Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting/Archive 1

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

there is a spelling error in the shooting section of this article, near the end of the shooting section stopped is spelt stoped. "After the shooting stopped many were at first reluctant to leave from hiding spots as they were unsure if the shooter was reloading or had been stoped." Joiutp (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Background demographics

Caleb Hannan wrote in Politico that Colorado Springs was "staunchly Republican", "a right-wing counterweight to liberal Boulder", and that a study ranked it "the fourth most conservative city in America".

Propose expanding background. This directly confronts and refutes the right wing propaganda narrative that Democrat, left-wing towns and cities are safe havens for crime. The reality is that Americans are under increasing attack by right wing stochastic terrorists and that virtually every law enforcement expert and authority has implicated radical right wing extremism for the rise of these attacks, extremism that so-called mainstream conservatives have come to embrace, represent, and promote. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Care to give us a link? Noting that this [1] addition of mine was removed earlier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The previous notable shootings in the city are probably more relevant. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources to add

2021 arrest of Aldrich

It wasn't just a bomb threat that Aldrich made in 2021. Here is more detail from an article that was published at the time:

“The reporting party said her son was threatening to cause harm to her with a homemade bomb, multiple weapons, and ammunition,” Sgt. Deborah Mynatt with the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office wrote in a release. Source: https://www.kktv.com/2021/06/19/evacuation-order-lorson-ranch-neighborhood-friday-evening/

173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Without a reliable source or reference, this is not actionable info. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Consider also per WP:BLP that atm he is neither "perpetrator" or "accused" (infobox). Possibly that infobox should have a param for "suspect", but there may be good reasons why it doesn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The "susperp" field was removed by consensus in 2019. One editor there raised concern that less experienced editors would want to fill the name in on the actual perp field because they feel it would complete the infobox and sadly that's come to pass. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Please take your work on this article seriously. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Bar or nightclub?

The short description for this article describes Club Q as a bar, but I've read news stories that disagree on whether it's a bar or a club. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely a nightclub, and that's how it advertised itself, but in the US, the distinction isn't always made clear, and the media generally refers to them as gay bars for shorthand. I would go with nightclub because that's what they call themselves and how their establishment layout, design, reservations, and events are structured. Some bars, however, are only part-time nightclubs, I think, but someone should verify that statement. For example, some bars won't have nightclubs except for let's say the weekends, but that's just a guess. So the question becomes, were they a full-time nightclub? Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Grandson of a politician

Is that worth including? The article of said politician already links here. 190.246.97.81 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant, removed. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Quite relevant; re-inserted. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
It now says grandon, missing the s. Maybe someone who is able to edit the article can correct?Stonefrog (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 Done Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources including The Guardian, The Hill etc. have noted the suspect's familial connection with a Republican politician and that is a good reason in itself to have our article include it. Sources decide what is relevant, irrelevant, and "totally irrelevant" to the subject; not us, plebian editors. As to consensus, I presume that editors like Stonefrog or Jim Michael 2 who commented in the thread but did not see any reason to voice objections are in my favor or do not care.

That said, WWGB, your edit summary is intriguing; will you support the mention once he is charged? If that is the case, see the edit-history of Attack on Paul Pelosi which included longstanding administrators like Cullen328 and Neutrality. DePape was charged only on 31 October but a day before, Wikipedia already mentions his relationship to Gypsy Taube etc.

To go back to our subject, BLPCRIME was not written to guide our coverage of mass-shootings and your invocations sounds more like CRYBLP.TrangaBellam (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See RfC below. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation request

Hi

I recently added some content to another article which mentions this terrible event. I found it really hard to find this particular mass shooting because there are so many others that have happened in Colorado Springs. Please could a disambiguation page be created and a link added to the top of each of the articles which links to this page. I don't know the topic well and don't know which the correct template to use would be, so I'd like to leave it to someone else.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've just found that a disambiguation page exists here Colorado Springs shooting, please could someone add the correct disambiguation link to the top of each page. One option would be to add the 'Not to be confused with' template, however this would need a list of all oother four shootings on each page, is this the best way of doing it to help readers navigate these pages? John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Done here. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I've added it to the other articles the disambiguation page links to. John Cummings (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Crime rating

Maybe somebody can enlighten me as to why, so soon after the events of this article the articles crime wiki project rates it as “low“. This just happened, so it might be too soon to rate it all together. Also, it was a very significant shooting. Why was it rated so soon, before it’s even had a chance to be filled in and expanded, and why was it rated low?Juneau Mike (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The low rating is due to its low death toll. Being very recent doesn't make it more important, nor too soon to rate. I was going to say that crimes with very high death tolls - such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting & the 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings - are rated high. However, they're bizarrely both rated low! Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
That verifies my conclusion, that all crime articles have a default rating of low, right from the beginning and then they are just left there. Perhaps they all need to be reevaluated, and be evaluated properly.Juneau Mike (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems that some editors are doing as you suggest. The Beslan school siege & the 2008 Christmas massacres are also rated low! Along with the others I mentioned, I can't see why they shouldn't be rated high for the Crime project. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I would honestly ask for feedback on the talk page of the specific WikiProjects to see if there's some rhyme or reason beyond my educated observations/guesses. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Fuzheado was the editor who placed the initial template with the "low" classification, though looking at the category it sorts this page in to, I can kind of understand why. I suspect the classification tries to avoid recentism with the rating, as while the topic may be all over the news right now, it may not have long term implications/historical coverage like articles that are currently rated higher (like Jack the Ripper). At any rate, I wouldn't read too much into the WikiProject ranking/rating, clearly it has not deterred multiple editors from being involved in the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Typically anything of note will start in the "low" importance unless it can be shown its notability to be substantially higher. For comparison, two other high profile tragedies are mid (2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, 12 fatalities) and high (Columbine High School massacre, 15 fatalities). So I think this is OK where it is now. That said, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting is clearly too low, and I've raised it to high. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
When the article was rated, it looked like this. According to the importance assessment scheme, a "Low" assessment means the article is "Subject is mainly of specialist interest." In the overall scheme of things, it is a single criminal act, the historical significance of which is, currently, unknown. In many respects, this is merely routine coverage of a murder news story. Even the Christchurch mosque shootings, with over 100 victims has a "Low" rating for a Crime. This article should rank lower than, for example, the overview article Murder (United States law) which only rates as "Mid". Also, compare with notable historical murders, like the Assassination of Julius Caesar, or the List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, both of which are ranked as "Mid". Until this shooting is memorialized with famous dramas and works of art, changed laws and constitutional amendments, heroic awards being given, or that famous people were killed, and is also considered a vital article to have in an encyclopedia, it probably has a "Low" rating in terms of Wikiproject Crime. It is early days in the life of this article; it has barely been born. Who knows what the future has in store and how important this article might be in the historical context in 100 years or so. Will it even be remembered? After all, it is a single example of murder, which, itself, is only a small aspect of the field of crime. Although, if you do want to assess an article's importance by an event's death toll, then you should probably be looking at the WikiProject Death assessment. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about title

