This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RfC: Including victims' biographies in the article
Should the victims' biographies be included in the "Victims" list? Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The biographies in question were previously implemented here. Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include, the added section was proportional to the information provided on the shooter (actually, far less if you consider how much is dedicated to the shooter relative to each victim), well sourced and verifiable, and clearly relevant as it makes clear the victims are not just dry statistics but real people. Including them tilts the balance of the article away from the shooter, taking us further from an undue weight situation that most of these mass shooting articles succumb to. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can agree with the idea of listing victims but the amount of personal information in this diff you gave is rather worrying and has quite a few BLP violations. See for instance NPF and BLPPRIVACY. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude. Just no. A thousand times no. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious online encyclopedia, not mawkish melodrama. Are we seriously contemplating content like "hoped to be a cheerleader" and "made coffee for his grandparents"? WWGB (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @WWGB you are right that such details don't fit into the Wikipedia article about the shooting. However must you call those details "mawkish"? ("hoped to be a cheerleader" and "made coffee for his grandparents") They are hardly "mawkish". Those are very important details, although they don't belong in this article. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 22:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- And yet we know the shooter worked at Wendy's and apparently liked to wear dark clothing. You were saying something about melodrama? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your Wendy's comments miss the contextual significance of that content: his co-workers at Wendy's noted Ramos was a loner, intimidating and exhibited inappropriate behaviour. Red flags? Likewise, his dark clothing led them to prematurely call him "school shooter". So the Wendy's job and dark clothing are not "melodramatic" but significant and relevant aspects of his back story. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure seems like a lot of excessive detail (one might even call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since we're abusing that here) for something that could have been more easily summed up. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete that excessive detail, you have the keys. I don't know why we are discussing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. And since you raised WP:INDISCRIMINATE, why do you support the inclusion of material about wannabe cheerleaders and junior coffeemakers? WWGB (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support the general idea of including relevant, source details on the victims as a NPOV balance. It's in no way indiscriminate as it's literally details many sources have included. The only reason we're here debating this is because Love of Corey unilaterally decided to remove the text without even making an attempt to improve upon it. So any criticism at the exact text used in the now-deleted revision is ridiculous. Of course it can be improved, and of course I don't agree with every single detail, but I do agree that some details are important. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ant yet LoC’s “unilateral” decision to exclude is supported by at least 23 !voters below. WWGB (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) it's not a vote (
it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important
(emphasis added)), and 2) I see a lot of people erroneously citing WP:MEMORIAL which is not relevant to this discussion as we aren't creating Victims of Robb Elementary School shooting. What's under discussion is relevant, well sourced details on the victims, as found in our reliable sources, to provide balance and neutrality to the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) it's not a vote (
- Ant yet LoC’s “unilateral” decision to exclude is supported by at least 23 !voters below. WWGB (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was correct to remove it rather than improve it, because it was a load of unencyclopedic trivia, the vast majority of the types that aren't in any other WP articles about mass-casualty incidents.
- What info do you want included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the first part, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. As to what I want included, as I said,
relevant sourced details on the victims as a NPOV balance
. The victims were people, trying to pretend they're just a statistic while giving the life history of the person who killed them is just terrible writing and gives WP:UNDUE weight to the perpetrator. We already have enough problems with our articles glorifying the killer, we don't need to make it worse by acting like the victims aren't relevant (when our sources clearly feel they are). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)- What type of details of the victims do you consider to be relevant enough to include in this article? Dates of birth, family, ethnicity, hobbies, long-term aspirations, their preferred subjects/food/music/celebrities? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the first part, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. As to what I want included, as I said,
- I support the general idea of including relevant, source details on the victims as a NPOV balance. It's in no way indiscriminate as it's literally details many sources have included. The only reason we're here debating this is because Love of Corey unilaterally decided to remove the text without even making an attempt to improve upon it. So any criticism at the exact text used in the now-deleted revision is ridiculous. Of course it can be improved, and of course I don't agree with every single detail, but I do agree that some details are important. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete that excessive detail, you have the keys. I don't know why we are discussing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. And since you raised WP:INDISCRIMINATE, why do you support the inclusion of material about wannabe cheerleaders and junior coffeemakers? WWGB (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure seems like a lot of excessive detail (one might even call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since we're abusing that here) for something that could have been more easily summed up. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your Wendy's comments miss the contextual significance of that content: his co-workers at Wendy's noted Ramos was a loner, intimidating and exhibited inappropriate behaviour. Red flags? Likewise, his dark clothing led them to prematurely call him "school shooter". So the Wendy's job and dark clothing are not "melodramatic" but significant and relevant aspects of his back story. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - Absolutely not. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And while they're important to report on, they're not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a mass murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can you explain which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole "
