Jump to content

Talk:Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

re: Image request

There are now mug-shots being published [1]; however, they are not "federal" law enforcement pictures (which I believe would be public domain). I am not sure of copyright laws regarding Colorado Springs PD mug-shots. — Ched :  ?  13:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit history question

  • Question. Why were my trivial edits (made on 27 Nov) deleted? (deleted, not reverted! see article page history) 178.94.166.186 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion Notification

An Articles for Deletion discussion is in progress regarding Robert Lewis Dear. Safiel (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Article rename without discussion?

The rename of this article should have been discussed here first. The Planned Parenthood connection is not yet proven to be accurate - new sources are saying that the connection is not certain and that the gunman may not have intended to target the PP clinic. As many editors who have had interest in this article, you would think an uninvolved editor such as the one who made the move would have come here first. Out of courtesy, if not to get consensus first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to its former title to allow for discussion. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, the question on the table appears to be whether the article title is best placed at

2015 Colorado Springs shooting, or
Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting.

I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this, where the primary sources have not settled on a name, the title should reflect what users are likely to search for. We shouldn't try to cram lots of information into the title, even information that is not disputed. I would support keeping the title at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting or possibly reverting to the original Colorado springs shooting, 2015 so that the auto-complete in the search box works as expected. Miraculouschaos (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support "2015 Colorado Springs shooting". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to support 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting as that is where the primary sources are going, and there have been other shootings in Colorado Springs this year. I don't think the shooter's motivation is important to the choice of title; it is now clear that the shooting happened at Planned Parenthood. Miraculouschaos (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for name change to Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting --- this is now a no-brainer: "The man who police say stormed a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing a police officer and two others, used the phrase "no more baby parts" to explain his act, according to a law enforcement official. Robert Lewis Dear's attack on the clinic was "definitely politically motivated," said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still underway." [2] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Planned Parenthood shooting" at this time. — Ched :  ?  17:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Miraculouschaos, Ched, I JethroBT, Somedifferentstuff: Please see #Requested move 29 November 2015 below. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Law enforcement" and "the perpetrator/the gunman/the suspect"

This is needlessly wordy. Police should be called "police" and the guy should be called "Dear". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing, though: he's a SUSPECT, not a PERPETRATOR. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Aye. Another reason it's simpler to just call him by his name. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What? That's not a reason. Calling "the guy" Dear would automatically imply the article unanimously identifies him as the gunman. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
When used with "according to police", that'd still be fine. But yeah, not in some places. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In descriptions of the events during the shooting, we should probably use "perpetrator" / "gunman" since Dear is still technically only suspected, but when referring to things that are known to be about Dear (such as his comments to police after being arrested) we should use his name. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'd go with "gunman" or "shooter" over "perpetrator", simply for the syllables. Nice to see nobody has said "stated that" here. Yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

When we weren't looking...

...this happened. I have nominated it for speedy deletion for obvious reasons. WP:1E being among them. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you're right here, but I still think you're wrong about why there should not be a section about Dear in the shooting article. Let's compromise. Lahaun (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's too early. I believe there are other editors who feel the same. What's the hurry, seriously? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, let's wait for tomorrow, PST. Lahaun (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that all other similar articles immediately came out with Perpetrator or Suspect sections, perhaps. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unlike those mass shooters who kill themselves or get killed by police, this guy will be more notable for more than one event. Unless, of course, they forgo his trial and kill him instead. No hurry, of course, but he'll eventually have a leg to stand on. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If and when he becomes notable for something else, then an article about him might make sense. But not at present. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That was essentially my AfD stance. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass shooting?

From the article Mass shooting: "Mass shootings can be a form of mass murder, which is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period. According to CNN, a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, not including gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members." There are only three fatalities from this shooting, and the surviving victims have all been elevated to good condition. Therefore, by the definition in that article, this is not a mass shooting. Do I have a second for removing that designation from this article? Miraculouschaos (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree. There's enough hyperbole spinning around and near this article, we need not more of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're reading the article wrong. Mass shooting doesn't necessarily mean mass murder. "Mass shooting CAN be a form of mass murder." In the article of mass murder, it says the FBI defines mass murder as having 3 or more murder victims with no "cooling-off period." So, I think you're both wrong on both fronts. Xmzx (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This incident was not a mass murder no matter how you try to spin it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you please stop the combative attitude and engage in useful discussions, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Stating my opinion is not combative. If I said, "Look, <insert name calling here>, the incident isn't mass murder, so stop trying to push your agenda", that would be combative. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the FBI not a credible source of the definition of mass murder? Xmzx (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
They are, however, we write articles based on reliable sources. Unless there is a preponderance of reliable sources consistently calling this a mass murder - and long after the incident, not just in the heat of the moment to scoop other news sources - then we don't call it mass murder. It's not up to us to decide whether the definition fits per this entity or that entity and then drop the term into the article. That would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no other definition of "mass shooting" in that article other than the relation to mass murder. If the justification for using "mass shooting" in this article is that primary sources use the term when reporting on it, then you need a cite, and probably shouldn't be presenting the designation as a "mass shooting" as fact, but as the opinion of that source. Miraculouschaos (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, this discussion is convincing me that the "Mass shooting" article itself needs work. All the information there is actually about mass murder. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-abortion violence?

Just to start this discussion, because there's a lot of conflict in classifying it as such here and at all other similar articles. So, WAS it anti-abortion? I say we wait it out, because despite his "no more body parts" statement, he also said a lot of other things. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"No more baby parts" in the lede?