Why are these deliberate and systematic attacks referred to as nebulous "shootings" when they are clearly terrorist attacks targeting specific people for political reasons? Calling this a "shooting" makes it seem like a public relations risk management specialist wrote the title. An innocent gun did not go off by itself in a random nightclub by accident with nobody to blame. This was a terrorist attack on gay people just like the previous terrorist attacks on gay people, instigated by years and years of conservative, Republican hate speech fueling and fomenting stochastic terrorism from the highest leadership positions in the government. It was not a mere "shooting" by a gun with no accountability. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but we follow the media when naming these kinds of things. If the media calls it a terrorist attack, we would call it a terrorist attack, but the media currently calls it a shooting. So we have to call it a shooting. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The attack just happened, so the title should be considered temporary. And as for calling it an ambiguous "shooting", that's more of an Americanism than anything else. For example, police departments will often author press releases for the media and they will be published by the media like stenography, without any question. Just last week, the police released a report that was published by the media in an instance where an officer discharged his gun accidentally. The press release was intentionally designed to make it seem like there was no officer and that the gun had willingly fired on its own without any human operator to diffuse and distort the accountability and responsibility of the officer. I'm not making this up. This is considered normal in the US. Guns just go off and nobody knows why, and if there was ever anybody holding the gun at any time, well, that's just too bad, and it shouldn't be looked into. This is the same phenomenon occurring here. We have a suspect whose records are now sealed because of his connection to a high profile politician and articles which attribute the attacks to a nebulous "shooting", implying that a gun randomly went off for no reason. This might be acceptable to people in the US who are conditioned to be armed to the teeth, but must seem odd and unusual to the rest of the world. For this reason, the article title should remain free from Americanisms like nebulous "shootings" and should focus more on the targets and the type of attacks that media stenographers are too timid and afraid to mention. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I would be all for changing the article's title to something more apt, once we can find media (preferably overseas, because of the things you mentioned) that describes it as an act of domestic terror or something similar. Bowler the Carmine | talk 02:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I realize the likelihood of that happening is low, but I’m happy other people are aware of my concerns. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I have also been told by several experienced editors here that it is frowned upon to name Wikipedia articles with the words "mass shooting" in the title, for unexplained reasons (see: this conversation). I don't think it is policy, just a cultural norm maybe?
Also, to explain a bit about American politics and definitions used by the media, FBI, police, etc: the concept of "domestic terrorism" here in the states is pretty narrowly construed; perhaps until very recently, for example, white supremacist violence was not considered domestic terrorism, officially. It seems the preferred language in use for many forms of domestic discriminatory/political violence is generally "hate crime" rather than terrorism. So that impacts how the media reports on things, and in turn how we may characterize the events on Wikipedia, unless international media coverage overwhelmingly decides to portray things differently. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
We don't know what his motives were. Maybe he was having a spat with someone in the club. He could be BLM for all we know. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense. Got a source for that? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that says he was a homophobe? 14.46.200.34 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Many reliable sources agree: this is currently being investigated as a potential hate crime.
Club Q shooting suspect arrested on suspicion of hate crimes, murder; police lower number of injured victims to 18 - Mercury News - "The five people killed — Kelly Loving, Daniel Aston, Derrick Rump, Ashley Paugh and Raymond Green Vance — died after a gunman opened fire at Club Q just before midnight Saturday in an incident that’s being investigated as a hate crime."
Police publicly identify Club Q victims following mass shooting in Colorado Springs - KKTV/CBS News - "A motive is also being investigated, including the possibility of the violent attack being considered a hate crime."
Suspect in Colorado gay nightclub shooting arrested on suspicion of hate crimes, murder - Los Angeles Daily News - "The 22-year-old suspected of killing five and injuring 25 in a shooting at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs was arrested on suspicion of hate crime and murder charges, court records show."
Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
We don't include terrorist in our article titles, even when it's certain they are. For example: September 11 attacks, 2002 Bali bombings & Orlando nightclub shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Adhering to WP:NPOV principles, the custom (and guidelines) of Wikipedia is to stick to WP:COMMONNAME and neutral article titles, which is why you will see names with attacks, shootings, bombings, killings, stabbings, rammings, crowd crush, et al. that clinically and neutrally describe the event. Sometimes with time and as events unfold, those titles may evolve to be more conclusive or reflect a legal outcome, such as murder, assassination, or massacre. However, these are early days, so as Bowler the Carmine pointed out, we go with WP:RS say and don't need to rush to judgment. - Fuzheado | Talk Fuzheado | Talk 15:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Predictions about motive

Many, including the nightclub management, are already claiming this was a hate crime. Should their statements be included? 47.12.161.150 (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, unless and until reliable media organizations or the investigating authorities begin to treat it as such. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
CNN is reporting that police are investigating the shooting as a hate crime. [2] I haven't found any other RS that state this, but I'm also about to go to work now. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 14:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Also WaPo and NPR: [3] [4] According to The Hill, Colorado Springs's mayor said that the shooting "has all the trappings of a hate crime". [5] --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This sentence was added to the article a while back: "Police Chief Adrian Vasquez said that the investigation would look into whether the attack was a hate crime." diff Until an WP:RS says more, that's all that is needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's very strange that the media has been aggressive at pointing fingers, blaming the right for inciting this, somehow with their rhetoric on trans issues, such as transitioning children. But there is absolutely no reports on the killer's motive, or his political background. We don't even know that being a gay club had anything to do with it. For example, the Pulse Nightclub shooting had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the club, according to the FBI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.50.248 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The right is directly responsible for this. Your comment about "transitioning children" is the kind of rhetoric that lead to this shooting. This is a well known and long established fact. Don't even try that crap. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:D03C:6E02:1640:DB68 (talk) 2601:1C0:8500:1161:D03C:6E02:1640:DB68 (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Prior stated intention to commit a mass shooting

https://www.kktv.com/2022/11/23/kktv-obtains-old-arrest-papers-likely-tied-club-q-shooting-suspect-alleged-bomb-threat/ VintageVernacular (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The old arrest

Arrests papers state after his grandparents told him they were selling their home, Aldrich held them at gunpoint. The papers go on to say Aldrich said if they moved it would interfere with his plans to carry out a mass shooting and bombing. Aldrich’s grandma told investigators her grandson had bragged about, “wanting to go out in a blaze.” The arrest papers add Aldrich showed his grandparents a full box of chemicals and said it was powerful enough to blow up a police department and a federal building. Aldrich then went downstairs, and arrest papers say his grandparents ran from their home and called authorities.

Investigators requested a search warrant to look for ammunition, firearms and body armor to quote, “prevent a reported planned terrorism attack.” Documents show an elevated bond was requested, granted and set at $1,000,000.
— Devereaux, Natalie (2022-11-23). "KKTV obtains old arrest papers likely tied to Club Q shooting suspect for alleged bomb threat". KKTV.

Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Firearms used in the shooting

In the current version of the article, the infobox says that the weapons used were "two firearms including a long rifle", with a link to the WP long rifle article. The term "long rifle" is sometimes used to refer to any kind of rifle, as opposed to a handgun. The link is to an article about a type of antique muzzle loader also called a "long rifle", so the link is incorrect. Multiple sources now say that the shooter had a rifle and a handgun, and, as stated in the article, the New York Times is reporting that the rifle was an AR-15 style. It seems very likely that more information about all this will come out in the next few days. For now, I'm changing the infobox to say that the weapons were "a rifle and a handgun", without links, until more information comes out from reliable news sources. Of course, other editors are encouraged to comment on this topic. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Long rifle definition in law enforcement reporting means it is not a shotgun, long-barreled pistol, a short barreled rifle, a pistol, a handgun with a butstock, a machine pistol, not a cannon or indiriect fire weapon, and not bigger than half an inch in caliber (anti matieral rifle). A long rifle to everyone else may or may not be a breach (back of barrel) fed weapon where wikipedia properly has a long rifle in firearm parlance as a muzzle fed weapon, typically rifled or non-round twisted barrel. It is effetely a useless word unless description unless you are repeating a police radio call or police description in most of the united states. A long rifle for sure is a rifle with a conventional buttstock...most likely with a 6-to-59-inch barrel. Longer barrel it is anti material rifle....but it certainly long. In other words the non firearms press should use only use rifle or pistol or cannon until the weapon is exactly defined. Black evil gun would be acceptable. 2601:248:C000:3F:563:946D:7C84:F2A5 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Trans woman or drag queen?

