Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

{The deaths have been adjusted between 15-20 deaths} 66.252.38.211 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023 (2)

Add "As of 1:55 AM Eastern Time, Bates College, a private liberal arts institution located in Lewiston, Maine, remains under lockdown. The lockdown was initiated at 8:10 PM local Eastern Time, and thousands of students continue to shelter in place within various buildings across the campus." Folkarrivals (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Just one school of many in lockdown, nothing noteworthy about this one. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mass murder"

Someone put "mass murder" back in the attack types and wrongly tagged the edit as minor so other editors wouldn't notice. Someone should fix that and maybe put something in the FAQ; people's grasp on what "murder" actually means seems tenuous. Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing of this article

Just performed an edit of a sentence which began with a numeral; it has never been acceptable to open a sentence with a numeral, so it was spelt out. Hushpuckena (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023 (3)

in the "shootings" tab it says. 4 miles (6.4 km) to the south of Sparetime. when in the start of the tab it says the alley is called Just-In-Time Recreation. it would make sense to change it to be the same so there is less confusion. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

shooting/shootings

Police reports indicate only one shooter. Since it occurred at multiple locations media sources seem to be conflicted on whether this is one "shooting" or multiple (ABC reports former, CNN latter). Looking for consensus on which title is more correct Elijahr241 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple shootings. See 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the plural option, shootings, works better. @Elijahr241: what do you think? City of Silver 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

plural works better because even if it is one guy, it's still seperate instances of mass murder in different locations

Most people will identify it as seperate shootings in different areas Marmorda (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Bit conflicted because to me, "shootings" implies multiple suspects. Maybe it could just be made clear in the lead that it was all one guy (at least, once we have more information) Elijahr241 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay! I changed it to singular but if anyone wants to change it back, go for it Marmorda (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur that this should be plural because at least 3 places have been shot up. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's one shooting spree consisting of two mass shootings. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspect

Has (BLP violation removed) been identified as the suspect by police? Local Facebook (I know, so reliable) groups and people are identifying him as (redacted). Marmorda (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refresh yourself on the BLP policy, probably shouldnt be dropping names like this at such a preliminary stage. @Acroterion you may need to hide this discussion thread. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Marmorda (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed his name! Marmorda (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to at the start of your comment as well, also page revisions will need to be blanked. No worries but in the event it isn't who people are id-ing the picture, it can be real bad news bears. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to see any official statements or news reports, only twitter and facebook. Elijahr241 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion. Just scrolling through the twitter thread there is so much conflicting information and I would be very hesitant to add anything to the article from any of those sources. Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Bangor Daily News claims a Maine Department of Public Safety spokesperson has confirmed the name. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait for a few more sources to add that info back. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the major news sources are reporting the same. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow that was fast, yes CNN has identified him as a "person of interest" so I assume other outlets have this as well. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why can't anyone add the name for fucks sake? Baldur's Gate 3 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

'Admin warning Nobody has any business posting suspect names or links until it is amply reported by a consensus of major news outlets. I've already protected the aricle and warned editors about this. Please stop, and wait. This rush to post a name has potential for great harm to innocent individuals. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A significant number of remaining revisions have a name in them, the oldest I can find being revision 1181926587. — Greentryst ^T_C 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone back through, but it's looking like it's moot in any case. The notion that we must name somebody on the thinnest of references or rumors is a perennial concern. However, any descriptions of people's level of interest from law enforcement must stick closely to the way sources word it, and it must be well-sourced. The same goes for any mentions of possible victims. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Would person of interest be appropriate to add?LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's how they're expressing it, and that's done for a lot of obvious legal and ethical reasons that editors should respect, and use the same terms. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Person of interest named

(BLP violation removed) is a person of interest. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna122249 2605:8D80:404:9D6:D9CC:757D:2060:A51A (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also named on NY Post and CentralMaine.com . Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The press and media are not bound by BLP. We are. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press is citing the name of the person of interest from the press conference and police bulletin reviewed. It’s worth noting especially as they are being reported as a firearms instructor. https://apnews.com/article/49da6d06a8b5a15d3b619b3927bc33ff

Coasterghost (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem and Acroterion really doing all the work out there. Y'all are awesome! Marmorda (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• My bad, I put his name on the main article without reading this first. L1amw90 10:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest waiting until the person of interest is found. Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspect has been identified by NYT, CNN, and NBC

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.