Does this quote belong in the lede? We don't even know what he meant by this yet. The authorities conducting the interview where Dear said this have downplayed its significance as he rambled about many things. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs. Never did. It's unrelated to anything other than the reported "incoherent" babbling he uttered at the time of his arrest. Keeping it -- especially in the lede -- sets a theme (even if just unconsciously) that the shooting was related to Planned Parenthood and anti-abortion sentiment. I don't see how any of his incoherent babblings are lede worthy at this point (if ever). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is still some speculation about motive by reliable sources based on limited information. From a 28 November article from NBC News: But the sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the 'baby parts' remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. The quotation has made the headlines though, so it makes sense to leave this quote in the body and out of the lead. I'll remove it for now without prejudice to having it back in if it resurfaces as details around motive start to come out. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Also FYI, I consider myself sufficiently involved in the article now and will avoid administrative action here outside of obvious situations like dealing with blatant vandalism. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, and echo JethroBT. — Ched :  ?  20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

The recent addition of Carly Fiorina's comments to the "Reactions" sub-section seem, at best, extraneous and POV-pushing at worst. They add absolutely nothing to the section as far as helping a reader to better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to see a political reaction section on Wikipedia that isn't extraneous and POV-pushing. None of these people ever have a connection to the events, yet latch onto them to make themselves sound better. And this site falls for it every single time, simply because the news also does. Nature of the beast, not Fiorina in particular. In a perfect world, we'd ignore them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Fiorina was the most notable person to raise the concerns about Planned Parenthood, selling baby parts, and as such, in the context of the words of the perpetrator, highly significant. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
"Fiorina was the most notable person to [mention] selling baby parts" Now I see where you are going with this. Sorry, but no POV-pushing. Fiorina was asked on a Sunday news program (this morning) about her thoughts surrounding the incident and the media's response following the incident. She didn't call a press conference to give a statement. Her prior comments regarding "baby parts" are totally unrelated to the shooting. I won't sit and watch you or anyone try to tie her to it. Her comments in response to an interview question are not germane to this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not POV pushing, it is a fact. And facts are different than opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The part about her words having any sort of significance (let alone high) is the opinion part. Do any reliable sources (aside from the show that aired them) share this opinion, even implicitly? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not murder?

Why was the murder category removed? We're not presuming the suspect is a murderer through that. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure we are. Only one man is implicated in these shootings, and nothing at all indicates he may have been framed. If we call them murders, it naturally follows that he's a murderer. Though fewer people give a shit by the time the court has done its thing, it's prudent to wait and see whether these were culpable. In the meantime, this can go in Category:Murder trials. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Really? Because I remember THIS. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Aye. You remembered it already, a couple of hours ago. And I asked you what part of it you think helps your case. Do any reliable sources refer to this as a murder? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

@WWGB: The lead needs to summarize the article, and now it does not: it does not include the number of victims, it does not include the standoff, and it does not summarize the reactions section. Please see WP:LEDE- Cwobeel (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Victims checkY, standoff checkY, reactions checkY. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If you include the name of the shooter in the lede, then you must include the names of those slain, your choice, Lahaun (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Is that a "rule"? If so, where is it written? WWGB (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Cover up by police"

Seriously? That doesn't sound very neutral or encyclopedic.

Then change it to something that better matches the source. We43ff21 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I re-worked it. Inonit (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Cover up by police

I added the following to the article:

Colorado Springs police said they will not disclose why Dear started the shooting, that they sealed the warrants related to the case against Dear, and that they are not providing information on the weapon used by Dear, a timeline of events, or a motive of the suspect.[3] We43ff21 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The phrase "cover up" usually implies illegal conduct like tampering with evidence - sealing a warrant (a form of a suppression order) is not unlawful. This is sometimes done based on fears about media reporting and jury formation.([4]) -- Callinus (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

Claims of domestic terrorism are sufficiently notable for inclusion. Stop deleting that content. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the association of the shooting to domestic terrorism need to be included in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
At this point, until it is classified by the FBI and/or other law enforcement as domestic terrorism, the claims that it was domestic terrorism qualify only as personal opinion and possibly WP:FRINGE. Personal opinion, non-official designation does not belong in the lede. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Knowing the Obama Administration lack of acknowledgement of terror attacks in the US (example: Fort Hood 2009), they're very likely to claim that it was a mentally ill person (like if mental illness is automatically an excuse to commit massacres) instead of what it really is: Domestic Terrorism. I'll wait for the FBI's confirmation that will never come before seeing the article changed. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this should exist as a section in this article. While it's certainly understandable that what Suthers has said may be relevant - I don't see how what a Texas groups says, or even what Huckabee says is relevant to this article. I'm sure we have articles on "pro-choice" and "pro-life" politics. THIS article should be sticking to reporting the incident. Trying to establish an "Aftermath" only 2 days after the event seems to be a stretch IMO. My choice (if we must be adding anything) would be to merge the Suthers quote into the "Reaction" section. — Ched :  ?  16:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Feel free to delete the section and intersperse the content from it as you see fit, Ched. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the page history - I don't want to get caught up in any edit wars. (edit conflict) see also: WP:UNDUE — Ched :  ?  16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I am patient. If and when this aspect gets confirmed and reported, we can expand and add to lede as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Or just workplace violence like the Chik-Filet attack. It has a high bar to reach domestic terrorism. --DHeyward (talk)