I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether the performer who assisted Richard Fierro was a trans woman or a drag queen (or possibly both). There are news sources who are reporting it as drag queen and a few others (such as the pinknews article) who report it as a trans woman. Is there a clear consensus on this? Wasianpower (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I dunno ... I've seen both as well. A recent New York Times article just says this: "A drag dancer was passing by, and Mr. Fierro said he ordered her to stomp the attacker with her high heels. The whole time, Mr. Fierro said, he kept pummeling the shooter with the pistol while screaming obscenities." The preferred gender pronoun definitely seems to be "she", at least that much is clear. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Big difference in the two terms. A drag queen dresses extravagantly as a woman for the purpose of a show. A trans woman identifies as female, and dresses that way. I have not seen any reports about the gender identity of the stomper. All we know for now is that the stomper was a drag dancer during the show. WWGB (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The article currently describes the assister as a trans woman, is it safe to go ahead and change it to 'drag performer'? Wasianpower (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
No, the current version seems to reflect the latest state of the reporting on this issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: naming of the grandfather

Should the article include information that the suspect, Anderson Lee Aldrich, is the grandson of California assemblyman Randy Voepel? WWGB (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Why are we doing this? RfC is the way to go only after there is significant discussion at the t/p at the end of which either one or more of the involved parties are unsatisfied or there is an impasse. RfC is not a way to short-circuit the usual consensus building process. So far, you have not responded a single time at the t/p section. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    That said, I support inclusion of the information since multiple reliable sources including The Guardian, The Hill, The Gazette (Colorado Springs) etc. have already noted Aldrich's connection with a Republican politician. I am not even considering local broadcasters! In any case, the strange sealing of records about the June'21 bomb-threat and Voepel's MAGA rhetoric guarantees increased media-scrutiny on their connection in the next few days. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Personally - I'd like to see more RFC's on Wikipedia on articles where there's disagreement. Many "attempts to reach consensus" where there's deep disagreement just end up at loggerheads, and very often the predomince of the opinion of a clique that happens to spend a lot of time guarding one version of a particular article. Putting more eyes on an issue with an article often clears issues up quickly. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The grandfather had no role in the shooting; an understanding of the crime and its consequences are not informed by naming the grandfather. Not everything appearing in the media needs to find its way into Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    If you consult coverage by Guardian, their focus was on the fact of Voepel being a MAGA supporter who admired the Capitol attack. I wonder what that might have to do with shooting at a gay-club; hmm. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Not everything appearing in the media needs to find its way into Wikipedia. Is that the fake news defense?
    According to WWGB's edit history, he has undone or manually reverted items on this single 24 hour old page more than 10 times. Please be mindful of the WP:3RR rule. Kire1975 (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    He was warned, and yet continued to edit war on related content on other pages long after that warning. Weird how there's never an admin around when you need one, but they always seem to show up when you don't. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Well, they showed up 14 times to block you in the past, compared to my clean record of zero blocks in 16 years. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for bringing that up. You are clearly exempt from 3RR and have been protected by admins for almost 16 years. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Regardless of the editor's history, that is a fine point which you haven't addressed. Wikipedia guidelines do not say everything that is WP:RS deserves inclusion. Until it's established that the family connection was involved in this attack I don't understand why it would be mentioned in the article. I understand why the press would cover the connection, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Nemov (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    The suspect was raised in a milieu of a broken home with extreme conservative values of hatred for gays. This contributed to his future behavior. The press covers the connection because it is timely, relevant, and appropriate. The press is also doing the work that the government authorities refuse to do, which is to hold people accountable for their beliefs and words when they have consequences in the real world. So far, we have seen almost zero consequences for the endless stream of hate speech from MAGA Republicans. The press is a flea on the dog of the authorities and forces them to scratch the itch of social responsibility. Perhaps you forgot what the fourth estate means. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for replying, but what does that have to do with the Wikipedia guidelines? Many of your points (which could indeed end up being true) are considered original research since it's speculation at this time. Nemov (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    We know that MAGA Republican Randy Voepel allegedly supported the violence at the January 6 insurrection, identifies as a Christian, and voted against LGBT legislation and has an A rating from the NRA for voting against all forms of gun control legislation. We also know that anti-gay hate crimes were reported in Santee during his time there (the report posted on this page lists an anti-lesbian hate crime that occurred). We know that Laura Voepel allegedly has a violent past and has been accused of arson and has three warrants among other things. Her son was accused of an attempted bomb threat and is the primary suspect in the Club Q shooting that killed five and injured dozens in Colorado Springs, the fourth most conservative area in the nation that serves as the headquarters for Focus on the Family, the oldest and largest anti-LGBT Christian organization in the country. All of these things are connected by a thread of religious and political hatred for gay people. It is not speculation. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The Denver Gazette reports that a source close to the family confirmed the info. The Guardian independently confirmed the info through his mother's social media. Other WP:RSS reporting it include San Diego Union-Tribune, The Hill, The Independent, CBS and many more. The shooter's grandfather's position as politician with an ideology that encourages hate against LGBTQ people is verifiable, reliable, independent, notable and relevant. Kire1975 (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no position on this, but I found this article about the relationship; https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/national/report-accused-colorado-springs-shooter-is-grandson-of-california-assemblyman-randy-voepel/509-8ff71925-2d7a-40b5-8acb-d021a7b35b38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.72.34 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. Reliable sources seem to think that it’s relevant. It should be included unless there is a good reason for it not to be. Strangestdream (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Seems obviously present in the sources, so clearly they think it's relevant. Loki (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait. I think we should wait & see if the boy's grandfather had any significance on this event. If he did, then it's an important thing to mention. If he didn't, it's just meaningless trivia about the alleged shooter, which gives undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the alleged gunman in the article. Silent-Rains (User talk:Silent-Rains) 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Randy Voepel represents Santee, a town with notorious historical links to white supremacism and hate crimes against gay people. In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan literally ran the town.[6] Voepel and his grandson didn't just come out of nowhere, and it's not a coincidence that both Santee and Colorado Springs are epicenters for anti-LGBT activity. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Irrelevant, WP:ORIGINALSYNTHESIS, violation of WP:BLP, and POV-pushing. Please try and contribute in the spirit of the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary, it’s 100% relevant. A child from a broken home based on conservative values of hatred for gays grows up to shoot gay people. Reality is not a POV. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment: While I support the inclusion of the maternal grandfather's name in this article (he is a public figure, and many news sources have reported on it) I want to urge caution with assumptions like "A child from a broken home based on conservative values of hatred for gays" unless or until further reporting confirms that assumption. There has been additional reporting on his parents' criminal records, and there is much that is not yet clear about the question of with whom did he spend his formative years. What seems to be clear is that the shooter came from a background of significant turmoil, but all the elements of that turmoil have not yet been reported on. KConWiki (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The 'boy' is a whole-ass man. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, reported in a wide number of very reliable sources, BLP would be a concern here if we were using sources of dubious value or if there were conflicting reports, but so far the sources all seem to indicate the relation is real and valid. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Numerous reliable sources are reporting it, and it's a clearly notable fact about the shooter's background. — Red XIV (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It isn't relevant to the incident. It doesn't inform us about Aldrich's motivation. Given his age and Colorado's political leanings, he might be woke and BLM.2001:4430:40FE:B354:F0C5:5FBF:609B:129D (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Colorado Springs is ranked as the fourth most conservative city in America,[7] and is the home of Focus on the Family headquarters, the oldest and largest anti-LGBTQ organization in the United States.[8] Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Huh? Saying that Aldrich "might be woke and BLM" ?? Do you have any sources to back up such speculation? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Do you have any proof he isn't? There isn't anything legitimate about his motives. CNN said he had a standoff with police, that pars with BLM. Anderson Lee Aldrich: What we know about the suspect in the Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub shooting | CNNhttps://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/21/us/anderson-lee-aldrich-colorado-springs-shooting-suspect/index.html
    14.46.200.34 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Having had a standoff with police = BLM? What?? This is WP:OR and is not allowed.
    You need an actual reliable source that clearly and specifically says anything about Black Lives Matter, otherwise, it's just nonsensical trolling. Enough already. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Mixed about including this. I think relationship to a public figure is an interesting biographical detail about the accused shooter. But I really think that, first, any attempt to casually link Randy Voepel's politics to the shooting (or insinuate such a link) without clear evidence of such a link reported by reliable sources, is not OK, being speculative, POV, and a violation of WP:BLP. Second, it's a factoid that should not carry WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the article in any event. I'm not sure if the mention in its current form crosses that line or not. The prominent mention that Voepel is a Republican seems to carry a degree of insinuation with it. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support given the self-evident relevance to the article and given that nobody is disputing the veracity of the statement. Readers can draw their own conclusions. As for mentioning "Republican", that is standard practice any time that a politician is named.--JECE (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"Readers can draw their own conclusions." So long as the wording of the article is not pushing the reader toward a particular conclusion. Due caution is called for here. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The conclusion is supported by the premises. The suspect grew up in a broken family as a grandson of a hardcore MAGA politician known for vocally supporting the January 6 insurrection. Conservative family values and his upbringing should be emphasized here based on the sources. This is the atmosphere of right-wing hate that the suspect grew up in. And he’s the end product of these conservative values. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, based on multiple sources. Here is what some of them say:
What we know about the suspect in the Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub shooting - CNN: "Aldrich is the grandson of outgoing California Assemblyman Randy Voepel, according to social media reports and CNN interviews."
At least five people killed in shooting at gay nightclub in Colorado Springs - The Guardian: "But social media posts under his mother’s name, Laura Voepel, describe the former Republican California state assembly member Randy Voepel as his grandfather. Some called for Randy Voepel’s expulsion from the state assembly after he compared the 6 January 2021, attack on the US Capitol to the American revolutionary war. Voepel lost his seat to a primary challenger in August."
Accused Colorado Springs shooter is grandson of California Assemblyman Randy Voepel, former Santee Mayor - CBS 8 San Diego: "On Sunday, CBS 8 investigated the claim that Assemblyman Voepel is related to Anderson Lee Aldrich through a background check system and uncovered Republican Assemblyman Voepel’s daughter is the mother of the Colorado Springs shooting suspect."
Reports: Colorado Gay Club Shooter Is Grandson of California State Assemblyman Randy Voepel - Snopes
Club Q shooting suspect is grandson of California lawmaker who compared Jan. 6 to Revolutionary War - FOX8 WGHP
Colorado Springs shooting suspect is grandson of local assemblymember: reports - FOX5 San Diego: "Media outlets, along with a state Capitol source who wished to remain anonymous, report that the 22-year-old suspected of opening fire inside a LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs is the grandson of outgoing California State Assemblymember Randy Voepel."
Club Q suspect's mother had a past of her own - The Gazette: "Relatives who wished to remain unidentified said the suspect is the assemblyman's biological grandson, although family sources say the family relationship has been splintered."
The Colorado Springs Shooting Suspect Is The Grandson of MAGA Republican Randy Voepel - New Republic: "The gunman who opened fire in a queer club in Colorado Springs over the weekend is the grandson of a California MAGA Republican lawmaker, multiple media outlets reported Monday."
Colorado shooting suspect is grandson of GOP lawmaker who celebrated January 6 Capitol riot - The Independent: "The 22-year-old man accused of murdering five and wounding dozens more in a mass shooting in a Colorado gay nightclub is the grandson of a GOP lawmaker who celebrated the January 6 attack on the US Capitol ... No motive has been given for the mass shooting. But, it comes at a time when the Republican party has been pushing anti-LGBT+ sentiment across the country and as gun violence continues to soar across the country."
This is just a handful of available sources that mention the family connection. Seems WP:DUE and worthy of inclusion. Voepel is a public figure, and this is being widely reported on. Support for the RfC (to mention that Anderson Lee Aldrich is the grandson of California assemblyman Randy Voepel), these are relevant facts that should be in the Wikipedia article here. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just because something is mentioned by WP:RS doesn't mean it automatically justifies inclusion. There is the question of WP:UNDUE that has been ignored by many of the arguments in favor of inclusion. Silent-Rains makes a very good point. The argument for inclusion isn't about WP:RS, it's about DUE weight. This is an article about a shooting. The shooter's family tree is irrelevant unless it was a factor in the incident. Unless his family member was somehow involved in the shooting it's irrelevant. Nemov (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly relevant and important, as evidenced by the ample supply of RS mentioning it. I agree with Peter G Werner that we should not unduly editorialise as to what the exact nature of the relevance is, because there are several possible reasons (the grandfather's general politics, the grandfather's apparent position on armed insurgency, the alleged family breach between the shooter and the grandfather, and possibly others) and unless and until there's something specific in primary sources, reported in multiple reliable secondary sources, as to which of those angles is relevant, it's beyond the scope of a passing reference in this article to enlarge on that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Other than being related, what is the documented connection to the shooting? If he was related to someone on the Mayflower should that be included as well if it was reported? What is the WP:RS that this family connection resulted in the shooting? If this isn't established how is it relevant? I find support for this very puzzling. Nemov (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Huh? So are you suggesting that we outright ignore the fact that numerous stories from the media are literally titled "Club Q shooting suspect is grandson of politician Randy Voepel" ? Seems pretty relevant if it is in the title of articles about the event. We follow the sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Editors don't follow sources, we follow Wikipedia guidelines. The shooter's relatives are trivial until a connection to the shooting is established. This seems like a clear case of WP:UNDUE until deeper connections are presented. Nemov (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    In the nicest possible way... did you read WP:UNDUE? Its first sentence is: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. The entire point of WP:UNDUE, a core Wikipedia policy, is that we DO follow the sources in assessing what is worth giving space to. TSP (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I did. This is an article about a shooting that includes information about the alleged shooter. Random trivia about the shooter's family (while exciting press foddar) is irreverent to the subject of the article until a relevant connection is made. Nemov (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Interesting that you want to downplay the information, meanwhile the media is reporting on it as being something of consequence. Fortunately, we follow the sources, and that's how we get around our own subjective bias. :) Including a single sentence in the article about this seems fair. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - considered relevant by a wide range of sources. To me, it seems completely obvious why sources would consider this fact relevant; but if you don't see why, or choose to claim not to see why, that's fine, because all we need to do is follow the sources. TSP (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support backed by reliable sources, and clearly relevant. Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. It's bizarre that this would even need defending. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of "the f word"