---

{{Is it now safe to include his name in the article @Acroterion:? Di (they-them) (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They have since been added. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also add some information about him. His DOB is April 4, 1983 and lived in neighboring Bowdoin at the time of the shootings, as this was all according to The Maine Wire. It was unknown where he was born or any early info on him, but all I know is that he was once part of the military and was divorced twice. 2600:1702:5225:C010:40C8:CE30:D97F:2B6A (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

is there a source for this in more than one news outlet? Marmorda (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This is information that appears to be from the police and appears in CNN, though I urge all editors to exercise caution at the moment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources, even CNN did tell some info about him. I am still investigating on his backstory as well. 2600:1702:5225:C010:40C8:CE30:D97F:2B6A (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Cut it out. See WP:OR and WP:BLP. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This all sounds like personal information that's not directly relevant to the shootings themselves (which is what the article is about). Di (they-them) (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a Reliable Source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide a quote where providing a suspect's name is not allowed given several reliable sources and police confirmation? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I just did. See the link. That said, if this person is actually arrested and formally indicted, I think at that point it would be permissible to post their name. But as of right now this individual does not even appear to be in custody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting case as a very large majority of mass shooters die at the scene and hence are not subject to the BLP policy - in this instance shooter is at large. Did editors wait for Nikolas Cruz to be convicted before adding his info to the Parkland page as a suspect? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall the specifics, but I believe that once a suspect in an event of this nature is actually indicted, that commonsense might allow us to name that person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT seems pretty clear that the criteria is conviction, not indictment or the issuance of an arrest warrant, but that is not in my experience the common practice here, at least for white collar crimes. Sandizer (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

At some point, in an incident like this, the suspect will become well-known enough to fall under the WP:PUBLICFIGURE exemption of WP:SUSPECT. That would likely be well before a conviction. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say we are there at this point in time. Sandizer (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you and @Valjean below, we're well past the point of BLP being a concern here. We've gone from "person of interest", to "wanted suspect" who is well-named in numerous WP:RS. BLP (in so far as WP:BLPCRIME is concerned) is no longer relevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Per @Ad Orientem - I'm uncomfortable putting the name into the article in any significant way, much less the lead paragraph. I've removed it from there. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not relevant to here, but this has taught me to not jump the gun so quickly! thanks guys :) Marmorda (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Same. Learning and growing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this, now that he has been named in quite a few RS. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, per Ad Orientem. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

All I asked was the editors wait until that kind of consensus emerges among major news organizations. The rush to name a name at all costs on thin sourcing or rumor is unseemly, and editors really need to remember BLP at all times. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Police have confirmed his name. That is as far as I'm willing to go here, and I have created a custom label in the infobox to that extent. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Police only have this as a named person of interest, but that doesn't make his the suspect. Do not add any names until they say they have actually caught the shooter and identified him. Masem (t) 03:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair they have named him and described him as "armed and dangerous" but yes conservative approach is good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree - a "person of interest" is not necessarily a suspect, and does not need to be named here unless that status changes. We stick to what the sources say. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The police now refer to him as a suspect. From the transcript at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/maine-state-police-hold-press-conference-after-shootings-transcript: I think we used person of interest last night for half of the room that was here for that press event. As the colonel had mentioned, there is now arrest warrants for murder for this particular individual, Mr. ████. So he’s viewed as a suspect and there is a full court press by all of our partners to bring him into custody. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Do not add any names until they say they have actually caught the shooter and identified him Do you have a WP:PAG for this? Because the name of the suspect is well sourced and easily verifiable, and being on the front-page of various widely read sources is more than enough to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• The press and media are not governed by BLP. We are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • And BLP now is satisfied. We can, using attribution, framing, quotes, and myriad RS add his name. I agree with User:Locke Cole. This is getting beyond ridiculous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)}}

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

22 have been confirmed killed

Not at least 15, 22: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lewiston-maine-shooting-active-shooter-live-b2436191.html 2605:8D80:404:9D6:D9CC:757D:2060:A51A (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like that data was incorrect, 16 is the confirmed number right now. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s 18 dead confirmed 174.213.161.51 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple credible sources citing to the death toll being at 18. While initally it was reported (even by reputable sources) that the death toll was at 22, it seems after the fog of war cleared and more information was obtained, the death toll is at 18. Jurisdicta (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Already?