Recent changes discussion

Another editor changed all mentions of the gunman/shooter to the shooter's surname. My personal feeling is that we don't need to "feed the perpetrator". His name is known, it's included in the article, I don't think we need to mention his name repeatedly. This is not based on any policy I'm aware of, just my personal feeling. Any thoughts? Also, "law enforcement" seems more encyclopedic in tone than "police". Again, my personal preference. More thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If the primary sources use his full name, we should use his full name. I share your feelings but they are not a sound basis for editing decisions. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree, although we must note that Dear is still considered a suspect, so we need to word it as such. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't use "Dear" to describe actions that took place during the shooting, but using his name in other contexts (such as his comments to police) is fine. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking something along the lines of using "allegedly" or "reportedly" when claiming Dear did something during the shooting, like I've seen some other articles do. But that's fine. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I missed this section when adding my own below. Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Limit his name. it's clear other psychopaths use details in WP to commit crime in honorarium. Don't feed them by deifying a person that can remain nameless without sacrifice of understanding. --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree 100%. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Once again, the paranoia of WP motivating mass shooters is up in full speed again. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Westside Health Center?

@DHeyward: What is that? [5] I see no sources describing the location of the shooting as Westside Health Center. All sources refer to a Planned Parenthood clinic. - - Cwobeel (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a Planned Parenthood clinic named Westside Health Center. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. So, why not mention what it is? This is really silly. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We do. First sentence, and the hatnote before it. "Planned Parenthood" appears seven other times. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about the infobox. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
All the PP clinics are called Health Centers, this one is located on the West side of Colorado Springs, hence the name. In relation to this shooting it is identified and referred to in sources as Planned Parenthood and we should be consistent in the article and infobox as well with the PP name. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Planned Parenthood is an organization, not a location. The current infobox ("Planned Parenthood Westside Health Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado") seems perfect to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Please change the |coordinates= parameter in the infobox to:
{{coord|38.8807|-104.8489|region:US-CO_type:event|display=inline,title}}

1. Reduces coordinates precision from 6 decimal positions to 4. Per WP:COORDPREC using an object size of about 65 m.
2. Adds region and type. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Seems a reasonable and straightforward change. If there's a reason this shouldn't have been changed, please revert me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear is registered to vote as a female

I added the following to the article:

Dear's voter registration lists Dear's gender as female.[6] [7]

We43ff21 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's about 100% certain that was a clerical error. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Especially since his dating site listed him as male. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That material is poorly sourced, and unless picked up by mainstream sources it should not be included, per WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that fringe right-wing media is attempting to make the case that Dear is transgender, in an weird attempt to deflect criticism [8]. So, unless reputable sources are weighing on this, it would be a BLP violation to include any of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Ted Cruz is also making same claims [9]. Sigh. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's the only significance of this then it belongs in the reactions section, if anywhere. Artw (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how his voter registration -- other than establishing residence -- is germane to the article subject at all. It's essentially throw-away trivia. How does it assist the reader in better understanding the article subject (which is the shooting, not Robert Dear)? Cruz commenting on it belongs in the Cruz article, not this one. And even then, what is the importance of Cruz commenting on it? Too many questions, not enough rationale for it being encyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We finally agree on something. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerical glitch causes speculation about Colorado Springs shooting suspect's gender identity - hopefully an end to that nonsense. Artw (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims names are irrelevant

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.