I've moved and edited this sentence, which had followed their lawyer's statement that they're nonbinary: "However, neighbors allege that Aldrich has made hateful comments towards the LGBTQ community, including frequent usage of the word (f word) when angry."

A couple issues with that as written:

1) With the placement, and with the word "however," it violates WP:Synth, as the source cited did not connect those allegations with the accused's assertion of a non-binary gender identity.

2) Assuming that the accused is in fact non-binary, we can't presume that their use of the word "(f word)" (if they actually did this) was actually a manifestation of hatred towards "the LGBTQ community." I've known plenty of LGBT people who've used the word (f word) when angry and/or drunk, just as use of "the N word" is not uncommon within the African-American community.

So I went ahead and moved and reworded the sentence.

(Note: I had to use "(f word)" here, instead of the actual quote from the article, as a filter was blocking my comment from being posted otherwise.) -2003:CA:870A:894C:C0D7:5FA7:C5F6:8F9D (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Research shows that the most homophobic people are often closeted gays who can't accept their "lot in life." They are filled with self-loathing and a guilty conscience, likely because of their religious upbringing. So the use of homophobic epithets is not evidence they are not gay. On the contrary. Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdjie (talk • contribs) 04:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
That’s not what the research shows. The paper you linked to is ten years old and the author "cautioned, however, that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments", it is not a conclusive, all encompassing explanation. Furthermore, if memory serves, other studies have come out within the last ten years casting doubt on such a singular explanation. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022 (Aldrich's earlier life)

I have an edit request on the suspect. Both The Washington Post and the New York Post have just issued a major update on the suspect's "troubled" childhood life and information from The Washington Post and the New York Post saying that the suspect, Nicholas F. Brink (Anderson Lee Aldrich), was born in San Antonio, Texas, on May 20, 2000, to Aaron Brink and Laura Voepel, who were separated in July 2001. It was unknown where Aaron Brink was now. The family had been bouncing from Orange, California, and San Antonio, Texas a lot while Brink is a baby, and later a child. Nicholas grew up in both Orange, California, and San Antonio, Texas.

Nicholas lived in San Antonio until the age of 15, and at that same age, he changed his name to Anderson Lee Aldrich. He didn't become a resident of Colorado Springs until 2018 or possibly 2019. Aldrich's house, according to KOAA-TV and judging by Google Earth, was built around 2018 at the southeast corner of Colorado Springs near the city of Fountain by a mile. That house was threatened in the 2021 bomb threat which he escaped from his house at 9800 Rubicon to 6300 Pilgrimage where he was caught with El Paso County Sheriff and SWAT members from the office.