Wikipedia article already? Who does that? Ugh 109.245.95.120 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not consulting you personally on the appropriate wait time before creating an article about a notable event. WaffleTruth (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

😂 Zuhair (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to provide accurate information on notable things. I'd consider this to be a notable thing, and therefore it's inclusion feels appropriate. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 12:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We do, and despite what it may seem, an article about an event of magnitude like this shooting would be created as quickly as reliable sources make articles about it. That's just how Wikipedia functions. Luigi7255 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Name

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

---

The POI has been formally raised to suspect. As far as not naming him is concerned, yes, law enforcement knows that incorrectly naming people in criminal investigations causes great harm to them, but in the unlikely event that it does happen (not what I think happened here), especially for a high-profile case like this, the damage is already done, and we are not in a position to mitigate it. Unless somebody has evidence of police misconduct, possible political motivations, or something similar, there is no reason not to name him. BLP says “strongly consider”, not “do not”. Esszet (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite him being named a suspect, it's generally the Wikipedia-wide consensus that we don't name the supposed perp until after a conviction. Unless somehow the perp can be considered a public figure, we should not name him. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it? See here and here for two mass shooters who were named pre-conviction. Esszet (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not true regarding conviction, as WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are different things. Rather, after the person is charged or indicted and is "widely disseminated" then that opens up the possibility of naming the person. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we can wait for an arrest. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If we wouldn't be following Wikipedia:BLPCRIME to a tee, I would definitely prefer we wait for an arrest than give the name right now. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The suspect is clearly eluding justice. There is a warrant out for his arrest. If he was so concerned about defending his legal reputation, he would have turned himself in and answered to the charges. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have issues with the policy bring it up elsewhere PyropePe (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that there is an arrest warrant for the person, that opens it up more for posting the name, as we saw with Brian Laundrie and the killing of Gabby Petito. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the Gabby Petito comparison is that there was reasonable suspicion that it was her fiance, as he was the last person who saw her. Here, however, it could still be a chance of a mistaken identity, a small chance, but high enough to merit exclusion in my opinion. Luigi7255 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's true, as it was a case of familiar crime. A better one to examine might be 2022 University of Idaho killings, where the Wikipedia article included the name of the individual at multiple stages throughout the investigation. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason, I would take a look at WP:SUSPECT. Living people are presumed innocent. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Identifying somebody as a suspect does not violate the presumption of innocence. Esszet (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is in the off chance the suspect didn't do it, there are serious implications for the innocent individual. I'm not saying that it is at all likely in this case, but if we adhere to policy, it is still too early to name. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, policy allows it, it’s what usually happens (I think?), and as I said before, the horse is already out of the barn, we can’t mitigate it now. Not naming him here accomplishes nothing at all. Esszet (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Naming him also doesn't really accomplish much. There still will be way more holdouts presuming innocence if we give the name now rather than later. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Very few people would genuinely presume innocence here, that’s an extremely idealistic way to look at it. I don’t know what you’re all trying to prove, but that dimply isn’t the way the world works. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I would caution against assuming that your world view is representative of the majority. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the news and tell me I’m wrong. Esszet (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

How is this a productive/constructive comment? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm assuming you didn't read the link I provided. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. I don't see how that isn't exactly what is being stated to avoid. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have to assume you didn’t read my initial comment: “BLP says “strongly consider”, not “do not”.” I’m not sure exactly what it means, the perpetrator has engaged in high-profile activity (see WP:LPI), so it doesn’t apply anyway. Esszet (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

High-profile activity =/= merit to bypass the "seriously consider" portion of BLPCRIME. If that was the case, we'd be naming suspects of the murders of high-profile people before they were even arrested. Luigi7255 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, naming individuals in Wikipedia articles before they are arrested does happen, though not always. Also, using the term "bypass" is not a fair characterization in the context of the guideline that says to "seriously consider" something. It is not an iron clad rule. It is intentionally a term of art and relies on the judgment of the editor. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is merit to bypass, it specifically says it’s for non-public figures. Esszet (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP applies to all living persons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not that part though. Esszet (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that part does not apply? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