Naming the victims and going into any detail about their lives violates WP:DUE. No other article whose subject is a mass shooting discusses the victims. See this discussion: Names of victims. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@ParkH.Davis:: The Victims section is required in articles such as these. Please stop removing that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
See for example Charleston church shooting#Victims - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to Names of victims. The names of the victims are not notable as per wikipedia policy. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"Required" is a bit of a strong word, but certainly standard in these sort of stories. In any case, that talk section (not policy) is about listing names in the infobox. If there's something more relevant there, spell it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Victim lists. Naming the victims violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an essay, and the author is quick to note his opinion is contentious. NOTMEMORIAL applies to the subjects of articles. The cop's article is rightly up for deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The victim's identities are not notable to this article. The names, ages, issue and employment statuses of the victims are irrelevant to the event itself which is the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not a memorial as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No information not about the shooting itself should not be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
These were the people who were killed, which made the shooting notable enough for the reliable news sources to cover. That coverage included profiles of the dead, which Wikipedia reflects. If they're not part of "the shooting itself", what here is? That you haven't deleted the investigation and reaction sections suggests you don't actually care about proximity, but are just looking for excuses. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, you are confusing the intent of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It refers to the subject of the article. The victims are mentioned in the article, but they are not the subject of the article. I do not think that you will find a policy prohibiting mentioning the victims in an article about the massacre. If you do, then you can bring it up here, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. Peaceray (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Intent is irrelevant. The policy is explicitly clear. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
They are also not memorialized, but simply acknowledged. We certainly shouldn't quote their friends and families about what a great guy/girl they were, or how much they loved fishing/whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I have left their names. It was irrelevent that one of the victims was an ice skater, as he was not shot because he was an ice skater. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, he wasn't shot because his name was Garrett. But an ice skater named Garrett was shot. Simple enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that he was an ice skater has literally nothing to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You are also edit-warring to your preferred version, and have been reverted by 4 different editors. Let the discussion continue here until consensus is reached.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Only information about the shooting itself should be included in this article. The fact that the victims had children or used to work for the military are irrelevent. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that subsequent news reports may change aspects about this. For instance, if it emerges that the shooter was also racially motivated would make the African-American & Asian-American ancestry of the unarmed victims relevant. Ke'Arre M. Stewart's actions in warning the Planned Parenthood clinic, calling 911, & thus altering the possible trajectory of how the shootings proceeded may also become part of the narrative. Peaceray (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Currently no such report exists establishing any motive. Information about the victims which is not related to the shooting is extraneous and not notable. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Corrected typo in my last post. ParkH.Davis, WP:CHILL. Slow down, take a breath, & spend some time to accurately read posts; it's better to get it right than to rush. I never said that there was a report about a motive. I merely indicated that if something came out about racial motivation, then ethnicity would become part of the narative. Peaceray (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said that you said anything. I merely stated that "[c]urrently no such report exists establishing any motive". Martial statues, hobbies, employment, and age (and ethnicity for that matter), are irrelevent as no source exists to show that these had anything to do with the shooting. Until a source can be produced to show that these facts had something to do with the shooting, they should not be included. Information which has nothing to do with the shooting itself should be deleted. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis, I feel your pain. The same issue arises in all articles of this type, and I long ago abandoned your line of argument because I was always on the losing end. It's not embodied in policy, but there seems to be a community consensus for a lower relevance bar for inclusion of personal details like this. I'm staying out of the fight here, but please stop the edit warring. If this has to be discussed for a week, that's not too long. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that all three killed were married, and survived by children is noteworthy, as it provides context about the reasons in which they were in the vicinity of the clinic. Some people have promoted statements suggesting that most people in a Planned Parenthood clinic would be unmarried, or not have children. Their marital status is an important fact, as it negates a likely smear campaign against such people. -- Callinus (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to make political statements. Any information not directly related to the shooting itself is extreneous. I am fine with only their names being mentioned. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
While all this talk about abortion may seem like American hullabaloo, that hullabaloo is exactly why this one got article-level notability, and the deadlier Halloween one did not. So yeah, their marital status is pertinent to a driving force in the plot, if not the actual shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So the victims were targeted because of their maritial status? Do you have a source to back up this claim? What does abortion have to with marriage? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You can't put words in my mouth, and then expect me to source them. I mean the plot, as in storyline, not the shooter's plot for whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact the victims were married has literally nothing to do with the shooting and there is zero evidence that they were targeted because they were married. Whether or not abortion had anything to with the shooting has even yet to be established. All extraneous information should be deleted. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • One paragraph is fine. The current state is OK. -- Callinus (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is not a memorial for the victims of the shooting and is not a place to forward any political narratives about the shooting. It is irrelevent that one of the victims was once an ice skater as it has literally nothing to do with the shooting. Same goes with the other extraneous information stated about the victims. Why is wikipedia policy being so blatently ignored with this article? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also, note that you have already violated WP:3RR, so please refrain from further disruption. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I have as much right to express my opinion and to cite wikipedia policy as anyone else. Attempts to bullying me into doing otherwise are futile. This is not a place for expressing a political opinion on abortion or marriage or ice dancing. This article is about a shooting and only a shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever worked on a shooting article? If not, others with experience have the same right to believe things, but their belief carries more weight than yours. You can continue to repeat yourself here, but not in reversion edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can surely express your opinion. But you also need to listen. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I support the memorialization of the victims of terrorist attacks and mass shootings. Unfortunately, my position on this matter does not agree with established wikipedia policy. Only information directly concerning the shooting itself should be included in this article. The victims martial statuses are irrelevant. This is an article about a shooting, not an obituary. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You're spending this much time arguing against something vaguely resembling something you support, all because you think a policy you don't understand disagrees with you? That may not be trout-worthy, but it's fishy as hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Please re-read. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL most certainly DOES apply. This is not an obituary, it is an article about a shooting. Information not directly related to the shooting itself should be removed. What do the victim's martital statuses have to do with the shooting? ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
NOTMEMORIAL is about the subjects of articles. Its intent is: "You can't create an article about your grandfather because he was a great guy and got a Purple Heart in WWII and everybody loved him." You're adding your own interpretation to extend it to this situation. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikipedia policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL states:
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
And if people weren't shot, if people weren't killed, the attack itself would remain unnoteworthy. There is no news without the victims, it is not only an article about the perpetrator and the police response. The bare facts of the victims' lives - that one was a police office and a former national-level athlete, that another ran back to warn others, that a third was not seeking medical services but was accompanying a friend - have all been reported on in multiple news outlets, to ignore what has appeared in reliable sources does not seem encyclopedic to me. Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The same argument was made in 'Names of victims' to no avail. Only information which directly related to the shooting itself is notable for inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm prepared to agree with ParkH.Davis regarding the undue weight about the victims. Their marital status, and their children, as well as their past life achievements - all unnecessary for this article. Their names, ages, and occupations are pertinent, but really nothing outside that would be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that some like to include the fact that the victims were all married with children to add irony to the implied motive of the shooter was to protect children, based on his "No more baby parts" statement. Similar to the fact that all victims of the Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting were not Jewish. Peaceray (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I took out the ice skating thing, as totally irrelevant. Agree that spouses and children aren't relevant. Really the whole section fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about article subjects. There is plenty of precedence for listing victims. Just type "List of victims" into the search field. Peaceray (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't write articles to add "irony". It would be just as inappropriate to add "irony" by pointing out all the police officers were pro-life yet they still came to sound of gunfire. Or the "irony" that the security measures taken by PP kept all the employees safe and created a defensible fortress for the shooter that went on to kill and injure six first responders that believed it was a soft target and implemented their "active shooter" doctrine. --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of this personal information seems unnecessary, but I think we need to leave the names in. To simply say three people died without at least giving them names would be a bit of a disservice. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with including only their names. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There is a need for context. The officer was killed when he responded to the incident, and the other two victims were killed just because they happen to accompany someone to the clinic. These are aspects directly related to the narrative of the incident and need to be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
None of that information has to do with marriage, children or ice dancing. Only facts which actually have to do with the shooting itself should be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with others that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to creation of articles. The current version is fine with me.

