Hale family apparently claimed Audrey was autistic “but high-functioning". Relevant if confirmed elsewhere? She had been suicidal prior to her attack so when friend Averianna Patton received her message she contacted the Suicide Prevention Help Line and Nashville Davidson County Sheriff's Office but it was already too late. The trans identity was also quite new: https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-covenant-school-transgender-killer-and-her-6-victims.html?page=7
Hale was heartbroken over the August 2022 death of a former basketball teammate with whom she was allegedly infatuated with. Accounts differ as to whether any romantic relationship existed. According to police she only started identifying as male in February: https://nypost.com/2023/03/29/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-was-heartbroken-over-death-of-crush/#
Given the concerns over her mental\emotional state, is it fair to call Hale trans given the short duration, or should it be seen more as a fad? Yes police etc initially said she's trans, but we're talking a duration of less than 2 months at this stage based on the evidence. If it is the latter then talking about a trans killer and linking this to such categories isn't fair. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:5890:1A4F:E6E6:D17E (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Autism does not cause criminal behaviour. Hale's alleged diagnosis is unrelated to the attack and should not be included in the article. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- None of these are reliable sources per RSP.
- An autism diagnosis is not relevant, and originates from an anonymous allegation in The Daily Beast, which is not a reliable source.
- We do not adjudicate on whether someone's status as trans is "a fad". The shooter uses he/him pronouns. Please avoid veering into transphobic territory. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The shooter doesn't deserve to have their pronouns respected. It also states for living people not dead people 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:A527:7987:B6EF:D489 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will add that you have been repeatedly denying the shooter's identity and questioning whether trans people even exist for the past day, and have been warned about this behavior. It is not welcome on Wikipedia. Do not continue it. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- please don't pretend to speak for "Wikipedia." There are a diversity of opinions here, and all should be welcome. Basic questions about the shooter's identity seem very pertinent and it would be foolish to pretend anyone has all the answers. That goes for you as much as anyone.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:849:B18F:23BC:9DAA (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Derogatory references to groups such as trans people are considered incivility. Expressing hateful points of view towards trans people is disruptive editing. Tendentious editing with an agenda is a sign that someone may not be here to build an encyclopedia.
- This goes for you as well; you've already received a warning about saying that a subject's "pretend identity *doesn't* matter". Things like that are decidedly not "basic question[s] about the shooter's identity". 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- More to the point: no reliable sources are questioning the validity of the shooter's identity. (Let alone enough reliable sources to theoretically merit consideration.) No original research or synthesis is allowed here, so there is no reason to even entertain the notion. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- please don't pretend to speak for "Wikipedia." There are a diversity of opinions here, and all should be welcome. Basic questions about the shooter's identity seem very pertinent and it would be foolish to pretend anyone has all the answers. That goes for you as much as anyone.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:849:B18F:23BC:9DAA (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Is it even reliably sourced that Hale was autistic? If not, it can't be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Background of child abuse in Covenant Church
It appears that the church associated with the school has dealt with a child abuse scandal at the right time for Hale's attendance of the school. Could this be relevant to mention in the background section, or do we have to wait for current media coverage to mention this? 83.141.209.216 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- We would need to at least have reliable sources make such a connection between these two events, especially since these are two separate events that might not actually be connected. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wait until media reports it and makes connection. Making connections ourselves might count as WP:OR. A09 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 (4)
Here are the important updates"Nashville School Shooter sent me messages before the attack" Santoshsendha (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: This appears to be an unreliable sources (WP:IRS) because it has no stated editorial oversight and the article is attributed to the NEP Team instead of a named author. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The pertinent facts are already in the article, more or less, just without names or much insight. She's the "old friend" at the beginning of the Shooting section, and the cited sources have more detail on the messages themselves. Is there something in particular you think is missing and educational? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the article make it clear this isn’t the main Presbyterian church?
It’s the second largest denomination and anti LGBT+ which is an important part of the context. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. The Baptist News Global article I linked to above goes into some detail about this, and the school/denomination’s policies toward sexuality in general. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've unpiped it in the lead, if that's what you meant by making it clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Biden's remarks about ice cream
It was talked about by various news sources and seems significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Should it not be included? Derpytoucan (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is being discussed above, and as FormalDude pointed out, there's disagreement about it being included. That being said, it hasn't been RfC'd either, so if there are RS that talk about it (what you used would probably not pass as a reliable source), I am in favor of its inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- We've had thorough discussion here. Feel free to add your thoughts. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Where is the previous discussion?
The talk page is missing earlier discussion topics. Where are they? 62.212.144.248 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- They've likely been archived at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting/Archive 1. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
We dont have to "respect" someones pronouns or delusionals about their gender because they are evil
Audrey Hale was a woman who killed children validating her ideology is giving her what she wanted and taking away from the actual issue of mental health disorders. 2600:8805:C980:9400:85D6:7993:E151:919 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)