When did I say that? To be completely clear: that provision applies to non-public figures only. Esszet (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"not that part though" and "that provision applies to non-public figures only" - you just said that part of BLP doesn't apply. Where does BLP make such an exception???? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m assuming you have not read the policy, the exact quote is: “For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” It does not apply here. If you would like to keep Wikilawyering, go right ahead, but you can’t get around that. Esszet (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not only around the debate with BLPCRIME, but if the shooter can be classified as a public figure, and from what it looks like (according to BLPPUBLIC and the corresponding essay) he doesn't necessarily qualify. He hasn't made himself known through his name (only a suspect's name, not necessarily the perp's, being revealed hours ago) and he hasn't made his name public through any other means (i.e. through RS prior to the shooting). Luigi7255 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, I'm not opposed to inclusion of the name until conviction, I'm only opposed until the suspect is arrested; for now, we should just wait until the suspect is detained before we include the name. Luigi7255 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

He has been named as a suspect and an arrest warrant has been issued for eight counts of murder. This is widely reported and extremely well sourced. In my view, tt seems kind of silly to argue not to include his name, but yet its okay that we have included an image of the guy identifying him as the suspect?? As long as we stick to what the sources say, and use attribution where necessary, there is no BLP violation in including his name. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that is very general guidance and is simply pointing out that, generically, an editor "seriously consider not including material." In the case of articles specifically about shootings and killings, context does indeed matter and it is not unusual at all for us to include the names of individuals arrested or charged, well before any "conviction" happens if it is widely published in reliable sources and we cover it responsibly. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is extremely silly -- I can think of no better adjective than that -- not to name the suspect when he and his life are now a primary focus of mainstream news coverage, but I've given up trying to argue the logic of such things on Wikipedia. I'll just say that Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality, not create its own bubble of omissions. Moncrief (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Our references literally name (BLP violation removed). His name is all over the media. This is a fast-paced story and I am not sure how it is libellous to simply cite the facts as they are stated ((BLP violation removed) has an arrest warrant out, he is formally a suspect and subject to a massive manhunt). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of not naming him, in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME should we also not be posting his medical information? PyropePe (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

TC)

Schools in other counties closed

My cousin in a neighboring county to Androscoggin County has no school today and tomorrow. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

conflicting information

Some sources are reporting that 22 people were killed, but others are reporting that the death toll is 18. All of those sources are major news outlets and seem fairly reliable. What should we do in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe we are going with the sources that are reporting what the Maine State Police and Governor said in their news conference. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is a discrepancy, we can use FOOTNOTES when necessary to note the issue while keeping things simple. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added a footnote about the original death toll. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

PIC of Suspect

Why the prohibition on not naming him as a 'suspect' or 'assailant' (what's the difference, if any?), if you are going to already publish the pic of him? Inconsistent, or illogical, to say the least! If you can't publish his name, then you shouldn't be allowed to publish his pic. This illogic is what makes editors so upset with Wiki with their illogical rules: you can publish THIS, but you can't publish THAT, although the two are just different ways of naming him. Get rid of the pic of him, if you can't add his name, or let the name be allowed under 'suspect' (labeled that way in his pic), or add some other line, as 'accused' for the temporary case (?) between beginning accusation and later arrest (or death), if that latter event occurs. Otherwise, the THIS [pic] vs. THAT [name] for the same thing with only THIS allowed is plainly one-side of the two-sided coin, although exactly the same. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SUSPECT, as mentioned several times above. Seasider53 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, so the question remains, why are we including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime. A photograph/image of the WP:SUSPECT is clearly material. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is enough support to take it down, then sure it can be removed for now. As far as I understood the reasoning, an image does not immediately connect the person to the crime as the person is not well known, but I could be mistaken. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And done for now. Pinging Di (they-them) and Manchesterunited1234 for input due to editing/uploading the image in question. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I believe that the image of the suspect is not clearly identifiable, it is a low resolution image of a security camera feed with his face partially obscured. In my opinion, there's no BLP concern. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Di (they-them): I will agree with that assessment. With everything resolved, I will personally say that I feel that the image and name issues are separate issues, especially with law enforcement putting out a CCTV image to help identify Card to the public. In any case, thank you for your work and for your response. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, the man's name is literally spelled out several times right in this article's reference section (sources 29, 37-39) - and three of those titles explicitly mention he's the suspect. Should those be taken down/modified? 73.168.37.85 (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus at BLPN has been that we avoid sources with the suspect name in the headline where possible, but not if it's the only source available. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not answer my point of having the pic there in the first place. If you have him already labeled as the 'suspect' in his pic's caption, than why not junk that prohibition on putting his name to the pic of him, when he IS the suspect, befitting that line as many reliable sources have named him already? It makes NO logical sense, at all! I agree with Isaidnoway and 73.168.37.85 points that again make Wiki a mess of THIS but not THAT as I outlined originally. Either go the whole consistent route as 'suspect': pic and name, or no pic and no name! Otherwise, another Wiki contradiction in BLP, making editors try to figure out what is ok, and what isn't. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever started talking to someone, thinking it was someone you know, only to realize that it wasn't? Different people can look very similar and have no relation i.e. Doppelgänger. The problem of ID is largely affected by the resolution as well. That's how I see it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is silly and bordering on WP:POINTy. No sane reading of WP:BLPCRIME prohibits blurry photographs of a notable event from being used on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Thought since we have had a discussion, the editors must seriously consider not including material clause is fulfilled, so there should be no further objections. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree. If we're not comfortable repeating the shooter's name that RSes provide, then we shouldn't be putting an identifying-quality photo of a suspect or a person of interest. It's just difficult to care because a) he likely did it and b) even if he did not, his face and likeness have gone around the world already, Wikipedia showing it or not makes no material difference if it turns out that he didn't do it.