  • Police officer Garrett Swasey, 44, who responded to the shooting, was a married father of two children.
  • Ke'Arre M. Stewart, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran, who was killed after he ran back to the clinic to warn others about the shooter, was survived by his wife and child.
  • Jennifer Markovsky, 35, who was accompanying a friend to the clinic, was survived by her husband and two children.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the victims were married and had children has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's just basic bio stuff, the same that goes on a tombstone. Yes, those reading through abortion-coloured glasses will infer what they will, but that's beside the point. Ke'Arre sounds like a woman's name (to me, at least, for a day), so something indicating his gender is good. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Wkikpedia is not a memorial as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This article is not an obituary or a tombstone for the victims. Why are the victims' genders relevent? Were they targeted because of their genders? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
While we don't know yet if their genders were the motivation for their murders, it is a verifiable fact that the killings occurred at a women's clinic, not at any of the thousands upon thousands of other targets the perpetrator had to pass by in Colorado Springs. So yes, the context that including the genders of the deceased provides to Wikipedia's worldwide readership is relevant. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no argument that WP is not a memorial, but there are sometimes differences in the implications that people derive from this consensus. You ask if the victims were targeted because of their genders. Between yes and no, I would certainly go for yes. After all, the attack was on a women's reproductive health clinic. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source stating that victims were targeted because of their gender? Why were 2/3rds of the victims male if the terrorist was targeting women? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming ridiculous. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
100% 50% [later correction, thank you! gidonb (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)] of the deceased victims in the women's reproductive health clinic were women. Some of the potential victims managed to hide in a "safe room". In addition, the mass murderer also shot at police forces outside the building. No need to bring references, I am just answering some questions that you raised. You know the facts as well as anyone here. gidonb (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Two of the three people that were killed were male. Why are the victims' genders relevent? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Because: [1] the most basic demographics include gender and age. [2] the attack was on a women's health clinic, i.e women were targeted. gidonb (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If the question is whether references are needed to include gender in the article, the answer is also no! You can and should make a reasonable decision here to include or not to include the gender, then edit the article accordingly, without adding the rationale for gender inclusion in the article. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The implication of adding genders is that gender is relevent. Without a source stating that the victims' genders are relevent, they should not be included in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The first part is true. The second part not so much because this is an editorial decsision. You have to decide with your co-editors, then support only the info that will be listed. gidonb (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To ParkHDavis - I disagree. In my opinion the facts of the murders are relevant and the bare facts about the people who were killed - their names, their ages, their jobs, why they were there at the clinic on that day - *are* relevant. Multiple reliable sources have included those facts as part of their articles or reporting. Including the facts about the people killed has *nothing* to do with anything about building some type of Wikipedia shrine to their memory, it has everything to do with the verifiable facts. Also would like to reiterate that: 1) Wikipedia:Victim lists is an opinion-piece/essay written by basically one person and is not a policy or a guideline. 2)Names of victims is a discussion by various editors on a single article's talk-page and is also not policy or a guideline. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2015 (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.

"Definitely politically motivated"

The same unnamed police source who stated that Dear had talked about "no more baby parts" and that he "said a lot of things," also said that Dear's actions were "definitely politically motivated." While nobody cares to contest "baby parts" or "lot of things," "definitely politically motivated" has been edited out twice, most recently with the comment, "Comment is from a unnamed source - where's the oversight? comment is also biased and unproven - this is undue weight and POV - please discuss on talk page per BRD." Okay, so here I am on the talk page. Now I should like an explanation as to why all of the police source's comments can be quoted except for that one. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored. These type of selective deletions is disruptive and needs to stop. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's undue weight given to an unnamed source who is still only allegedly someone working for law enforcement. We don't allow unnamed source comments in other articles, why is it being allowed in this one? Oh, yeah, I forgot: a reliable source put it out on the internet, so it's acceptable per WP:VNT. God forbid we should ever edit as if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains truly verifiable facts. (yes, that was sarcasm). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I've somewhat deanonymized him/her by noting s/he talked to NBC News. In a perfect encyclopedia, we'd stay away from these types, but this is Wikipedia. A work in progress. We do allow these elsewhere here, and often. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's fine to have the "politically motivated" statement but it's not okay to imply the politics were abortion related (or only use it in a paragraph where the only politics discussed are abortion). The lede was fixed but without a motive, we need to be careful taht "politically motivated" could be anti-police or anarchist or sovereign citizen or tax protester or any of a number of political views in addition to abortion (which we don't know either). We simply don't know who his targets were or why and it's premature to presume they are one thing especially when the source has mentioned many. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Except what the reliable sources say. Oh wait! They go against what you are trying to say, in this case, but you are fine with quoting the same source when it supports what you want to believe. There seems to be a lot of personal editor POVs on show.DreamGuy (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More background of Dear