Not just Aldrich, but Aldrich's mother and Randy Voepel's daughter, 45-year-old Laura Lea Voepel, also had a past of her own according to the Denver Gazette. Laura was in jail a lot in the late-2000s and early-2010s. Some of these include in 2008 for false reporting and later that same year for public intoxication and failure to appear in Riverside (but the case was closed shortly later on), in 2010 for speeding and failure to appear, and in 2011 for driving under the influence. In 2012, she was sentenced in San Antonio for an arson charge but was released later on. A year later, she was sentenced to five years of probation after moving back to California in August 2013 and did not complete the probation terms which, back then, were set to expire in August 2018.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/21/colorado-springs-qbar-shooter/) (https://denvergazette.com/news/club-q-suspects-mother-had-a-past-of-her-own/article_16dd369a-69f1-11ed-b6a6-034d746d1fc2.html) (https://nypost.com/2022/11/22/club-q-suspect-anderson-aldrich-changed-his-name/) ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would that much biographical info about the accused & his family be a good addition to the article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The reason why is that every story has a suspect's history despite being a major incident. Many suspects throughout the years had troubled lives probably because of their family, or the person, or possibly on the person's life. So I gathered information about Aldrich by various outlets, including the El Paso County Sheriff as much as I can. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the name change, at the very least, is possibly worth mentioning just for accuracy and factual clarity. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Some of it, like the name change and where he lived and the bomb threat that he committed, is okay with me, but all that about his mother and father's shady "past" would be a WP:BLP violation. Kire1975 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I have to agree. It will be better if we just say that Nicholas was born on May 20, 2000, in San Antonio, Texas, and grew up in both San Antonio, Texas, Orange, California, and Riverside, California. And after that, it would be like "While living back in his hometown of San Antonio at the age of 15, he changed its name to Anderson Lee Aldrich, and in 2018, Anderson and his family moved to Colorado Springs near Fountain", something like that (because Anderson's house was located a mile south of Fountain and near the Colorado Springs Airport). And then we get to his 2021 bomb threat. How's that sound for the article? ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Aldrich's name change

According to this story, from The Independent: Colorado Springs shooting: Suspected shooter changed his name at 15 due to online bullying "The Colorado Springs shooting suspect changed his name at age 15 after being subjected to a vitriolic online bullying campaign ... The Colorado Springs shooting suspect changed his name at age 15 after being subjected to a vitriolic online bullying campaign, according to reports. The news site also uncovered evidence that Mr Aldrich was subjected to an intensely homophobic online bullying campaign prior to changing his name. His image, name and online aliases were posted to a website, and a YouTube account was set up under his name featuring disturbing animated content ..." Sad, and somewhat possibly relevant context here to be added with info about his name change etc. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There was a popular area of research in the 2000s which claimed that unusual birth names were correlated with a propensity for future criminal offending since they were treated differently from their peers and were more prone to acting out. Conclusion: "Unpopular names are likely not the cause of crime but correlated with factors that increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency, such as a disadvantaged home environment and residence in a county with low socioeconomic status." (See Kalist et al. "First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?" Social Science Quarterly, 2009; 90 (1): 39 doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00601.x Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is staggeringly irrelevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it’s relevant as a side note, because the defense may try to use this (the bullying defense is often used in mass shooter cases) even though the study I linked to refuted the idea that unusual names lead to criminality due to peer bullying. I recently worked on an article about the Aztec shooter and the claim that the shooter was bullied in school came up and was verified by several former classmates. After that case, a study came out showing that many of these school shooters were bullied, but this occurred regardless of their name. The point is that the research doesn’t support the connection between unusual names and criminality, but shows that the bullying by itself is often a major factor in the victim’s decision to shoot their classmates. Like I said, it’s a tangent, but one that I think is useful to understand based on the literature. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
At age 15, he was still living in San Antonio right when his name was changed. Aldrich didn't begin living in Colorado until the age of 18. And I don't know why he started to make his own YouTube account just because he really wanted to do something similar to what Highwood-native Robert Eugene Crimo III had in common with Highland Park. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you read further into the article, the YouTube account may not have been set up by Aldrich, but by others who were using the accused's previous name and posting nasty content as a way to bully and mock them. It seems unclear. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the suspects WP:DEADNAME per our policy on the subject. Per our policy, "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists." The shooter was NOT notable under their former name and is non-binary, therefore we cannot under any circumstances use the deadname. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe we have a reliable independent source to say that that policy applies here. (The suspect's attorney, and stenographic reporting of that attorney's words, are not an independent source in this context.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess:: How do you know it's a deadname? Kire1975 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kire1975: The burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't, given that the suspect is non-binary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: How do you he or they is non-binary? Kire1975 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kire1975: Reliable sources consistently use "they" in referring to the subject. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: Other reliable sources consistently use he and say that he changed his name to remove associations from his father. Kire1975 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kire1975: If you're not going to respect pronouns I don't have anything more to say here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
It will be difficult to meet your burden of proof to establish that it's a dead name that way. Kire1975 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: Actually, the burden is on you to prove it is a deadname. Something you've yet to do anywhere on this talk page. See WP:ECREE (part of WP:V). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Reread WP:DEADNAME and point to the part where it says any editor seeking to remove dead naming must prove it is a dead name. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to re-read it. Nothing in a fucking guideline overrides SITEWIDE POLICY in WP:V. YOU must prove your claim. Otherwise you're just making shit up. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Whaaaaaaa!!! Do we need an RfC for this?? :)  Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. WP:CONSENSUS Kire1975 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Father's reaction

Should his father's reaction to news of the shooting be included in the responses section?

Auric talk 12:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources assert his father's reaction to be notable to the shooting? And does including his dad's comments put undue weight on a tangential part of the story? It is, after all, primarily an article on a mass shooting, not on the perpetrator. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose they would be more useful on an article about the shooter, should they become notable enough. Thanks.--Auric talk 22:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It's on the Aaron Brink page. Kire1975 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This is something that could be mentioned on Brink's article, but it's not relevant to the shooting. Nemov (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Love of Corey (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

External links

Should the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Aldrich be included in the External Links section? I’m well aware how vile that site is, yet at the same time it seems a bit weird to discuss a webpage at length in this article without including some sort of link to it for those who would be morbidly curious. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:121B (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Love of Corey (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This would likely be a WP:BLP violation. The same goes for linking to anything about anyone mentioned on Kiwi Farms, we just don't do it. There is no need, and those who are interested enough can search that out on their own. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

FOF euphemism

The Focus on the Family organization actively advocates for people to "leave homosexuality" and follow Christ.

That isn't accurate or neutral in the slightest. FOF actively and openly attacks gay people and strongly opposes gay rights, same-sex marriage, and anti-homophobia efforts. This bullshit statement, which is an extremist, extra-Biblical belief found nowhere in the teachings of Christ, their religious leader, assumes that one cannot be gay and Christian. Please remove it. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please remove it? I'm following the sources available about the graffiti action. Any chance you can find a source that more accurately describes the organization? Please go ahead and make necessary updates to better describe them. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I found a better source. Working on updating the description. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This is another report that really isn't relevant to the shooting. Seems like this should be on the FOF article and not mentioned here. Nemov (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    This is about a reaction/response to the shooting. Agree that a deeper analysis of Focus on the Family definitely deserves more coverage and details, but would be better implemented on that page. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question

@WWGB: About this: It is not established either that the shooter was a man, right? 7szz (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Numerous eyewitnesses described the shooter as a man. That is the best we have at the moment. No-one has suggested the unidentified shooter is non-binary. It is sub-judice to conflate the issues and suggest that the shooter was non-binary, as it is to be proved that Aldrich was the shooter. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
All mass shooting articles shouldn't assume suspect gender per WP:BLPCRIME. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
What? WP:BLPCRIME makes no mention of gender. This is getting bizarre. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@WWGB: Indeed BLPCRIME does not mention gender whatsoever. @Chess: What are you playing at here? In multiple discussions on this talk page you've routinely misread or misrepresented the status or intention of guidelines, or flat out make up reality to suit what you want, and it's disruptive at this point. So many of your arguments rely upon your personal interpretation of sources (WP:SYNTH, part of another policy that trumps guidelines you keep referencing (see WP:CONLEVEL; also part of policy)), and not what the actual sources are saying. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: My comment got cut off. The point I'm making is that in any cases where the shooter is arrested, we should not assume the shooter's gender because it's almost always assuming that the shooter's gender matches the suspect. Gender-neutral terms should be used in all of these cases and I've done this on other articles in the past. [9] Now, either report me to WP:AE or WP:ANI for disagreeing with you or stop casting aspersions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: And yet again, we have you saying things should be a certain way with the only reason provided being that you prefer that. we should not assume the shooter's gender I have an even simpler method: we could just follow our reliable sources. Then we don't need to second-guess them (WP:NOR) or attempt to proactively make our work look silly by deviating from what the majority of our RS state (WP:V). for disagreeing with you Buddy, if it was just a disagreement there'd be nothing to report. But you're clearly pushing an agenda here. That's not compatible with editing Wikipedia. But as you wish. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Great, do you want to start the thread or should I? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: It looks like that was a rhetorical question. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Feel free to repeat your concerns about my behaviour in that thread rather than in this thread. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: Thanks, I will. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Non binary and pronouns