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia
" - Additionally, WP:NOTMEMORIAL makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize people. Though WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to whole articles, I argue that the spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL with the quoted part above from WP:INDISCRIMINATE mean that it would be inappropriate to make mini memorial BLP/BDPs on an article about a mass murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir The victims are not random
data
, which is what INDISCRIMINATE is referring to. Our sources clearly draw a line from this event to each victim both together as a group and individually. Thecontext
is the fact that these people were all killed during this event, multiple reliable sources have covered them in detail, even going so far as to cover the families of the victims. As to NOTMEMORIAL: As you correctly note, it does not apply to content within articles but instead non-notable subjects of entire articles, and even specifies thatWikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements
. To my knowledge, no editor here is a friend, relative, or acquaintance of the victims. Which brings us to WP:NOTEWORTHY which is clear that[t]he notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles
but rather[c]ontent coverage within a given article [...] (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies
. - We should follow our sources on this. And while I agree that there was definitely room for improvement in the initial revision that was summarily removed, this does not mean we simply give up on providing encyclopedic content that is relevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir The victims are not random
- @Locke Cole "
- Can you explain which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include per Locke Cole. Koopinator (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, the victims are not individually notable enough to warrant this. --Pokelova (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTEWORTHY (notability does not apply to article content), and consider also that if not for these victims dying this event wouldn't be worthy of inclusion at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not notable, not noteworthy, doesn't really change my answer. --Pokelova (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If all those who were shot there had survived, this mass shooting would still easily be notable enough for an article. If they weren't in that classroom & it was empty, he'd have carried out the shooting in a nearby classroom instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, adds nothing of encyclopedic value HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include — if RSs found it weighty enough to mention and have articles about it (The New York Times), it is noteworthy and short enough to make it encyclopedic and relevant. They are likely not going to have their own articles, so WP:NOTABILITY does not apply and neither does WP:MEMORIAL, and as noted, if we can mention that the shooter worked at Wendy's and liked to wear dark clothing, I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here — it is about works, lyirics databases, trivia statistics, and software updates, not providing some background context for the victims of a mass shooting, which would not be notable without them. It includes some useful and relevant information for context, e.g.
Some of his cousins who also attended Robb Elementary were injured in the massacre, but survived ... Silguero asked her father to stay home the day of the massacare, but he left the decision up to her mother.
Finally, I do think that WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT requires it per Locke Cole. Davide King (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC) - Obviously exclude because this is the most ridiculous addition of all to this article. I've mentioned in previous discussions about the inclusion of victims' names that it's a slippery slope towards including mini-biographies like many media sources do. I was told that no-one wanted to do that & I was making a straw man argument to exclude the names. I've now been proven correct. There really are editors here who want the victims' hobbies, aspirations & family included in an article about a mass shooting in which they were randomly shot strangers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm really rather neutral on the idea, but I am a bit taken aback by your total rejection of the concept. Surely, if these details receive a lot of coverage in the reliable sources, it becomes WP:DUE? To be clear, having done only surface investigation, I would lean against inclusion right now, but that could certainly change. I guess I'd just ask if you could describe your objection a bit more? If not, no worries. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm taken aback by there being support from a few people for it. We shouldn't include things just because the media do. Much of the media loves to sensationalise & have the aim of maximising their readership/viewership/profit. We don't, and shouldn't. Mini-bios of children who were murdered at random by a stranger are a distasteful, disproportionate addition of irrelevant, trivial info. The main argument for including such things is that we do so for the killer. However, that's very different, as he chose to be the cause of it all; his life tells us about him & the lead-up to him doing this. The victims were shot at random & were there simply because it was their school. Unlike the shooter, they weren't active participants. If they hadn't been there, others would have been shot in their place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I understand this position to a point, but "we shouldn't include things just because the media do" strikes me as sort of in tension with WP:NPOV. Granted, there are reliable sources that are not what we normally mean when we say "the media," but in my opinion, we shouldn't disregard coverage simply because we consider it overly sensationalized or the like. That's more of a sort of source concern, if you see what I mean. Again, I don't think I lean towards inclusion here, but I do think we have to follow where the reliable sources lead us--and here or in some other case, it might theoretically go in this direction. I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree here. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm taken aback by there being support from a few people for it. We shouldn't include things just because the media do. Much of the media loves to sensationalise & have the aim of maximising their readership/viewership/profit. We don't, and shouldn't. Mini-bios of children who were murdered at random by a stranger are a distasteful, disproportionate addition of irrelevant, trivial info. The main argument for including such things is that we do so for the killer. However, that's very different, as he chose to be the cause of it all; his life tells us about him & the lead-up to him doing this. The victims were shot at random & were there simply because it was their school. Unlike the shooter, they weren't active participants. If they hadn't been there, others would have been shot in their place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Obvious exclude (invited by the bot) There should not even be a listing of their names. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and the large majority of our articles about mass shootings in other countries don't include names, let alone mini-bios. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any proof of this, or are you just wanting us to take your word on it? At least *I* did the work for User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics (which showed over 90% of mass shooting articles included a list of victims). You're just out here living your best life making wild claims with no evidence. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unlike most editors, I frequently work on articles about mass shootings in many countries. As such, I notice that most of those that happened in the US include victims' names, but the large majority of those which happened elsewhere don't. I've not seen any which include mini-bios of the victims. Your table is limited to US mass shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any proof of this, or are you just wanting us to take your word on it? At least *I* did the work for User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics (which showed over 90% of mass shooting articles included a list of victims). You're just out here living your best life making wild claims with no evidence. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I guess you're not familiar with following our sources or WP:UNDUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and the large majority of our articles about mass shootings in other countries don't include names, let alone mini-bios. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude extended bio, name, age, maybe grade, should be enough. Maybe grouping the students with their classroom teacher if applicable, but I'm not sure how that splits. Exceptions if the individual has some sort of notability and extended coverage on their own. If the individual did something during the shooting their name can be mentioned in the prose as doing so. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Their names & grade/age would be sufficient. They weren't individually targeted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- How do you know this, did your ask the shooter? Were you there? Are you familiar with WP:NOR? Because that sounds like exactly what you're doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that any of the victims were individually targeted. Everything points to him having shot at random rather than having a hit list of names. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- How do you know this, did your ask the shooter? Were you there? Are you familiar with WP:NOR? Because that sounds like exactly what you're doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Their names & grade/age would be sufficient. They weren't individually targeted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Obvious exclude Its empty information as the shooter shot randomly. By adding so, would make it look very informal. SohamAhire123 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude extended bio. Name, age, grade are fine; other content not encyclopedic. Neutralitytalk 14:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude extended bio - Age, grade and maybe a few words about actions they took during the shooting should be fine. Schierbecker (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude extended details - Mentioning the victims in terms of basic information is encyclopedic, but going into personal aspects of their lives isn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Under WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Victim bios have no relevancy to the event unless it somehow ties in to the shooter's motives. WP:UNDUE does not apply here nor to any other mass casualty article, as that policy is intended to balance representation of competing viewpoints. EatTrainCode (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:NOTMEMORIAL? You say WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, but are you aware of WP:NOTEWORTHY (which says WP:NPOV, of which UNDUE is part of, is how we decide what to include in article content)? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a single sentence, so yes I have. One could argue that it doesn't apply here since we're talking about the contents of an article rather than the subject, but the point is that including detailed victim bios serves no purpose other than to memorialize them. An exception would be if one of the teachers had previously taught the shooter's class or had some other connection to him.
- Regarding WP:UNDUE, I think what you're referring to is specifically the WP:BALASPS clause. I have two issues with the way you're using this clause: 1. per WP:RECENCY bias, the victims are always going to receive more focus in the source material while it's a current event. 2. even though the victim bios receive a proportional amount of focus in the sources, that information is not necessarily of equal importance to the event. it provides no insight into the 'why' or 'how' of the event.
- Additionally, I read the original edit being discussed here. Have you? Some of the information in that edit was patently ridiculous, like mentioning how one victim didn't want to go to school that day. Imagine if the article on the 9/11 attacks mentioned every victim who was only on the plane due to a previous flight cancellation, and every person who didn't wind up on that flight because they were running late. EatTrainCode (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:NOTMEMORIAL? You say WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, but are you aware of WP:NOTEWORTHY (which says WP:NPOV, of which UNDUE is part of, is how we decide what to include in article content)? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include. The information in question includes material that is indeed of encyclopedic interest concerning the massacre, incuding:
- Details pertaining directly to the massacare, such as the first victim identified, the last victim identified, the fact that one child was shot as she attempted to dial 911, etc.
- Details pertaining to the effects/aftermath of the masscare, such as the fact that the husband of one of the two teachers died of a heart attack two days after the massacre.