See "For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 December 2015. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not about the shooting and provided by ex-wife that divorced him over 20 years ago. It's as credible as his recent neighbors saying he was not violent. (actually police would weigh current neighbors over 20 year divorced spouse). This is cruft. She has no information about the shooting or anything recent about his life. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow. This is reliable of a source as it comes. Put that the NYT reported it or whatever, but censoring it is bad. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No wow. We routinely omit things on relevance grounds, even things reported in The New York Times. You can try making a case that it's relevant, but you can't call it censorship. It's what we do. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
there seems to be an unusually high number of things judged "not relevant" for this article for some reason. Artw (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup. In case it needs to be said (and it seems to always need to be said), we go with what the reliable sources say and not what individual page editors think. The New York Times thinks it's notable, and I don't care what just some anonymous Wikipedia editor thinks. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Then we have to include everything in that article, as well as everything in every NYT article about this subject, as well as everything in any reliable source about this subject, no matter how minor or insignificant. If some reliable source mentions that one of the victims had just come from the shopping center next door, we have to include that, lest we be guilty of censorship. Do you care to write that article? Who cares where that victim had just come from, if that had no bearing on the shooting?
News sources give more details than encyclopedias do or should do; it's what they do. Part of our job is to act as a filter in a neutral way, not repeatedly favoring one side or viewpoint over another. You can argue that an inclusion or omission violates NPOV (and explain how it does, exactly), but it's wrong to claim censorship simply because something is omitted.
And then there's the mighty king of all Wikipedia policies, WP:CONSENSUS. If an editor can't defer to a consensus they strongly disagree with, then they are just too smart to edit Wikipedia and it's in their interest, and Wikipedia's, not to try to do so. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The article is totally about that. Come up with something other than "I don't like it." And try a real account sign up too. It's groovy to have a real sign on, for a variety of reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty sure there's some sort of censorship campaign going on with this article. Paranoia of promoting the gunman, perhaps? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspect section

Look at other articles where there are detailed sections of suspects. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop it! Lots of info is coming out on the suspect and I don't know why you're deleting it, along with the other edits I've been making! It's going to become necessary soon, so might as well!--75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You are edit warring and causing disruption, please stop. The suspect section is not needed at this time as there is very little known about the suspect. Further, it is typical for Wikipedia articles on similar subjects to not highlight shooting suspects in such a manner. Also, please see the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in answer to your first post in this section. While you're at it, also look at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said before, more information is coming in. It is becoming necessary. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not necessary. Neither is your edit warring and ignoring advice of experienced editors. Edit warring report has been filed since you are continuing to edit/revert disruptively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So the suspect shouldn't be talked about at all in this article? What in the world is that all about? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said the suspect doesn't need a section highlighting him. Having his name in the article body is sufficient. Another editor already expressed the same, you ignored his revert edit summary as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What happens if he's found guilty of the shooting, then? How will a section be possible, if the info is lost? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your concern. How will the "info be lost"? We have sources at our disposal, what's been placed here already is in the article history. Further, Wikipedia is not a news reporting website (please see WP:NOTNEWS as was already suggested to you earlier) and there is no deadline in Wikipedia (please also see WP:DEADLINE as was suggested to you earlier as well). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a section isn't needed, but is there a reason we aren't even mentioning this guy anywhere at all in the article when a suspect has definitely been named? ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ProfessorTofty, his name was mentioned before the onslaught of IP and new user edit warring. His name should be in the article. I cannot and should not revert back to the last stable version as I will be likely called on the carpet for edit warring. If you'd like to revert to this version, it would be helpful to restore the last stable version as well as the suspect's name and other associated, appropriate content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Figured there was no real issue with re-adding pertinent, sourced content so put it back in myself (at the same time George Ho was attempting to do the same!). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When will a section be coming up? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A section is unnecessary. We don't want to separate the suspect info. Have you read WP:BLP1E yet? Also, even when we can't hypothesize, some guy couldn't do that alone, could he? --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So there'll never be a section?! :o 75.80.175.107 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
As has already been explained to you... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Jeez, I'm expecting a yes or a no. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So...is that a no?... 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you stop wallowing and not do edit warring anymore? Until public sources learn a lot more about the suspect, there shall not be a separate section. George Ho (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I concur. It appears the shooting was “definitely politically motivated,’’ not that I'm surprised by this revelation: Source: Colorado shooter politically motivated, said ‘no more baby parts’ after attacking Planned Parenthood--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here about WP policies, cited in the comments above, about ARTICLES about people notable for only a single event and a SECTION within an article about such a person. This discussion and the related edits are all about a section within an article, not an article itself, and I'm not at all sure the cited policies about articles, not sections, are relevant. Although I agree with the general premise that we do not want to glorify bad actors, e.g., we should not dignify jerks who jump onto football fields with live TV coverage of their antics, when bad actors crash into everyone's consciousness because of the atrocity of their actions, that rule no longer should apply. I want, for example, to learn why Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon and something about Chapman's background. As more information emerges about the shooter here, Robert Lewis Dear, I think it essential that the article include information about him and his motives. At the same time, I absolutely do not think Dear rates a standalone article about his bio. Hope I'm clear. Depending on further comments to this thread, I may or may not restore the suspect section that had been previously deleted. Lahaun (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
"Depending on further comments to this thread, I may or may not restore the suspect section that had been previously deleted." I'm confused by this comment, Lahaun. As it is, it reads like a threat to do whatever you choose regardless of consensus and policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, my friend, I meant I was asking for contrary comments and, if none were forthcoming, I would fix the article according to my posted thoughts. So, to the issue, what do you think about what I said? Lahaun (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think: WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:DEADLINE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:1E reads, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own ARTICLE." (Emphasis added.) We are not talking about an article, but, as I said, a section within an article. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE are not relevant to the topic. Please explain, don't just cite random policies. All the best, Lahaun (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a suspect section, not bloated with excessive detail, but reliable sources are starting to cover him more as info is revealed about him. Eventually there will be a court case as well. USA today and WaPo have some more detailed info about the suspect.173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

