Jump to content

Talk:Midland–Odessa shootings/Archive 1

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

Merge

Resolved

Odessa shooting should just be redirected to this article, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Resolved

Hi,

I propose that the existing Odessa shooting article be merged into this one.

  • Merge – The other article is just a duplication of this one. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry, I did not realize that it had already been created. I will change it into a redirect page shortly. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've removed the tag from this article as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Endash

Resolved

Should "Midland-Odessa" in the title be changed to "Midland–Odessa" (endash over regular dash)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to change it, since it is such a minor cosmetic change it should not require us to start another discussion, just go ahead and change it. Octoberwoodland (talk)
User:Blaylockjam10 moved the page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Should I feel free to remove the year yet? Affiliates from all Big Four American networks are convinced it's three words long. Only our mirror sites think it starts with a year, and that's hardly by choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect shooter name

Resolved

The article is locked but the name currently in the article is the name of the 2012 Texas A&M shooter.

Dc1221 (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue already resolved by Mount Patagonia - thank you! starship.paint (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Archives

Resolved

Archive links, since the page has been moved several times:

Perhaps there's a way to merge/move? ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Are we sure we agree on the current title yet, though? I've been answered with closure, collapse and three-minute archiving so far, but somehow I'm still not convinced we're ready to tie a bow on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@WWGB: Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Marking this section as resolved and archiving. Please start a separate discussion re: article title if needed, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

The shootings were not in a mall, the shooter drove around and shot people randomly on the roads in Odessa/Midland Texas. The shooter was shot behind Cinergy in Odessa by Texas Highway Patrol, Odessa Police Department and Midland Police Department. 65.65.142.9 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That is what the article says, but if you would like a sentence or paragraph changed, please phrase it in the form of Change "X" to "Y" and provide a source. Mgasparin (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was page moved by User:Akandkur. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


2019 West Texas shooting → 2019 Midland-Odessa shooting – New title is more precise and avoids any ambiguous titles and confusion with other articles on recent mass shootings in the State of Texas as per WP:PRECISE. As per a disambiguation statement already listed at the top of the article is cited as example as to why a less precise article title would lead to confusion i.e. "Not to be confused with 2019 El Paso shooting." Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I started this article with "West Texas" because initial reports were describing activities in both Midland and Odessa. I have no problem with the article being moved based on new information and community consensus. Thanks for starting a discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I would support the more-precise form 2019 Midland–Odessa, Texas shooting. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I, too, support that name for the preciseness. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I would support Midland–Odessa shooting, per InedibleHulk and EDG 543, as sufficiently precise. No need for year or state identification since Wikipedia has an article with the main header, Midland–Odessa. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Plain "shooting" titles have long described all sorts of shootings on Wikipedia, the leads convey the subclasses. And there's no prior such shooting to require forcing in a year. Too precise, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Close it and move the page. When I created the first requested move, only Odessa had reported in the news as the location of the shootings. Shortly after I nominated this page, then news reports came in that the city of Midland also was involved. Close and move the page. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
No capital in "shooting". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Right. I also support closing this discussion and moving. No need for the tag to sit there for several more days. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Aren't we still mixed on whether to include the year, though? If we agree not to, that'd be quickest. But no pressure. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I also see dashes versus hyphens. Mine is just hyphenated because I can't paste a dash. I support dashing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bipartisan response / legislative consequence

Outlined in CNN news coverage is extensive coverage from various politicians for the sake of balance should this not be addressed. Notwitstanding the coincidence of lessening tx gun laws coming into force 1st September 2019. All outlined in ref 6. Perhaps a title outlining any legilislative improvements/erosion "efforts" (subjective) that result in the time period or the shootings, i.e. las vegas shooting led to "bump stock" legislation as a direct consequence. In general there is little recording of outcomes or investigative conclusions. Bodconn (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue related to this page. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Naming the perpetrator

The result of the discussion was include the name per WP:SNOW. El_C 02:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

