Victims list
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.
Re [1]
Victims lists in these tragedies are always controversial. There is currently an open RfC on the subject at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles. While it may be necessary to revisit the question here after that RfC closes, we should go ahead and get a consensus for what to do here in the meantime.
Please !vote whether you Oppose or Support inclusion of the victims list. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Update: The related Rfc has been closed with "consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis." –dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. These victims are not independently notable. As for what other editors at other articles have decided to do, see WP:CCC. We can link to an external list, costing a reader who wants to see the list two clicks (one in, one out). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Quite agree. OK to point to a list extra-WP. (As an aside, never liked the wording of NOTMEMORIAL.) O3000 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support - See Orlando nightclub shooting. Consensus can change, but it shouldn't be tucked away on one article. This is premature given the RfC linked above, and I would support closing this section as such. Nihlus 2:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- Support Victim list should be added but should be organized better. My victim list was a rough draft. Other mass shootings including the Orlando nightclub shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings have lists of the victims -Blysbane (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Blysbane
- Oppose - Always err on the side of respect and dignity. No compelling reason the complete list of individuals' names should be included here when there are official ones available. Not only can consensus change, the "consensus" at the Orlando shooting article was 22 to 16, or 58% support. That is hardly a precedent-setting consensus. [2] [3] [4]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Recalling a name, age and hometown isn't memorializing. It just distinguishes one event's dead from the next. A hundred or more lines is too many, for my taste. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
- I want multiple columns, I'll add. This is too long. Not what I support. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
- Simple solution so there are no long lists: a collapsible list defaulted to collapsed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support - As is the case with almost every other major US shooting article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:1701:8E00:907F:9B7C:DBE8:527 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by knowing the names of the deceased. By all means, analyze the ages or genders of the dead, but knowing that "Fred Funk from Fooville" died has no encyclopedic value. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No encyclopedic value whatsoever. (Btw supporters should actually say WHY they support adding it to this article, if they want their opinion/vote to be taken seriously.) zzz (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support - WP:MEMORIAL does not apply here. WP:MEMORIAL states, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Well, the victims are not the subject of an enyclopedia article; the 2017 Las Vegas shooting is the subject. The list of victims is obviously notweworthy content and numerous mainstream reliable sources have published it. Simply displaying the name/age/residence of the victims is absolutely not memorializing. Memorializing would include content such as background details, tributes, anecdotes, quotes, and photos. The 10 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history are, in order, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Luby's shooting, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, the University of Texas tower shooting, the Edmond post office shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, and the Binghamton shootings. All of them, except this one, include a list of the victims' names and, at the very least, their ages. This evidence proves that Wikipedia editors have repeatedly debated this issue and clearly established a consensus that a list of victim names should and will be listed in major mass shooting articles, and that its inclusion overrides any objections based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BLP, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is as close to protocol as you can get. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
...and numerous mainstream reliable sources have published it
. Great. Let's link to one of them. O3000 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)- Here are a few. Take your pick. It can be attached to the victim list that should be added to the article. Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Time 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- in lieu of. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- So you believe the names of the victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history is not noteworthy content in an encylopedia article about their murders? Can you please explain that? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gun deaths, earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, cancer, 9/11, where do we stop? We avoid lists. What’s wrong with pointing to a source instead of copying it? In any case, I’m not interested in a long discussion on this. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Easy. We stop where a consensus of editors says to stop. For the most prominent mass murders, they have clearly said not to stop. Pointing to the source is great for all the details beyond their basic identity information. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Stop at 100. It's a naturally memorable delineator, with its third digit, and roughly about the number that fills up an entire screen. Browser settings vary, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