One of us can add more about him and make a separate paragraph about him if WP:BLP allows this. Unsure whether this warrants separate section. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course there should be a suspect/perpetrator section, just as there is in other shooting articles. In fact, it is quite extraordinary not to have one. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
For me, the issue hasn't been so much that there would or would not be a suspect/perpetrator section or sub-section, but that what has been added today has highlighted the suspect and everything about him in such a manner that it almost bordered on WP:UNDUE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should also consider where this story is going now, he's still alive, so the media coverage will now naturally flow to him and his background, his upcoming Monday courtdate, and the forthcoming legal/court/trial/ phase for several months to come, so should I guess the question is, are we going to go any further with this guy, I think he's unfortunately, partly through the connection with PP, established his notability enough to warrant a section. I also don't think it would be WP:UNDUE to add a section/sub about the victims, that's not uncommon for an article like this either. (And full disclosure: I was the IP 173 above, editing while logged out)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And once again, a completely strange absence of a suspect section. Shouldn't more info be out on this guy by now? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It needs one. And please register a full account. DreamGuy (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The move

I have started discussion of the move that is currently being blocked by User:Muboshgu and User:George Ho at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Artw (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot

Why don't we have the perpetrator's mug shot here yet? DreamGuy (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Three critical words in WP:MUG are "out of context". Out of context would be including Nick Nolte's mug shot in his bio article. It would not necessarily be out of context to include Dear's mug shot in an article about him killing three people. So WP:MUG doesn't really apply here. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. There is precedent for inclusion, but one could make an NPOV case for omission. Local consensus wins, and I abstain. (BTW DreamGuy, thanks for talking first. Such things are always controversial, so that was a good call. At a minimum, it saved your edit and the inevitable BRD revert.) 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
As said above, there's nothing in WP:MUG that applies. What else can you come up with? DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Since we have no objection other than something that was wrong, I have added it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Was removed from Commons with false argument by someone who moved this article against consensus. I added it locally. Better image too. Any attempt to remove it must go through normal policy. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Now it's up for deletion by people who clearly are saying whatever it takes to remove it, even if it's false. DreamGuy (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Motive

Multiple sources are reporting that the shooter's motive was "christian terrorism" and that he was possibly inpired by the christian terrorist group, Army of God. This explicitly discussed by the New York Times. Wikipedia is not censored and there is no reason not include information which is being reported by reliable sources. The shooter has expressed his support of both evangelical christian theology and the Army of God. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Those articles are referring to his views, not necessarily his motives for this specific attack; and they mostly quote his ex-wife describing his views over twenty years ago. That's not exactly current events. But the bottom line is that the police need to release a statement about the motive. One of the reasons they haven't done so, I think, is because many (or most) of the victims had nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood clinic, and at least one was shot nearly a fourth of a mile away near a grocery store. That creates an ambiguous situation which frankly looks more like a random shooting spree over a relatively wide area. But we need to wait for an official determination by the police. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Some extremist people are sure trying to censor it. I'm not sure why they think they can get away with it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Calling me (or anyone else here) an "extremist" is way out of line and violates Wikipedia's rules for polite discussion. Nor have I "censored" anything since the same information about his ideological viewpoint is still mentioned elsewhere in the article; but stating that this was his established motive or the only motive that police are investigating simply isn't true. The police are investigating several possible motives and haven't released an official statement about his motives yet, even if you've personally decided upon a motive. This isn't your personal essay. We need to wait for an official statement on the matter. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You are on the extreme end, so you are an extremist. Please try to edit following NPOV policy. We have plenty of official statements (and we talked about them here, and they are in the article), you just ignore them. You can't ignore reliable sources to advance an agenda. I'd suggest you follow the rules here. DreamGuy (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The sources say the police are investigating several possible motives (that's why they haven't released a verdict yet), not just the motive that you personally have decided upon. I'm not the one ignoring the reliable sources, in fact I added reliable sources to the article (which you keep deleting). GBRV (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Maintain focus on Wikipedia policy, not on editors' suspected political leanings or motives. To that end, as I and others have said before, there are valid policy-based reasons to omit things that are reported in reliable sources. Don't repeatedly invoke NOTCENSORED while ignoring those policies and principles. It's one thing to mention a motive in the body prose, with attribution and explanation, and quite another to state that motive unequivocally in the infobox. That is wiki voice, and the infobox should include only things than can be stated in wiki voice. Anything that needs qualification, attribution, or explanation should be confined to the body prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It has a source. And it wasn't put there by me. People who want to hide the motive as described by sources are not following policy here. DreamGuy (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and you and whoever put it there appear to be using two parts of that source:
  • An affidavit from 1993 by his then-wife, with vague references to Christianity. That information speaks more to mental illness than to political beliefs, in my opinion, and I think it has lost most of its currency after 22 years in any case.
  • A claim by an anonymous source who said that Dear said, in 2009, that members of the Army of God are heroes. Even if he in fact said that, that hardly nails down his motive.
The New York Times does not say in their own voice that Dear's motive had anything to do with Christianity or the Army of God. Even if they did, it would be improper for us to declare that motive in wiki voice based on that one source. We need to look at the aggregate of all sources, not just one, not even several. Again, feel free to mention that anonymous source in the body, with attribution, but stating that motive in the infobox does not appear to be warranted at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss: Excellent points, and I would add that Dear's neighbors told police that he never mentioned abortion in recent years, but he did babble about paranoid conspiracy theories (even going so far as to tell his neighbors to put metal roofs on their houses to keep the government from spying on them). This makes him sound like a classic 'tinfoil beanie' guy, and the shooting takes the classic form of a random murder spree in several locations (King Soopers, Elite Vision, as well as the PP clinic); but I guess we're supposed to ignore all of that. GBRV (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
On a different day, he might well have gone to Denver and taken shots at the federal building there. At some point, mental illness becomes the main cause, not any rational political beliefs, despite one's rants of the day. We shouldn't rush to hang these things on a particular area of controversy. This guy was not an Eric Rudolph. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Given Dear's statements in court today, I think stating "anti-abortion violence" in Motive is now justified, mental illness notwithstanding. The information is from his own mouth, directly and reliably quoted, and current. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