But for the sake of consistency, if we give suspects presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt until charges are filed, then we shouldn't be showing his face as the lead image. Maybe there is a compromise here to blur his face, so that we can still benefit from having a visual aspect, without identifying a person for a serious crime with no charges being filed? Melmann 04:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the image isn't very useful for identifying him because it is low resolution and his face is partially obscured, however I have no qualms with blurring his face further if that's what we decide is appropriate. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "identifying-quality photo". Police identified the suspect through his vehicle registration, not the blurry security camera footage. All the footage did was show that it was plausibly the same person. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Police identification is obviously going to be more thorough than a photo, that doesn't mean the public wouldn't recognize him. During today's press conference, the investigators revealed their first few tips actually came from Card's relatives, who called in after recognizing him from this photo.73.168.37.85 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2023 (Um}}

Extent of alert and search

Have authorities in adjoining states and provinces been notified, and are they as well on the lookout for Mr. Card? - knoodelhed (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

{{resolved|Situation has concluded. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC

Maps

Can you please explain @ElijahPepe why you deleted the map with "Maps should not be done this way. Hold off on including one with three locations." Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox civilian attack includes map parameters already. I recommended holding off because there are three locations and pinpointing one to use is difficult; in theory, we could use Template:OSM Location map with specific points. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've edited dozens of breaking news (sadly) shooting articles over the years, and adding a map is standard practice. We can have a basic map now and get it more detailed as we go along. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Since this is multiple location, a custom made map of each of the locations would likely be more helpful to the reader. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Once things are clearer, sure, but for now this map provides a lot more context than none at all. I sure didn't know where Lewiston was before. — Greentryst ^T_C 03:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have made such a template but I'm busy gathering as much information as possible. If someone else could add additional pins, that would be great. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Already?

Wikipedia article already? Who does that? Ugh 109.245.95.120 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not consulting you personally on the appropriate wait time before creating an article about a notable event. WaffleTruth (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

😂 Zuhair (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to provide accurate information on notable things. I'd consider this to be a notable thing, and therefore it's inclusion feels appropriate. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 12:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We do, and despite what it may seem, an article about an event of magnitude like this shooting would be created as quickly as reliable sources make articles about it. That's just how Wikipedia functions. Luigi7255 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Celtics section

Does the reaction of one sports team need its own section? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See #Reactions ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question of whether the content deserves a section of its own per WP:UNDUE. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't want this conversation to split in two sections. I personally agree with @P37307's statement in the above section, the information isn't relevant to the article, and it should be on the team's own article instead. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I removed it altogether. It's not really being widely reported on, and one tweet from them has no historical significance. There's lots of people tweeting about this shooting, and being criticized, I don't see any reason to single them out. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, I think that is the best decision. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have refreshed the talk page and noticed this comment (and this discussion...) Your edit is back in place. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Name of place of first incident

The Wall Street Journal reports that the name of the bowling alley is Just-In-Time Recreation, formerly known as Sparetime:

"The first shooting took place just before 7 p.m. at Just-In-Time Recreation—the bowling alley formerly known as Sparetime, according to Maine State Police Col. William Ross. Twelve minutes later, 911 calls started pouring in from a shooting at the restaurant, Schemengees."