Alright, I'm 100% for respecting people's pronouns and identity but we should still address the shooter as 'he' in the article. He committed a vile hate crime against LGBT people, it seems clear he's doing this to troll people, and labelling the killer as non-binary does nothing but harm the LGBT community. Koiramainen (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence the accused has historically used they/them pronouns to refer to himself, except for a very timely intervention from his defense attorney now. He should be referred to as male until further notice. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
What does "very timely" mean? 122.60.57.103 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we start an RFC on this? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It is unclear whether this is a hate crime. 122.60.57.103 (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Koiramainen: We don't second guess people's self-described gender identity as reported by reliable sources. See MOS:GENDERID. Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. The suspect identifies as non-binary so they get to be described as such. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree in the vast majority of cases, but can we note that the perpetrator was ID'ed as male his entire life until the shooting, which was specifically a hate crime against LGBT people. Koiramainen (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
If we apply non-binary language to the shooter/attacker/assailant, we are asserting that Aldrich was that person, which is a matter for the court to determine. When describing the incident, the shooter appeared male, therefore it is appropriate to use gunman/he/him in that context. When discussing Aldrich the accused, only then can you use your non-binary language. WWGB (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@WWGB: You can't just assume someone's gender, and I habitually change Wikipedia articles on shootings to use gender-neutral language when there is still a suspect. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In the absence of any evidence concerning the gender identity of the proven shooter, it is not unreasonable to follow reliable sources, such as [10] [11] [12] [13], all of which refer to a gunman. WWGB (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
We're not asserting anything by using non-gender-specific language - 'they' can be a non-binary pronoun, but it's far more commonly used as a pronoun for someone of unknown gender. Some sources say the shooter was a man; court filings from the accused says they are non-binary. Therefore, we should treat the shooter as of unknown gender, which we do by using non-gender-specific terms like "they" and "shooter". I can't see any reasonable justification for saying because we don't know the gender of this person, we must refer to them as a man. TSP (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It looks likely that he is male. 122.60.57.103 (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not the gunman identifying as non-binary. It's his attorney saying he is. Somehow I find that very difficult to believe, and I don't see any reliable sources that say he personally identified as such. Far as I can tell, this is just a pathetic way of dodging the hate crime portion of his sentence. Seems an odd claim, since several reliable sources have also pointed out that he frequently used anti-LGBT slurs. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:D03C:6E02:1640:DB68 (talk) 2601:1C0:8500:1161:D03C:6E02:1640:DB68 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
We have occasionally made common-sense exceptions to MOS:GENDERID when someone was obviously trolling, e.g. Tucker Carlson claiming to take they/them pronouns in his Twitter bio. But it has to be reaaaaaally obvious. Speculating as to whether someone's claim of nonbinary identity is strategic or sincere is above our paygrade as Wikipedians. If they are currently saying they take they/them pronouns, there is a very very strong presumption that that is an accurate reflection of their identity. We would need very strong evidence to the contrary to even consider not using those pronouns. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin I'd argue that shooting thirty people in a gay bar, saying slurs, burning Pride flags on Instagram, getting off the hook on previous offenses because of political connections with the GOP, and then saying he's enby for the first time ever constitutes a "really obvious" troll. I suppose he saw righties claiming the Uvalde shooter was trans and tried to do the same thing to see if he could further damage the community. I understand where you're coming from, but, if Tucker Carlson gets "he," the accused here should also. Tayuro (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm damn sure this is a bit of trolling, to try to make it look to the gullible like the LGBTQ+ community has somehow turned on itself. We should not entertain it at this time. The suspect can be 'he' for the time being. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
He carried out a terrorist attack in a gay bar. That does not show that he targeted gays. 122.60.57.103 (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@122.60.57.103 I think you haven't been reading. Tayuro (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t want to speculate too much on this particular case, but I’m genuinely curious what Wikipedia’s editorial policy would be for someone who has made inconsistent statements about which pronouns to use. Suppose that someone with dissociative identity disorder had two different personalities, one of whom was rabidly anti-LGBTQ (not even recognizing non-binary identity as “real”) and the other of whom identified as nonbinary? If you used any pronoun _at all_ to refer to this hypothetical person, you’d be making a judgment about which personality is the “real” one. How could you decide something like that when even the person in question can’t? I’m not saying that’s what’s going on here with Aldrich, but their biographical details seem to be all over the place (far-right politician grandpa, Mormon background, MMA/adult film star dad, bullying victim in high school who changed name, apparently obsessed with hentai, known mental health issues of some sort, used anti-gay slurs a lot despite apparently identifying as NB, etc.) Even if this case doesn’t meet the clinical definition of DID, it seems like this person probably has a very, shall we say conflicted, sense of personal identity. It’s hardly uncommon, there are a great many people out there who can’t seem to decide who they are or what they really want. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:121B (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This attempt at a psychological diagnosis is wildly speculative and deeply inappropriate. I'd call it Original Research, but I don't really think much research went into it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Aldrich described himself as "your boy" in a Facebook Live during the 2021 bomb threat that was broadcast at the 36 second mark of this Inside Edition video at least 24 hours before his lawyers described him as non-binary. Kire1975 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The conventional wisdom at this point is that nobody has been able to confirm or verify the claim that the suspect is non-binary, and it appears to be a tactic invented by his attorneys to fight against the hate crime charge. Further, none of his family members or friends or neighbors have verified the claim, and his birth father was just quoted as saying his son wasn’t gay. It’s already been established by the neighbor witness that the suspect has a history of making anti-gay slurs. Not a single person has been found who can verify the non-binary claim. Not one, other than his attorney fighting the hate crime charge. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Are we at WP now asserting that a court filing by an attorney fails WP:RS? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a reliable source for its own content - we can totally say that the court filing says what it says. But it's not a reliable source, on its own, for the suspect's gender, given the context in which we read it. It's not independent reporting - it's a primary source. And while in general we trust primary sources on topics of personal identity, a modest degree of skepticism is warranted in extreme cases (see the discussion of Tucker Carlson elsewhere on this talk page). So until there is an independent source for the suspect's gender that says non-binary, I suggest we go with the preponderance of secondary sources that say he's male. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, certainly we agree we can write "in a court filing, Aldritch's attorney referred to them using the nonbinary salutation 'Mx.'" Now, where do we find a secondary source that says Aldritch is *male*, as opposed to secondary sources that perhaps just were misgendering Aldritch because they hadn't yet seen the court filing with the nonbinary salutation? If very, very good RSes now edit their stories to begin referring to Aldritch with non-male pronouns, is that good enough? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
If independent reliable sources switch to treating the suspect as non-binary, we should follow them. So far, the vast majority have not. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, cool. I just looked it up in MOS:GENDERID and it turns out that's exactly what it says in the first paragraph. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@GenevieveDEon: Here's a ton of secondary sources. [14] [15] [16] [17] Both CNN and Fox News are now using they/them pronouns; we should too. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This was going to be my question. If RS are using they/them, we should too. We can add an explanation in a footnote that a court filing asserted that the alleged shooter is non-binary. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID is the WP policy to follow. I've also looked: some sources do seem to be beginning to edit their articles to at least avoid using a "he" construction, some not. I'd say editors should give it a day or so for the news outlets to settle their policy on this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In any normal situation GENDERID would be the obvious procedure. But given the circumstances here, we have to consider more. Following RS is usually a safe bet. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you. 122.60.57.103 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
If people are suggesting that it's up to Wikipedia editors to use their own judgment in what gender to assume, that's completely against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. In fact, MOS:GENDERID thankfully says that we use the gender that is used in the most recent sources: this takes all judgment and debate out of our hands, and leaves it in the hands of sources themselves, eliminating OR. This also solves the Tucker Carlson problem, and it leaves us completely neutral. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I said to use RS to tell us what to do. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
They are still saying "gunman". 122.60.57.103 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: WP:RS doesn't appear to say anything about court filings. Kire1975 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kire1975: Maybe something happened in their life since then that caused them to come out as non-binary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I will admit I am struggling to offer a dignified response to this comment in the overall context of this page's subject matter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: If you find any RSS demonstrating that, let us know. Kire1975 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the shooter is a heterosexual, cisgender male who is prejudiced against the LGBT+ community and is identifying in court as nonbinary as some sort of troll and legal defense against hate crime charges. However, I understand officially using these terms until that is made clear one way or the other. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This is all just an assumption. 122.60.57.103 (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The thing that happened was being charged with five hate crimes. This is all just a pathetic attempt to dodge those charges or deliver a parting shot at the LGBTQ+ community. (I should also note that it wasn't him that stated that he was non-binary, it was his attorney.) Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that claim that he began to identify as non-binary to avoid being convicted for a hate crime. 122.60.57.103 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
And it wouldn't make any legal difference. Being a member of a group doesn't mean you cannot commit bias-motivated crimes against that same group. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Just want to point out that Politico is now using "they/them" pronouns in articles about the shooting suspect. I agree that this newly public gender identity seems possibly suspicious, based on a number of facts from Aldrich's recent past, but we can't make such assertions on our own. It's important to follow reliable sources. So if there are articles that question the motives for this ― what seems like sudden coming out as nonbinary ― then we can and should include such details here, based on that reporting by credible media outlets. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just an assumption of course, but RS may well be helping a mass murderer troll victims and muddy the waters by proliferating a lie that helps the narrative that inspired the massacre in the first place. I'm sure we'll find out if that's true in time, but if it is, it should be mentioned in the article that this occured. 2601:600:9681:4c50:c9a1:7297:4181:6498 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