- Some relevant biographical information such as the fact that there were two sets of cousins among the children, how long the teachers had taught, where they trained, how long the two of them had worked together, etc.
- Lastly, some biographical information that distinguished them as individuals, not for the purposes of memorialization or anything, but simply to render them as individuals and not merely names, like the fact that one wanted to be a lawyer, another wanted to be an artist, etc. This is reasonable for descriptive purposes, and is not indiscriminate or irrelevant to the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - The majority of the material that was added has no encyclopedic value and does not contribute to a reader's comprehension of the subject matter. Arguably half of it distracts from it. For example, that one of the victim's enjoyed football, or that another wanted to become a marine biologist, has no bearing on this event. The same is true of much of the material on the perpetrator. That the perpetrator was employed at a Wendy's or that he was born in North Dakota is not relevant, for example. This is an encyclopedia, it should summarize the most pertinent facts of the subject matter. It should not collect all available knowledge and include it indiscriminately. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It depends what the proposed text will be. I wouldn't mind mentioning victims but it should run smoothly and not like a memorial. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include per Nightscream. ––FormalDude talk 22:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include per Davide King and Nightscream. starship.paint (exalt) 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude because these facts are not relevant to the shooting. Also WP:MEMORIAL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include- Davide King said almost exactly what I intended to say when I read the question: namely that naming the victims and giving some details which have been covered in WP:RS is WP:DUE, neither WP:NOTABILITY nor WP:NOTAMEMORIAL apply to this situation (which are about standalone articles), but WP:NOTEWORTHY does. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - I understand the urge to humanize the statistics and cause a stronger emotional response, but that is not encyclopedias are for. Listing the hobbies and aspirations of children killed in shootings doesn't really contribute anything to the value of this article. Wikipedia isn't a depository of all information, and there are plenty of "human interest" stories in the media that can and should serve a reader interested in such things much better than Wikipedia does. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude While I appreciate the sentiment, I dont think they can be included. WP:MEMORIAL. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Per policies cited above. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Per policies cited above. (as Richard-of-Earth said) — Ched (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Per policies cited above. A different type of event, like the Montreal Polytecnique massacre, where all victims are adults, then sure, open for discussion. But not kids. --Tallard (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Long-term editors wanting to include the hobbies, aspirations & family of randomly-shot children is baffling. We need a strong consensus against including such trivial & intrusive personal info, otherwise pushing for mini-bios in articles of mass shootings will happen frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: It's very simple, really—if reliable sources give enough weight to the victims that include mini-bios, some of which may be relevant for the shooting and some of it may not but may stil be relevant not to memorialize the victim but to see it as a human being—no matter that it was chosen at random, they're a victim now, and as an empath I do find baffling your repeated "random-chosen" comments, even if true, rather than just another number—we must follow them per WP:NPOV, unless I'm missing out something. If RS have decided to focus away from the perpetrator, and closer to the victims, we must follow them per NPOV to balance the perpetrator and the victims. While the given proposed text can certainly be improved and I may not support it in toto, I'm not opposed in principle as many of you seem to be, in my opinion without a correct reading of our policies and weak rationales. As for privacy concerns, I assume that any information put up by RS has been given the consent by the victim's family. Finally, as for your repeated U.S. vs. international mass shootings naming victims convention, that may simply coming down to the fact that RS do mention the name of the victims of U.S. mass shooting, while not in the case of the other, for whatever reasons, or maybe they do, in which case, if they are given enough weight by RS, they should be added there too. As long as RS give WP:WEIGHT to them, they can no longer be dismissed as trivia. Davide King (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Much of the mainstream media love to sensationalise, which is why many include a lot of info about the victims. We shouldn't follow them in that regard. The victims certainly were shot at random; Ramos didn't have a hit list. Having empathy should mean not wanting to invade the privacy of the victims' families; we can't assume that all the info they've published has been approved of & checked by the families. This push to include mini-bios started with this article. I'd previously raised the concern multiple times that adding the names could be a foot-in-the-door attempt to add various biographical info to articles about mass murders & mass shootings. I was told that I was creating a straw man, because no-one wanted that. The intent by a minority turns out to be significantly worse than I suspected, because the types of info I said would likely be advocated for didn't include things as trivial as food or hobbies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: It's very simple, really—if reliable sources give enough weight to the victims that include mini-bios, some of which may be relevant for the shooting and some of it may not but may stil be relevant not to memorialize the victim but to see it as a human being—no matter that it was chosen at random, they're a victim now, and as an empath I do find baffling your repeated "random-chosen" comments, even if true, rather than just another number—we must follow them per WP:NPOV, unless I'm missing out something. If RS have decided to focus away from the perpetrator, and closer to the victims, we must follow them per NPOV to balance the perpetrator and the victims. While the given proposed text can certainly be improved and I may not support it in toto, I'm not opposed in principle as many of you seem to be, in my opinion without a correct reading of our policies and weak rationales. As for privacy concerns, I assume that any information put up by RS has been given the consent by the victim's family. Finally, as for your repeated U.S. vs. international mass shootings naming victims convention, that may simply coming down to the fact that RS do mention the name of the victims of U.S. mass shooting, while not in the case of the other, for whatever reasons, or maybe they do, in which case, if they are given enough weight by RS, they should be added there too. As long as RS give WP:WEIGHT to them, they can no longer be dismissed as trivia. Davide King (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Long-term editors wanting to include the hobbies, aspirations & family of randomly-shot children is baffling. We need a strong consensus against including such trivial & intrusive personal info, otherwise pushing for mini-bios in articles of mass shootings will happen frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Only if specifically important A victim's background can be somewhat uniquely related to the tragedy. In that case, they should be mentioned, either inside a larger section, or within its own short paragraph. If a victim is not especially remarkable, then no. Senorangel (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is not a memorial, and nor is it (in the words of WWGB) a "mawkish melodrama". There is zero encyclopedic value in material like
Salazar anticipated new films by Marvel Studios and sang along to "Sweet Child o' Mine" by Guns N' Roses whenever her father Vincent drove her to school
, orShe was fond of vanilla bean frappes and [Chick-fil-A]] but disliked wearing dresses
, etc. The reason there are sources for this material is because they feature in human-interest stories designed to tug at your heart strings and make you grieve for the tragic loss of life. There's nothing wrong with that, but that is simply not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to inform you, not to make you cry by telling you emotionally touching (but encyclopedically irrelevant) stories; it would be absurd to read this stuff in an encyclopedia. Endwise (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed - such info is too trivial for a biography of a famous person, let alone for non-notable people who were randomly shot by a stranger. It's unencyclopedic & intrusive to the victims' families. No WP policy/guideline/consensus says that such info should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. What about the stuff below? Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, primarily per Endwise. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 18:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude No, as this will not improve the article.MraClean (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude: Mentioning their names seems to be enough, a biography is not needed. Kpddg (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude extended information: Sorry, but WP:NOTWHOSWHO applies here. We have information on the shooter because it helps explain to readers possible causes for his actions. I'm not seeing similarly significant justification for including information like the victims' aspirations. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Coolperson177, I am not sure that applies, unless I am missing something. WP:NOTWHOSWHO says: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)" That seems more against creating an article for each victim, which no one is advocating here, and now that would be a correct objection of WP:MEMORIAL rather than the ones I have read. If reliable sources have given significant prominent to the victims, irrespective of making our own OR about why we should not follow them, including full articles about them like The New York Times did, we are knowingly and willingly violating WP:NPOV, which is one of our three pillar guidelines and is not negotiable; ignoring the reverted attempt version, which many seem to imply is the inevitable and sole possibility for inclusion, keeping it shorter than the "Perpetrator" section would be WP:DUE and perfectly in line with the part of NOTWHOSWHO I bolded. If RS significantly report on them, victims are certainly important, just like the perpetrator for obvious reasons; without them, the event would not be as notable and there would not have been the whole "Reactions" section and all the other stuff. I would rather some source analysis on how much weight RS gave to victims rather than point to WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which do not apply—now that may change my mind. Davide King (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought I made it clear that I had no issues with including the victims, just excessive detail that would turn this article into a coatrack. I don't take any issue with the reports of what the victims did in the shooting because those help to describe the subject of this article, but including mini-biographies of the victims, even if there's significant coverage of them, is unhelpful. I can't imagine a way we could include substantial information about all 21 and keep it briefer than the Perpetrator section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, what is excessive detail? It seems many users took biography stuff way too literally and the since reverted attempt as the be-all and end-all; what I support is not necessarily a proper biography, which would result in a separate article, but contextualize the victims as we do with the perpetrator without reducing them to random data, and that may include stuff deemed worthy enough to be relevant to the shooting, some of which you may found to be fine and other bits to be "excessive detail", though you didn't clarify exactly what it would be. As was already written here by Dumuzid, I do share their concern about several users !ignoring RS. So even if "there's significant coverage of them", as you say, which is what WP:NOTWHOSWHO also supports, we should