At least it's a statement made in court rather than something he said 22 years ago, and I'm not going to revert it since it's properly sourced; but it's still difficult to reconcile this with eyewitnesses who consistently said the shooting began a significant distance down the road, and at least one victim was nearly 1/4 mile away. Something doesn't add up. GBRV (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What does not add up? Have any sources for that claim? See WP:NOTFORUM - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The thing that doesn't add up is the fact that the shooting began some distance away from the Planned Parenthood clinic, as I already explained above. Did Dear get really confused and start shooting in the wrong place, or...? GBRV (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
1. His comments are not FORUM, any more than any of the others in this thread. We're discussing article content. 2. He is mentally ill, and irrational and erratic behavior comes with the territory. Weighing all factors I still think the motive is justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Has a doctor diagnosed him with a mental illness? Have any sources reported that he has been diagnosed with a mental illness? Or are you speculating? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know of any diagnosis. I'm "speculating" based on my experience that people who claim the government is spying on them through the roofs of their houses are mentally ill; there is simply no rational basis for such a belief. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

It seems to me that there is no reason not to include that the shooter supported the Army of God. The Army of God is an extremely notorious Christian terrorist organization, infamous for its attacks on women's health facilities. It is clear, based on his statements and the statements of those who were close to him, that he was inspired to attack the PP clinic by Army of God. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No objection to mention below the lead, provided we continue to make it clear that the statement is six years old. Lead-worthiness seems dubious. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
His comments about the Army of God were made in 2009, whereas the original wording of that sentence said he had made these statements "before the shooting", which implies they were right before. Sure, 2009 is "before", just as his comments about putting glue in PP's locks was "before" (22 years before), but stating it in this way is misleading and part of a persistent attempt by certain people to cherry-pick some of Dear's older statements while ignoring everything else. GBRV (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Another reason to remove Army of God from the lead: It currently implies he said something about Army of God during his court appearance on Wednesday. He did not. Not only inappropriate for the lead, but very poor writing to boot. Take it out. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss to "take it out", it's outright false to say and/or imply that he offered praise for the Christian terrorist organization Army of God at his December 9 hearing. I'd also question what extremist far right views he expressed at this December 9 hearing - content in the "Legal proceedings" section suggests that it was "expressions of anti-abortion politics", according to the NYT. The "extremist far right" reference is kind of POVish, not really supported by sources concerning the December 9 hearing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss that it does not belong in the lead, and the lead as written was quite misleading. Dear's statements during the hearing are more informative and clearly relevant than the Army of God connection, so I added a bit about those, as well as added a tiny phrase about how disruptive he was, to try to balance between people who interpret the existing information to mean he's "crazy" against those who see him as an anti-abortion domestic terrorist, so that readers get a full picture of each side's perspective: 1. yes, he's expressing virulently anti-abortion views, 2. in a fairly wild way that might lead some to conclude he has a screw loose. Inonit (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Suspect"

Is there any objection to changing the heading "Suspect" to "Perpetrator"? His status seems to go beyond mere suspicion, and Wikipedia is not a court of law. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no argument between the sources, the prosecution, and the defense that Dear was the perpetrator. The type and degree of guilt will be defined in a court of justice, however, already, "perpetrator" is the consensual more specific term to use that covers Dear. gidonb (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it back to "suspect." Until Dear is either convicted or dead, we have to refer to him as "the suspect," "the accused," "the defendant," "the man charged with the murders," etc., and not as the "perpetrator." See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP. He's presumed innocent. Neutralitytalk 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying relevant policy and guideline pages. However, I still think there may be some room for different specific wording than "suspect" here. Saying that he committed the act is not the same thing as saying he committed a crime. There doesn't seem to be any dispute from Mr. Dear or his attorney about the basic facts of his physical actions, but it does seem possible that he may ultimately be determined not to be culpable for those actions. I suggest that it may be acceptable for Wikipedia to acknowledge his identity as the gunman in the incident without saying he is guilty of a crime. I do not see anything in the wording of the WP:BLPCRIME policy or WP:PERP guideline that says we cannot say he was the shooter. What terms are the high-quality reliable sources using in this regard? Are they using only "suspect"? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The facts of the story are stated clearly enough. I don't think it matters much whether the heading is Suspect, Perpetrator, Defendant, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., or Bearded white man. I have no problem with applying BLPCRIME here—despite the fact that many, many articles use Perpetrator before a conviction when there is no dispute who did it. (If a trial found him not guilty by reason of insanity, he would still be the perpetrator.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, and I think that you've hit on the right question, which is "what are the high-quality reliable sources using?" They seem to be using "suspect" only, even after his inculpatory rantings in open court:
Suspect in Colorado Planned Parenthood Rampage Declares 'I'm Guilty' in Court (NY Times, 12/10)
Planned Parenthood suspect: "I am guilty ... a warrior for the babies" (Denver Post, 12/10)
I do agree with Mandruss that if he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, or if he died before trial, then we could of course describe him as the perp. But since he hasn't entered a formal plea yet, and he's still alive, I would be most comfortable with "suspect." Neutralitytalk 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1089769507"