If and when EvergreenFir (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Why the fuck are we playing into the rights propaganda by accepting this obvious troll move as gospel!? This feels indistinguishable from WP acting in bad faith to me. If a neonazi shot up a synagogue then claims to have converted to the Jewish faith, would we report that verbatim as well? I think this is disgusting, unacceptable, and a rewrite of the article to stop playing into his obvious troll move needs to happen. --Ax1m (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: We should take the time to reflect and update MOS:GENDERID as a result of this discussion. I empathize with the commenters voicing their justified concerns regarding this situation. I also understand the desire of editors to stick to well defined rules. Manuals of style are not immovable, and we should keep this in mind. Theheezy (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I notice that the article is currently avoiding the whole pronoun issue, by referring to him (ok, I said him - I don't believe this sudden non-binary claim any more than most of us do) only by his last name Aldrich rather than a pronoun. "Aldrich appeared via video conference from the El Paso County jail on November 23 for a hearing in which Aldrich was advised of the arrest charges and of bond conditions, although Aldrich is being held without bond. Aldrich is currently being represented by a public defender." That is clever and is probably a good approach for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant to this section: I've removed some text from the article: Aldrich's mother has referred to Aldrich with male pronouns in recent social media posts. [On his first public interview, Aldrich's estranged father] also referred to Aldrich with male pronouns (I left in the part in square brackets because it leads into the direct quote from Aldrich's father). This seems to me to be original research synthesis - using a source to reach (or imply) a conclusion not made by the source. Quoting Brink's father is fine; making observations about his use of pronouns, when the source makes no comment about gender identity or pronouns, is original research. Quoting the policy WP:SYN, "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia". TSP (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Anderson Lee Aldrich is a cisgender male, he does not genuinely identify with the LGBT community. This is borne out by reliable sources that describe his repeated hostile words and acts towards said community. Any inappropriate usage of "they" or Mx" should be replaced with with "he", please. Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Zaathras, I'm not necessarily in disagreement on this point personally (although we don't know Aldrich's true motives or mental health status), but my question is: how would we explain such a decision on pronoun use in the Wikipedia article given the fact that many reliable sources are using they/them pronouns and referring to Aldrich as non-binary?
Without a source that says Aldrich's gender identity is falsified/dishonest, do we put a note in the article somewhere that we came to the consensus to use he/him pronouns for whatever reasons? This seems complex and problematic. I wonder if there are other precedents for this, aside from the Tucker Carlson example? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of content

An editor removed some long-standing content that discussed the suspects gender identity, claiming inclusion was against talk page consensus. They then removed discussion of threats the suspect made last year claiming "no need". Where is the consensus for removal for the first, and how is prior violent threats not relevant in an article discussing alleged violent acts of the suspect? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I did remove content that discussed Aldrich's father's reaction to the shooting to cast doubt on Aldrich's gender-identity in a roundabout way. The consensus that I alluded to can be found here.
What extra information does

Aldrich threatened "to cause harm to her with a homemade bomb, multiple weapons, and ammunition".

convey in comparison to

Laura Voepel reported that her son issued a bomb threat against her.

? We are an encyclopedia; not the local news-feed. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer for the father's reaction. As to the bomb threat, I think including the additional detail helps the reader understand that firearms were involved even in prior incidents with Aldrich. It wasn't simply a bomb threat as it now reads. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
You have a point about the involvement of firearms but we need to phrase the sentence in a manner that no information is redundant. Let me think of a way. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Reactionaries under "reactions"

The reactions section contains an overabundance of far right figures inciting hatred against the LGBTQ+ community, yet the article does not contain a single mention of stochastic terrorism, despite multiple reliable sources using the term when describing how the incendiary rethoric they now double down on has played a role in provoking this attack in the first place. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources, you say? Kire1975 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Way too much space devoted to criticizing Republicans for their views about LGBTQ+

Under the section "political reactions", only one paragraph is devoted to actual political reactions. The other three paragraphs are devoted to quoting various right-wing and religious figures, apparently just to highlight their anti-gay views. The entire "Focus on the Family" paragraph is not even about anything FOTF said; it points out that the organization was vandalized and then devotes several sentences to its anti-LGBTQ attitudes. IMO this stuff does not have much or anything to do with the shooting and should all be deleted; it seems to be here only to make right-wing commentators look bad. At best we might trim it down to a summary about a concerted right-wing attempt to blame the shooting on "grooming children" for pedophilia and worse, as described by the ISD reference. (Recent article history: The three paragraphs used to be in a separate subsection called "Controversy", but somebody deleted whole section; somebody else immediately restored it; it was briefly moved to a separate "controversy" section; but it wound up back under "political reactions" without the "controversy" heading.) For that matter I don't think the "celebrity reactions" paragraph adds any value to the article and I would favor deleting it too. Comments? MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The graffiti left on the Focus on the Family wall makes it clear that whoever was behind it was thinking about the shooting's victims, so the incident belongs in the article, in my view; I wouldn't object to a more succinct way of explaining FoF's hard-right views on LGBTQ people, however. As for the other right-wingers mentioned in the section, they not only continued to agitate against the LGBTQ community at large in the hours following the massacre, but also, as in the case of Tim Pool, against the people who were at the bar specifically, so evidently it is appropriate to keep content referring to them in this article, as well. The section doesn't bring up any right-wingers other than those who have been mentioned in reliable sources in connection with the massacre and the general mood of anti-LGBTQ unrest in the days that followed; so it is unnecessarily defensive to interpret the section as generally critical of the right. But I also think that a controversy section should be opened and content that refers to reactions from the right should be moved there. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The material on far-right commentary is excessive and WP:UNDUE. It needs significant pruning. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The article has exclusive coverage of the fringe anti-LGBTQ views republicans have been voicing in response to this incident. Criticism of these views that sometimes border on outright justification of the shooting are notable however, and SHOULD be included. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree 100%, but that section is written pretty poorly. I'm not sure so many quotes are needed.
And I also completely agree with user:MelanieN on the celebrity section. That's cool Wayne Brady did that, but IDK if he really needs to be mentioned in this article. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've reworked the section. i deleted some gratuitous, redundant quotes. I removed subject headings, since there's no clear political/controversy distinction. I tried to group subjects together more cohesively into paragraphs. I added another source reflecting the LGBTQ response. I deleted the celebrities section, no disrespect to Wayne Brady.
I think I made it more concise, though it's still pretty clunky. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that is an improvement, although I still think it gives too much coverage to the haters. And IMO there is too much about Lauren Boebert, who after all did make a comment appropriate to the occasion, but was criticized for other positions she has taken at other times. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought about deleting or trimming the Boebert part, but she's a sitting congresswoman in Colorado, so removing it entirely would be wrong. I agree it's a little out of place, but both her statement and the reaction to the statement are significant. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but this one from Politifact may be good for something:No, the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs was not a false flag Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Red flag laws in Background section