willingly violate WP:NPOV because? To quote Dymuzid again, "I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree here." As for concerns about length, they need not to be in the same section, they can be fleshed out throughout the body where necessary and relevant, with summary style. Davide King (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought I made it clear that I had no issues with including the victims, just excessive detail that would turn this article into a coatrack. I don't take any issue with the reports of what the victims did in the shooting because those help to describe the subject of this article, but including mini-biographies of the victims, even if there's significant coverage of them, is unhelpful. I can't imagine a way we could include substantial information about all 21 and keep it briefer than the Perpetrator section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude per Neutrality above, whose thinking (and proposed solution) mirrors my own perfectly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Coolperson177, I am not sure that applies, unless I am missing something. WP:NOTWHOSWHO says: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)" That seems more against creating an article for each victim, which no one is advocating here, and now that would be a correct objection of WP:MEMORIAL rather than the ones I have read. If reliable sources have given significant prominent to the victims, irrespective of making our own OR about why we should not follow them, including full articles about them like The New York Times did, we are knowingly and willingly violating WP:NPOV, which is one of our three pillar guidelines and is not negotiable; ignoring the reverted attempt version, which many seem to imply is the inevitable and sole possibility for inclusion, keeping it shorter than the "Perpetrator" section would be WP:DUE and perfectly in line with the part of NOTWHOSWHO I bolded. If RS significantly report on them, victims are certainly important, just like the perpetrator for obvious reasons; without them, the event would not be as notable and there would not have been the whole "Reactions" section and all the other stuff. I would rather some source analysis on how much weight RS gave to victims rather than point to WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which do not apply—now that may change my mind. Davide King (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Modified proposal: Material pertaining directly to the massacre
Should the section also exclude information pertaining more directly to the massacre itself, such as:
- Things like the first victim identified, the last victim identified, the youngest victim, the fact that one child was shot as she attempted to dial 911, etc.
- Details pertaining to the effects/aftermath of the masscare, such as the fact that the husband of one of the two teachers died of a heart attack two days after the massacre.
- Grouping the two sets of cousins together. Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Opppose this isn't r/MorbidCuriousity, this holds little to no encyclopedic value and is ultimately intrusive. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PRAXIDICAE: How is this intrustive? All of this is covered in reliable sources, and some of it pertains to events that occurred during the massacre. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED (
"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content
), and is there a policy behindlittle to no encyclopedic value
that gives that more meaning than simply leaving me with the impression it's a veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Or to put it another way, is there a reason we should deviate so much from our sources that isn't down to personal/subjective reasoning? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. The only part of that which may be important enough to include is the attempted phone call, because that's a relevant action. If that's included, don't say who tried to phone, because we don't want to unwittingly encourage anyone to harass the victim's family for details. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. No idea what this proposal means. Are we voting to exclude material which is not in the article? Strange. WWGB (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was asking if the material could be included for its relevance to the massacre. Is the fact that one of the children was trying to dial 911 when she was killed not relevant? Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
*Exclude This will in no way improve the article. This is not a memorial service. MraClean (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MraClean: How does indicating which victim was the first or last victim identified, or the fact that one of them was in the process of dialing 911 when she was killed indicative of a memorial? Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude.As per WP:NOTMEMORIAL comments aboveWritethisway (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude. While the desire to elevate the kids beyond mere statistics is understandable, I agree that this seems iffy w.r.t. the families' privacy (even if all details were ones gleaned from interviews the families willingly conducted with the media). If this were to be done, it should definitely be in a separate Victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting or Robb Elementary School shooting victims article linked to from this one, except for any details somehow directly relevant to the shooting itself. --Dan Harkless (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose including the so-called minibios of those shot as well as even more inconsequential detail like the order in which they were identified. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not assembling material (reliable though it may be) for a detailed book on the subject. The referencing and external links are the jump-off points for that. Davidships (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Davidships and Dan Harkless: We're not talking about the mini-bios any more. What part of "modified" proposal are you not getting. Did you even read the proposal at the top of this. Section.
- Among in the information in question is stuff like the fact that one of the children died while trying to call 911. How is that prohibited by WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Have you even read that guideline?