The perpetrator is not notable, the event is notable. Please discuss here before adding to the article. Please see WP:ONUS. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL as we don't want to memorialize someone who is not notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I humbly believe perpetrators are always named in the shooting articles, at least in the infobox. In every shooting article. But do whatever the consensus is, it won't afffect my sleep. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to understand the event without naming the perpetrator. The name adds nothing except memorializing the perp and proving them (and others in the future that might copy the behavior) the added benefit of being made perpetually famous. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Images of the perp would likewise need consensus prior to being added. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I didn't add the pictures which I am against by the way. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I outdented the other reply to myself. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a discussion about naming the shooter which is why I added to the "Perpetrator" section that had named him prior to my edits as had the infobox. Most of the other events such as this that I have edited, even when there was hesitation to name the shooter; as seen in this case, have included the name of the shooter or a perpetrator section. This may be in an effort to discuss the legal case of a living perpetrator or to discuss motive or the investigation of the incident. In general outside of mimicking other mass shooting articles, I would vote for at least having a perpetrator section highlighting the desire to not name them as was done by the Odessa Police. Leaky.Solar (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Include Name - Every article on a civilian attack has the name of the attacker on it, whether it be in the infobox or in a section about the suspect. I thought the not memorial aspect only applies to list of victims and not the killer. How exactly are we memorializing the killer and why do we need a consensus for every new article now? just have his name in a section under the title suspect, and don't tell me that the no notoriety campaign is the reason why this is a discussion, because Wikipedia is not a censored source. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    What does the name of the shooter provide to the reader? The event is the notable part here, not the individual. WP:1E as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include Name - An article about an event is not authoritative or complete without naming the perp who committed the offense. The article refers to a mass murder and omitting the name of the perp who committed the crime makes the article inferior and incomplete, particularly since all the sources name the perp. The perp is named in numerous articles and new stories related to the event and more than meets the threshold of notability related to the event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    How does the name enhance the understanding of the event for the reader? Wikipedia articles are not authoritative, they are a tertiary collection of notable and relevant information on the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the shooting and the event, not the name of the individual that did it. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include name While not literally essential to understanding the topic, it's traditionally helpful in understanding who the shooter was. Same for his victims, when officially identified. Censorship just begs questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    How do you think the name helps (for the victims or the shooter)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Concisely and precisely reveals whodunnit (or who's done now). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include name It is reasonable to include it and gives more context. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    In what way is the name "adding context"? Unless the name is famous, or the person that engaged in the act was already notable, the name provides nothing to the reader. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include name while this individual does not deserve notability, it would jeopardize other articles already written about shootings. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    The article is absolutely safe as the event was notable, only the name is not. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include Name - But not in the infobox and not in the lead nor really in the description of the incident. The name should be mentioned in the context of it is the name the police released. This would be in a section after the incident description. It is not for Wikipedia at this time to say who did what, only who said what about it. Later, maybe even in a day or two but possibly later, when it is an accepted he was the perpetrator can it be directly presented as so, but not so soon. I do not think the name should ever be in the lead, this guy is not notable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    This is a reasonable compromise, though I hope people will understand how irrelevant a name is in this context. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include name and a section about the perpetrator. We are not creating a separate article about the perpetrator -- that would certainly not be appropriate. However, the perpetrator name and info are always included in these kinds of articles, essentially per WP:DUEWEIGHT requirements, since this info represents a significant aspect of the story and receives significant news coverage. The info about the perpetrator's background, prior criminal and psychological history, where and how he got the gun, etc, needs to go into that section. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    We can talk about the perpetrator without naming them. How does the name add value for the reader? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Excluding the name and referring to him just as "gunman" or "perpetrator" would be artificial and a violation of WP:DUEWEIGHT. All the WP:RS covering the event are naming him now. We should do what the sources covering the event do. Nsk92 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include name. The gunman, Seth Aaron Ator, has been named in reliable sources around the world. His name should be included, consistent with other attack articles. WWGB (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    How does the name of the shooter provide value to the reader? And simply because we've done it in the past is not a good reason to continue doing it. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Locke Cole, come in from the snow. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that we have always included the name in the past is absolutely a good reason to do it here as well. The practice of including the names of the perpetrators reflects the de facto community consensus regarding this issue. This consensus should not be overturned without good reasons, and cetainly not because of some sort of an ideological crusade. Nsk92 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Just add the name of the shooter. Who keeps getting rid of the name edits? It's stupid to keep his name off when you can read it literally anywhere and the shooters named of other shootings are posted. Stop trying to be moral by not naming him, you all just look inept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130C:C7CA:487A:14B7:452E:6AF3 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Comment (after the above discussion was closed):

Leaving the name of the shooter out of a shooting article? Yeah, right. Now, I've seen it all. Wow. Just, wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Not on GPS"