The quote here also specifies that the second incident happened about 12 minutes later. — VintageNebula 🌌🔭 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems this has been fixed already, thank you to all editors for updating this page. — VintageNebula 🌌🔭 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Only two locations

Can someone with edit privileges add that there was no shooting at the Walmart location? See the Sun Journal article quoting a Walmart spokesperson - Kefr4000 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried to clarify it a bit more, but suggested prose is welcome. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What about:

Initially, there were reports of shots at a nearby Walmart distribution center. The company later reported, however, that after police had searched the facility and all associates on the clock had been accounted for, the company was confident no shooting had occurred on Walmart property.

I think it is more precise. Kefr4000 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

auburn mayor reaction

Mayor of Lewiston's sister city Auburn gave NBC a statement that could be added to the Reactions section Elijahr241 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Di (they-them) It's Auburn, Maine (lewiston's neighboring city), not Washington. I'd change it myself but I'm not extended-confirmed Elijahr241 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm not sure why I made that mistake. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

shooting/shootings

Police reports indicate only one shooter. Since it occurred at multiple locations media sources seem to be conflicted on whether this is one "shooting" or multiple (ABC reports former, CNN latter). Looking for consensus on which title is more correct Elijahr241 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple shootings. See 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the plural option, shootings, works better. @Elijahr241: what do you think? City of Silver 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

plural works better because even if it is one guy, it's still seperate instances of mass murder in different locations

Most people will identify it as seperate shootings in different areas Marmorda (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Bit conflicted because to me, "shootings" implies multiple suspects. Maybe it could just be made clear in the lead that it was all one guy (at least, once we have more information) Elijahr241 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay! I changed it to singular but if anyone wants to change it back, go for it Marmorda (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur that this should be plural because at least 3 places have been shot up. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's one shooting spree consisting of two mass shootings. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: active voice

Can someone with extended edit privileges please edit the opening section to use the active voice? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Active voice is not always preferable if passive voice would be clearer. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"an individual shot and killed at least 22 people"

is much better than:

"a mass shooting occurred"

others sources have already concurred there is one shooter and editors have written that in, so there is no obstacle to eliminating the passive voice from the introduction Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing wrong with well-written passive voice. The emphasis is on the mass shootings occurring. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's just bad writing, but I guess it will stay for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Better picture

I have a better picture up front closer and clear , how do I posted here? In the comments? Nildapriccan (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC

Link the source of the picture. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's from a local news channel like you say below, it likely would be a copyright violation, so I wouldn't recommend posting it here. Even then, the picture you're talking about might not be the perp, but the recording definitively shows "whoever is in the picture did it", so I'd rather keep the current picture. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It has all his info and yes its from the news just like the one from recording .

That doesnt answer my question though though you cant post pictures here.

Thanks though 2601:188:C781:2040:D532:CD7A:3A57:352C (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What I'm saying is: it might have more information, but don't post it as it might be a copyright violation. Also, the current picture came from the police department, not the local news. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Where can i post a picture of the suspect where is more clearer there is on of his face clear approved by local news channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nildapriccan (talk • contribs) 11:36, October 26, 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new picture, the existing one serves its purpose fine. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The goal isn't to show the suspect's face, it is the illustrate the shooting and show what happened. The current picture says more than a closeup of his face in my opinion. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

He isnt a suspect he is a person of interest and i beg to differ as a person who lives two hours from there and grew up in New England , the original picture does the the second one no justice . He hasnt been caught and three towns are in lockdown. 2601:188:C781:2040:D532:CD7A:3A57:352C (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current picture illustrates the action, the event. A headshot just shows the perpetrator, who per BLP should not be the focus Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Schools in other counties closed

My cousin in a neighboring county to Androscoggin County has no school today and tomorrow. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Person of interest named

(BLP violation removed) is a person of interest. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna122249 2605:8D80:404:9D6:D9CC:757D:2060:A51A (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also named on NY Post and CentralMaine.com . Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The press and media are not bound by BLP. We are. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press is citing the name of the person of interest from the press conference and police bulletin reviewed. It’s worth noting especially as they are being reported as a firearms instructor. https://apnews.com/article/49da6d06a8b5a15d3b619b3927bc33ff

Coasterghost (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem and Acroterion really doing all the work out there. Y'all are awesome! Marmorda (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• My bad, I put his name on the main article without reading this first. L1amw90 10:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest waiting until the person of interest is found. Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions

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

---

The Celtics had made a post on X that stated “our thoughts are with everyone in Lewiston, Maine.” With a picture attached of the final score of their game that night which got controversial feedback and was deleted and reposted without the picture.