- Also, there is an entire section called Aftermath. How is the fact that the husband of the one of the two teachers died of a heart attack after the massacare not a valid part of the Aftermath? Can you at least explain how these things do are not legitimate parts of the sections in question. You cite NOTMEMORIAL, but you don't articualte how this information constitutes a "memorial". Can you elaborate on this bit, as opposed to restricting yourselves to mere dogmatic declarations? Nightscream (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nightscream: Please be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. I had to trawl through the history to even figure out who was making the above personal attacks against me. As there was nothing in the banner or elsewhere indicating that the original version of the proposal had been closed with a consensus opinion, my comment was intended to respond to both versions of the proposal.
- Again, I voted that mini-bios should be excluded (out to a separate article, if anywhere), "except for any details somehow directly relevant to the shooting itself". ("Did you even read" that?) To restate, I don't think "information pertaining more directly to the massacre itself" like "one child was shot as she attempted to dial 911", or the age of the youngest victim, should be excluded, but I don't think the children such details apply to should be named, unless it's unreasonably awkward to not do so. Adults like the teacher and her husband can be named. --Dan Harkless (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dan Harkless: Sorry I forgot to sign my post; I don't know how that happened, given how ingrained the habit is.
- However, I did not "attack" you. My comments were partially of a critical nature, but not an attack.
- Please read Davidships' comments about the mini-bios. My reference to that in my message above was in response to what he said, not you.
- Why not refer to the children in question by name? They're dead. Privacy issues and BLP-related matters don't apply to them. Nightscream (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you did attack me, with «What part of "modified" proposal are you not getting. Did you even read the proposal at the top of this. Section.» [sic], and «as opposed to restricting yourselves to mere dogmatic declarations». Please see Wikipedia:Civility.
- As for your last paragraph, yes, I'm well aware that BLP doesn't apply to non-living persons. You display major insensitivity once again when you say «They're dead. Privacy issues … don't apply to them.». If you don't get how this could be perceived as intrusive by families that have already been through hell, I'm afraid I can't be the one to teach you.
- I will note, though, that if the kids are left anonymous in the article, families won't have to feel like they need to constantly police the text around their personally identified kids, to watch for counterfactual and/or abusive stuff being put in by trolls, vandals, or crazy people. Please don't ask me to explain further. I've placed my vote, and it's not appropriate to continue hounding me for more justification and unwanted debate. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The blanket statement with regard BLP is incorrect. The policy applies to both living and in specific cases to recently deceased individuals. See WP:BDP. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nightscream: Nice to know that your unjustified aggressive challenging of reading ability was directed only to me. If you read my contribution again, you will see that I referred to the first of your listed exclusions. Furthermore, since you chose "Modified proposal" rather than "additional", I took it to refer to the whole caboodle.Davidships (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This article changes every day, because the story changes every day
Somebody needs to put a warning or a disclaimer on the article, because key details continue to be changed.
Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 09:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No they don't. In the last 36 hours, the only changes have been minor word rephrasing, adding a few sources, syntactic, and four new sentences that flesh out the police response a little more. There's no "key details" that are being regularly changed. The fundamental facts are established. New details may come out and continue to supplement that, but there's no sudden paradigm shift going on. None of that merits a special warning/disclaimer beyond the one that's on every Wiki article. -- Veggies (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This came out today on NPR (National Public Radio)--
- "News of the federal review--"
- "There has been a great deal of false and misleading information in the aftermath of this tragedy," CLEAT stated. "Some of the information came from the very highest levels of government and law enforcement. Sources that Texans once saw as iron-clad and completely reliable have now been proven false."
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- We literally have a subsection about the inaccurate statements made by government officials and another large section that deals with the conspiracy theories being pushed out. Feel free to discuss and edit the article with reliable sources, but there's no need for any Current event templates and, in fact, the guidelines for those templates run counter to the situation here. -- Veggies (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- That section is for "initial" innacuracies.
- However innacuracies have persisted.
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chesapeake77: - exactly what inaccuracies have persisted? starship.paint (exalt) 02:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is OK for details to change, because more details come out, like Arnulfo Reyes harrowing interview. You need to be more specific on what is inaccurate. --StellarNerd (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Latest innacuracy-- the Chief who has been heavily criticized for defining the shooting as a barricade was actually on vacation and away from town during the shooting. Someone else was actually in charge.
- This was just on CNN (late this evening). Is it true or false? I don't know, but the story keeps changing.
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth
- @Chesapeake77: - I think you misunderstood the reporting. [1] The mayor said that
the city’s police chief was on vacation at the time of the shooting and that the acting city police commander was on the scene.
That's not Pedro Arredondo, that's the UPD chief. starship.paint (exalt) 10:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)- @Starship.paint
- OK-- thanks for the info!