The paragraph describing red flag laws in as long as the one describing the shooting (the actual topic of the article). It's UNDUE. I will WP:BOLDly trim it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some of that content could be moved over to Red flag law#Colorado, perhaps? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-binary identity as a bad-faith-claim

I understand the stakes involved but we cannot use marginally reliable sources (TMZ, Daily Dot etc.) to put forward such contentious claims. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We can include TMZ, as long as we explicitly attribute the claim to TMZ. According to WP:TMZ, ...it is recommended to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. Considering the debate over the non-binary claim, I believe it's due. Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
What you have skipped from WP:TMZ is TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources. The article in question has

Some [of his friends] believe they're saying this to avoid being hit with hate crimes in addition to murder and other charges.

This is a textbook case of using one source for the very purpose it was declared to be of suspect reliability. Anyways, if "the debate over the non-binary claim" is DUE, I expect to see some coverage in MSM. Care to link a few sources from, say, NYT/WaPo/CNN/The Gazette/...? Thanks. (In my personal opinion, I do feel that Aldrich is lying about his identity to avoid hate-crime charges. However, reliable sources are yet to be in my favor.) TrangaBellam (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
And you have skipped that WP doesn't recommend banning TMZ as a source when other sourcing isn't available; it only recommend[s] to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used, which is exactly what the section that has now been removed had done. In addition, the section explicitly attributed the view that TMZ reported to the shooter's friends. It did not present skepticism of the shooter's identity as an objective fact. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Dot in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also says that it's "fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact." I don't believe: The Daily Dot reported that some have questioned the sincerity of Aldrich’s assertion of being non-binary, and noted that "In a video of a 2021 arrest that was obtained by CNN, Aldrich referred to himself as 'boy.'" is anything contentious. It also says "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." I believe it's DUE since the article currently presents one side of the non-binary debate (of the defense attorneys' assertion) without presenting the other side, which is the skepticism surrounding such assertion. Some1 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
You're right about the unbalanced coverage. I'll go ahead and place a {{unbalanced section}} until we get this sorted out. Bowler the Carmine | talk 08:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
DUE is not determined by whether, we as editors, feel that all sides to a debate are represented. The very existence of a debate must be proved using high quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The daily dot is not the only source reporting that Aldrich's assertion of being non binary is in bad faith. CNN also reported as such. So did every reliable outlet. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
That's great! Can you provide a link to the CNN article? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Not the IP, but I found one from CNN which I've just added to the article. [18] Some1 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Nice! I offer no opposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I suppose that's the original source for the claim that TMZ reported. This only goes to show that WP:TMZ has it exactly right when it determines that, rather than outright banning TMZ as a source, it's better instead to use it with attribution when better sourcing isn't available. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • In comparison to the coverage from fringe contentious sources, The Gazette profiles Aldrich's identity from a different vantage; it does not doubt for a single time that Aldrich has been lying with some nefarious motive. Maybe, Some1 and others can appreciate what is DUE and what is not. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    That article by The Gazette is a missed opportunity. There's been significant skepticism of the shooter's identity within the LGBT community, and LGBT activists have gone on TV calling the shooter's identity a stunt; they should have interviewed more people than just those who take the shooter at face value. In any case, the Denver Post did interview someone, a former Denver’s district attorney called Mitch Morrissey, who briefly touched on the possibility of the NB claim being a stunt by the shooter or his attorneys:

    “I don’t know if this is a stunt or not,” Morrissey said. “Obviously, there would need to be some evidence one way or another of what his orientation was, but just because you have the same orientation doesn’t mean you can’t have a bias against the group. And (the LGBTQ community) is a very, very broad group.”

    Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    We are beholden to reliable sources; not to any community at-least until their views are covered in MSM. As and when mainstream reliable sources won't "miss" opportunities, I will support re-incorporating doubts about Aldrich's self-identification. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus against including this. Restored. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Zaathras, Thats not how it works. You need consensus for inclusion of material, not the other way around. Until there is consensus for inclusion, it should be left out. I don't have an opinion on if it should be in or not, just the process. --Malerooster (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
It was definitely inappropriate to remove the TMZ reference the way it was done, but since a better reference (CNN) has been found for the same assertion about the shooter's probably fraudulent non-binary identity and it has already been included in the article, the TMZ discussion is just a moot point now. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the non-binary claims are true or not - present coverage seems excessively gossip-y. Anonymous (and often ill-informed), so called 'friends' and/or 'neighbours' can always be found to speculate on any aspect of an accused person. Their opinion is largely valueless evidentially. His lawyer has made the claim, it has been disputed, what else is there to know? Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an obvious lack of consensus and I have reverted the restoration; Zaathras, if you restore, I will take this to a noticeboard. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Have added a better source; maybe, you all will finally decide that the current coverage, excluding controversial sources, is good. There is really no need to thrust down a reader's throat that Aldrich is pretending to be a non-binary as a legal tactic; at least until sources get so explicit. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bomb threat

After a three hour negotiation, Aldrich surrenders. Deputies then search of the Rubicon Drive home and find items “consistent with bomb-making materials.” Aldrich was jailed that evening and given an elevated bond of $1,000,000 by Judge Michael McHenry.
— https://denvergazette.com/continuing-coverage/club-q-shooting/anderson-lee-aldrich-a-history-of-family-travail-personal-violence/article_f668d004-728d-11ed-8ae6-eb5e9062514f.html

Have added this to our article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Prior Incidents

Around this time in San Antonio (c. 2016-1017), Aldricht punched Jonathan Pullen in the face, relatives say. Pullen, who suffered a concussion, told emergency room personnel that he fell down the stairs according to family sources.
— https://denvergazette.com/continuing-coverage/club-q-shooting/anderson-lee-aldrich-a-history-of-family-travail-personal-violence/article_f668d004-728d-11ed-8ae6-eb5e9062514f.html

What do fellow editors feel on adding this? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I say go for it, perhaps also something about the other incident in which Pullen was said to have expressed "fear for his life" etc. Pullen is Aldrich's grandfather, correct? That should probably be made clear. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! No objections in 24 hours. Will add the content. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

The responses section in particular appears to be a political 'soapbox' violation, rather than NPOV. All parties condemned this shooting and should include representative examples from all sides. The attempt to suggest 'bad faith' for those who condemned this heinous crime is political POV bias and not in conformance with Wiki policy.Ryoung122 16:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

All content in that section is well sourced. It is also clear that not everyone simply condemned the shooting in an unequivocal manner, as evidenced by language coming from far-right commentators. Please read the articles that are linked, I do not believe this is cherrypicking. We are following what the sources say. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

2021 Felony Menacing and First Degree Kidnapping court files unsealed

The accussed section should be updated to reflect the new information found that the Colorado DA has available on their website 2601:600:9681:4C50:A0D6:1E93:924:2149 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that the DA spoke directly about the unsealing and the reason behind it's dismissal which was recorded here wherein he revealed the reason for dismissal was directly a cause of the witnesses refusal to cooperate with the prosecution - Witnesses in this case being the accused relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:4C50:A0D6:1E93:924:2149 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorado_Springs_nightclub_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1129233812"