[1] [2] Puppy20love (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If you can provide an archived source for this (other than screenshots, which I have found), I will add it. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I found a source and I have added it. Di (they-them) (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page before I did my edit but missed this section. Apologies. I think it is important that prayers and the game score scoreboard portion of the image be included if you are going to include the controversial parts. It's leaving part of the controversy out. As it is, it doesn't tell what the controversy was. Personally, I think the controversial part should be left out and it just mention they tweeted their thoughts. If the controversy portion is that important to document, add it to the controversy section of their own page. Once again, sorry about not bringing my edit here first. P37307 (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This source still seemingly just relies on a couple twitter accounts sharing what looks like the same screenshot. Maybe that's enough to warrant inclusion. Actually, I too personally believe it did happen. It's just I know how quickly a false claim can be perpetuated if it's outrageous enough, and adding information with such poor sourcing feels rash to an article as relevant as this. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 11:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

While I'm certainly not a reliable source, I definitely saw that post and I don't think its validity is questionable. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove the template? The validity *is* being disputed. "I saw it with my own eyes" is certainly not grounds for a definitive case closed Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The source Di provided certainly seems to reliable, and the controversy on social media seems to back up the claim. If you disagree you can revert my edit. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose there are much bigger problems than disputes over a Celtics tweet here. I digress. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Very true... ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

22 have been confirmed killed

Not at least 15, 22: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lewiston-maine-shooting-active-shooter-live-b2436191.html 2605:8D80:404:9D6:D9CC:757D:2060:A51A (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like that data was incorrect, 16 is the confirmed number right now. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s 18 dead confirmed 174.213.161.51 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple credible sources citing to the death toll being at 18. While initally it was reported (even by reputable sources) that the death toll was at 22, it seems after the fog of war cleared and more information was obtained, the death toll is at 18. Jurisdicta (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspect

Has (BLP violation removed) been identified as the suspect by police? Local Facebook (I know, so reliable) groups and people are identifying him as (redacted). Marmorda (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refresh yourself on the BLP policy, probably shouldnt be dropping names like this at such a preliminary stage. @Acroterion you may need to hide this discussion thread. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Marmorda (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed his name! Marmorda (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to at the start of your comment as well, also page revisions will need to be blanked. No worries but in the event it isn't who people are id-ing the picture, it can be real bad news bears. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to see any official statements or news reports, only twitter and facebook. Elijahr241 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion. Just scrolling through the twitter thread there is so much conflicting information and I would be very hesitant to add anything to the article from any of those sources. Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Bangor Daily News claims a Maine Department of Public Safety spokesperson has confirmed the name. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait for a few more sources to add that info back. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the major news sources are reporting the same. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow that was fast, yes CNN has identified him as a "person of interest" so I assume other outlets have this as well. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why can't anyone add the name for fucks sake? Baldur's Gate 3 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

'Admin warning Nobody has any business posting suspect names or links until it is amply reported by a consensus of major news outlets. I've already protected the aricle and warned editors about this. Please stop, and wait. This rush to post a name has potential for great harm to innocent individuals. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A significant number of remaining revisions have a name in them, the oldest I can find being revision 1181926587. — Greentryst ^T_C 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone back through, but it's looking like it's moot in any case. The notion that we must name somebody on the thinnest of references or rumors is a perennial concern. However, any descriptions of people's level of interest from law enforcement must stick closely to the way sources word it, and it must be well-sourced. The same goes for any mentions of possible victims. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Would person of interest be appropriate to add?LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's how they're expressing it, and that's done for a lot of obvious legal and ethical reasons that editors should respect, and use the same terms. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

conflicting information

Some sources are reporting that 22 people were killed, but others are reporting that the death toll is 18. All of those sources are major news outlets and seem fairly reliable. What should we do in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe we are going with the sources that are reporting what the Maine State Police and Governor said in their news conference. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is a discrepancy, we can use FOOTNOTES when necessary to note the issue while keeping things simple. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added a footnote about the original death toll. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)