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 03:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @StellarNerd @Starship.paint
- Update: See here-- [New details from investigation]
- Note: It's a very long article (keep looking below all ads and photos)-- the article continues after each of them.
- The new information is there (after some rehashing of old news, periodically). You have to read the whole article to see all of it.
- This includes newly released police bodycam videoss which change the narrative in some cases and exapand on it in others.
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 02:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chesapeake77: - I think you misunderstood the reporting. [1] The mayor said that
And Chief Arredondo just now claimed he was "never in charge" during the shooting at RES and that 'he never stopped anyone from opening the door' to the classroom where the killer was. CLICK HERE TO SEE Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 17:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- CLICK HERE: Texas state senator says Uvalde school police chief's narrative on shooting is 'directly in contrast' to DPS reports
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 11:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @starship.paint @StellarNerd @Nightscream @Dan Harkless @Valjean @Locke Cole @Richard-of-Earth
- On June 9 2022, Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan ordered an investigation into the shootings stating that “we still do not have an accurate picture of what exactly happened in Uvalde" then saying that "every day, we receive new information that conflicts with previous reports, making it not only difficult for authorities to figure out next steps, but for the grieving families of the victims to receive closure.”[1]
- This was just a few days ago. Notice needs to be put into the article that facts are still subject to change. Is there a template that can be added?
- (Boldface only added to highlight key points).
- Respectfully, Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate. WWGB (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Right, and this article if at all is more updated and watched than most. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate. WWGB (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Beeferman, Jason (9 June 2022). "Texas House kicks off inquiry into Uvalde shooting behind closed doors". The Texas Tribune. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
“The fact we still do not have an accurate picture of what exactly happened in Uvalde is an outrage,” Phelan said in a statement. “Every day, we receive new information that conflicts with previous reports, making it not only difficult for authorities to figure out next steps, but for the grieving families of the victims to receive closure.”
Unlocked school entrance door
How did the door not lock? Did the other doors also malfunction? 2603:8081:501:391D:68A8:24B:FBC2:4E55 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- A malfunction of the lock? Need a source for this. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOT and WP:NOTAFORUM. cookie monster 755 06:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article currently states that
[t]he door did not lock despite being designed to be locked when shut
. The cited source (the Associated Press) further comments that this is being investigated. You'd have to look at news sources to find if there's been an update on this matter and then present it here for an editor to update the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Law enforcement source: classroom door may have been unlocked all along
Due to this [2] - we need to be careful on stating that the classroom door was definitely locked. starship.paint (exalt) 03:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chesapeake77: ^ starship.paint (exalt) 06:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint Agreed, this is an important detail. Care should be taken to assure that this change and any possible future changes in the story be noted. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I too agree, it's amazing how much more bungling up by police appears every day. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint Agreed, this is an important detail. Care should be taken to assure that this change and any possible future changes in the story be noted. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Pedro Arredondo interview - where should it go?
I've put it under Shooting, should it be there? [3] Or should it be at Law enforcement failures and controversies, or Aftermath#Pedro Arredondo? starship.paint (exalt) 06:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint
- Actually I just gave the Arredondo interview a slower read and now I see how it fits very well right under the Timeline too.
- Maybe "Controversies about the timeline" should be made a new section title-- and the Timeline (followed by the Arredondo interview) should be placed under it. In other words, because the timeline is now controversial.
- This also means IMHO, that "Police failures" as a section title, should be removed (or changed to "allegations of police failures") since at this point there are conflicting claims about what the failures were, or were not. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Room 109 (and our lede)
Our lede until very recently stated [4] that regarding the gunman: He then locked himself inside two adjoining classrooms, killed nineteen students and two teachers, and remained there for more than an hour before members of a United States Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) fatally shot him. Whether the classroom door was locked is the topic of an above discussion. Regardless, there is a mistake here. According to WaPo, [5] DPS official McCraw said Ramos had locked the doors to Rooms 111 and 112 but briefly re-emerged into the hall — at a time McCraw did not specify, but this is likely when those in Room 109 were shot at — before locking himself in the adjoining classrooms again.
There is an account, by a student in Room 109: Initially, Daniel said, he could hear the gunman firing on another classroom at the end of a hallway ... Then, Daniel said, he could hear the gunman make his way down the hall, firing into another classroom. About 15 minutes after the shooting began, Daniel said he saw the gunman approach his classroom door ... Then Ramos fired through the door’s glass window ... "... then he stopped and then went back to the classroom next to us.” During the gunfire, Daniel’s teacher was shot twice but survived.
Thus, clearly the lede needs to be rectified. starship.paint (exalt) 08:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)