- So, we stop at the arbitrary square of the sum of digits on a human’s hands? Do we want future mass killers to think their victims won’t get into Wikipedia if they don’t kill at least the Wikipedia numerological standard of 100? Instead of using an arbitrary number, let’s choose zero. People use an encyclopedia for information. A tiny percentage will look for the names. Those that are interested in the names, can click a link. What is wrong with pointing to a list elsewhere? O3000 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, their victims won't be named if they don't kill less than 100. If anything, it's an incentive to kill fewer people. I've never believed in the theory that dead killers are interested in their posthumous articles, though. Pointing to info elsewhere is better than nothing, but if we start simply linking things we think only other people care about, Wikipedia'd be a mere portal in no time. We have to reflect, not just collect, general sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, October 18, 2017 (UTC) 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, we do not need to “reflect”. We need to dispassionately relate. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Reflect, relate, relay, recap, whatever. I'm 110% for a lack of passion. No hobbies, volunteer work, favourite songs and such. Just name, age and town. Dry and basic ID, purely to satisfy "Who died this time?" InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
- Hulk, your reasoning does not address the entirety of the argument, largely missing the point and making it a strawman. Nobody has suggested "simply linking things we think only other people care about". But I suggest that nobody's mind is going to be changed by this debate (it's illusory that such debates can be "won" by strength of argument), so I think I'll drop out. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, we do not need to “reflect”. We need to dispassionately relate. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, their victims won't be named if they don't kill less than 100. If anything, it's an incentive to kill fewer people. I've never believed in the theory that dead killers are interested in their posthumous articles, though. Pointing to info elsewhere is better than nothing, but if we start simply linking things we think only other people care about, Wikipedia'd be a mere portal in no time. We have to reflect, not just collect, general sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, October 18, 2017 (UTC) 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- So, we stop at the arbitrary square of the sum of digits on a human’s hands? Do we want future mass killers to think their victims won’t get into Wikipedia if they don’t kill at least the Wikipedia numerological standard of 100? Instead of using an arbitrary number, let’s choose zero. People use an encyclopedia for information. A tiny percentage will look for the names. Those that are interested in the names, can click a link. What is wrong with pointing to a list elsewhere? O3000 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gun deaths, earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, cancer, 9/11, where do we stop? We avoid lists. What’s wrong with pointing to a source instead of copying it? In any case, I’m not interested in a long discussion on this. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- So you believe the names of the victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history is not noteworthy content in an encylopedia article about their murders? Can you please explain that? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- in lieu of. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here are a few. Take your pick. It can be attached to the victim list that should be added to the article. Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Time 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP for the surviving relatives. Yes I know that there is WP:OTHERSTUFF where there is a list of the victims' names, but it doesn't alter my view that a list of this kind is unencyclopedic and unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are ages and towns worth anything to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting "Female, 19, Pasadena, California"? I think that's a separate discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting name, age, town. Just wondering if that's completely unencylopedic, or only the name part. Definitely not suggesting genders. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
- That discussion has been had in all of the articles about the other top 10 deadliest U.S. mass shootings (which are linked in my ivote comment above). There was a clear consensus in every one of them not only to include a victims list, but at the very least to use names and ages. Some of them have additional information. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting "Female, 19, Pasadena, California"? I think that's a separate discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are ages and towns worth anything to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: Where identification of particular victims, whether killed or not, is necessary to understand a crime, they should be included in an article because they are of relevance. Where their individual inclusion is not necessary to understand a crime, they should not be, and NOTMEMORIAL applies. In this case, the victims were randomly selected, and only Campos is necessary to include. The external link is a better option for those interested in those who died. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support These victims are, as a group, notable as their deaths are notable. We have the Orlando_nightclub_shooting#List_of_the_dead list, other such lists exist. Additionally, we live in the era of BS and conspiracy theories about "Crisis actors", so it is worth giving a name to people who died in horrific incidents such as this. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - for most of the reasons above, but the victims of the shooting are not notable for anything other than being victims of a shooting. What purpose is there to include their names, other than to commemorate them - which is essentially what WP:MEMORIAL is intended to avoid, even if it isn't directly phrased to include victims? Most of the arguments to support seem to be based on OTHERSTUFF - "Because other articles do so". This is a circular argument:
- "Why does Orlando nightclub shooting have a victims list? - Because Virginia Tech shooting does so."
- "Why does Virginia Tech shooting have a victims list? - Because Orlando nightclub shooting does so."
- "Why doesn't 2017 Las Vegas shooting have a victims list - all the other articles do?"
- What does their inclusion add to the article, or to turn it on its head - what is the article lacking without the list? (Apart from "The list"?) Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - This might be included in books on the subject but it isn't really encyclopedic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Why does Orlando nightclub shooting have a victims list - because many of the victims were gay? If a victims list is made, should it include the race of the victims? People think that everyone there was white because it was a country music festival, but there were lots of Hispanics at the concert and at least one Asian lady was killed. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – This is not a memorial. This is an encyclopedia, and a list of names of people killed doesn't add knowledge to the article. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This may change some minds: [5]. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support - If we have the details from reliable sources, add them as pat of the history of it. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose for reasons given by Hydronium Hydroxide (adds nothing to understanding) and Chaheel Riens. And just for the record I have opposed such lists whenever asked the question, whether the victims were gay/straight, black/white, US/UK or whatever.. If there is any significant demographic information (age, gender, nationality), that can be summarised in the text and an external link to a list if apt. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- SupportObviously there should be a victim's list, with their name and age.--Jane955 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Obviously" isn't a reason. Can you expand on why you think it's obvious? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support We name the victimizer, but not the victims, which is absurd!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:OTHERCONTENT. A link to a list of the victims should suffice for this article. FallingGravity 08:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support I believe that naming victims is part of the encyclopedic coverage of an event like this. Regarding policy, I think two sections of What Wikipedia is not are relevant; one applies to this article; the other does not. Not Censored applies; wp:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. The Not Memorial provision, as I read it, refers to the topic of an entire article, not to a portion or section of an article. The article is not about the victims and thus by definition is not an attempt to memorialize them. Furthermore, the Notability guideline itself explains that WP:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article," which invalidates an argument that says: victims should be excluded because they are non-notable. DonFB (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- If, as you say, the "article is not about the victims and thus by definition is not an attempt to memorialize them" why do we need to name them? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This was an indiscriminate shooting, and listing the names of the victims does nothing to contribute to the reader's understanding of the event. I agree with Pincrete's idea that relevant demographic information can be summarized in the text. Disagree that we are under any obligation to provide equal coverage to the shooter and the victims. –dlthewave ☎ 19:55v, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Support The victims of the article are notable given the fact that the names have been noted by numerous reliable sources, including the coroner. They also have had their lives and history delved into by media outlets, so we would be doing nothing that was not already done by the media themselves, negating WP:BLP. The BLP policy does apply, but it just means that poorly sourced content should be removed and special care taken, none of which apply here since they've already all been named by said media outlets. WP:MEMORIAL applies to standalone articles, not content. The guiding policy would be WP:DUE and even that, based on the number of sources including said names, support inclusion. We should echo the reliable sources and list their names and occupation in said article. Tutelary (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is the coroner's job to release the name of every person who dies, regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't make it notable. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't list people who die in plane crashes etc, even though the media often does. Wikipedia policy is the main guideline, not what the media does or does not do.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is the coroner's job to release the name of every person who dies, regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't make it notable. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
In reply to Chaheel Riens: This event would have been much less likely to be included in Wikipedia if the shooter fired randomly from the hotel, but did not kill anyone. The deaths are what guarantee the notability of this event. Of couse, mainstream media have named the victims, so the information can be found if a reader takes the trouble to look for it. Not all media stories about this event, however, have shown a victim list. Instead, other media articles focus on a specific topic, such as the weapons, police response, timeline, and so forth. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is an appropriate place to list names of the victims, so that members of the public can see the information, or know if one or more specific names are on the list. At a minimum, the list should include each person's age. Such content in the article is what helps it to be "encyclopedic." Wikipedia policies do not at present forbid inclusion of such information, as can be seen in other articles (named above in the !vote section) about mass killings. I believe the Not Memorial argument has been effectively refuted in my !vote above, and by the earlier !vote comment by IP user 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D. Such a (faulty) rationale also did not overrule inclusion of victim names in multiple other such articles on this site. DonFB (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not a suicide?
WP:FRINGE O3000 (talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There's new evidence of it possibly not being a suicide: http://truepundit.com/video-leaked-las-vegas-swat-audio-indicates-police-gunned-down-stephen-paddock-in-hotel/ This source is probably not reliable but the actual recording is. I'm not sure about this but just letting you editors know that a change of wording may be necessary. JohnSmith678 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|