The article states: the shooter's home was not on GPS. Does that mean something? 85.76.74.244 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The CNN source says "Alonzo said she called police after the incident last month, but that they had never responded because the location of the property does not show up on GPS and is difficult to find." I'm not quite sure what this means, maybe it should be clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It probably means that officers had difficulty getting a GPS fix on the property because it was in a remote location. This is a common problem in rural areas.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Ummm... no. The GPS satellite constellation encircles the Earth, and has no concept of, knowledge of, or ability to detect a "rural area".
Popular media editors who write gunk like "not on GPS" are likely a medieval French poetry majors, with no STEM classes on top of that. "House is not on GPS" really truly is not a real thing.
This is so funny. 85.76.74.244 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is most likely associating the address with coordinates the GPS can target a route to. Even in less rural areas GPS can send you to the wrong place to gain access to an address. You have to hunt around a bit to find the driveway. Why they could not just call the woman and get directions I do not know. That is what they did before GPS. It is a lame excuse.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
So the "home was not on GPS". Please tell us more about how that phrase describes reality. 85.76.74.244 (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It means the location's address doesn't appear on GPS receiving devices capable of showing the desired location on a self-contained map display, likely due to the location not being in the map creator's database. However, since the comment is a direct quote and uses language most people understand there is no good reason to change it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed - I understood it perfectly. Sgerbic (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
So there exists a Map Creator who decides which houses "are on GPS". And most people in the world understand that language. Thank you so much, that was super helpful. I learned a lot here! Wikipedia delivers once again. 85.76.74.244 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What I meant was that the officers had difficulty finding the property due to its remote rural location. This is a known problem for the emergency services and the British emergency services are introducing What3words.[2] If an emergency occurs in a remote rural location, it is by no means easy to explain where it is. This does not mean that the location is "not on GPS", which is the phrase used by CNN. The CNN source says "the shooter’s home had no running water or electricity" so I've guessed that it is in a rural place and off the beaten track. Also, map databases are not complete, as others have pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding Image to Article

A bot has noticed me that the image File:Seth Aaron Ator.png will be deleted in seven days as an orphaned NFC image. Editor consensus was not to include the images of Seth Aaron Ator in this article because they were poor quality and considered morbid. Another image was submitted for inclusion and accepted, which is currently in the article. Tagging this discussion as closed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Support adding image of perpetrator to article. Image is located at File:Seth Aaron Ator.png Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion to identify shooter. Fair Use image. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, perpetrator is not notable. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ONUS. Nevermind the moral issue with glorifying the perpetrator for posterity. Also, the event is notable, the perpetrator is not. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
That is not an accurate statement. The event is notable and the perp is identified BY NAME in the article. Adding a photo to identify the shooter seems to make sense particularly since they are named in the article. If they are not notable then you should remove their name from the article. Also, you do not WP:OWN this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You can surely do better than that. Simply saying my statement is not accurate will not suffice. They are not presently named in the article (see section above). And I never said I did, but we will follow Wikipedia policy on adding disputed content. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not notice that you removed the perp from the article. You are correct that if they are not listed in the article then adding the photo makes no sense. As to whether or not the perp is notable is another discussion that must be resolved before a photo is added. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
If he was arrested in Waco 10 years earlier then there should be a mugshot photo around somewhere, I doubt he will be smiling in that photo. I will look around and see if I can locate his mugshot from that arrest event. It may be less morbid. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I do oppose (so don't support) his sour puss in the infobox. Just in his section, scaled to fit. A car with bullet holes in it is ideal for an overall first glimpse up top, nothing personal (I'd avoid similar models, but a photo of the actual murder weapon could work, in theory). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a photo online of one of the cars all shot up with bullet holes from his rampage. Are you saying we should include that photo in the infobox? Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I figured there'd be multiple photos online. As long as it's a shot-up car, it should do for illustrative purposes. But a car shot that day, no stock crap. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I added an image of a truck from the Odessa Furniture Exchange that was shot up by the perp. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Zoomed in that close, it's a bit abstract, but not bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should add a photo to the info box at all, but maybe somewhere else in the article. What is typical of other articles? Sgerbic (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

online footprint

What about this? https://archive.is/zfVts --105.12.6.253 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Online footprint" normally means something someone made themselves online, not online stuff about them. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Straws

Although this is a bit off topic in that not entirely linked except by time. The idea is related changes to us domestic corporate and state changes that are only attributable by time and perhaps shock or "straws" as in the cliche. In thi case Wallmart and San Francisco as in ammunition restrictions and declarations. In the same way Dicks reacted after another mass shootings. In that these occurances are happening but not directly attributed how can we collect these "straws" as they do represent changes in attitude, in my opinion in the case of Wallmart bravely and putting moral and ethical behaviour above profit. Any suggestions? Bodconn (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't sources be available making the connection between retailers voluntarily restricting sales of guns and events such as "Midland–Odessa shooting"? If such sources are available I should think such material could possibly be put in this article, although briefly. Alternately such material might logically be included in Gun control, Assault weapons legislation in the United States, Public opinion on gun control in the United States, Gun politics in the United States, and probably other articles. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Like corporate social responsibility. Regardless of topic, seeming to care about what consumers care about has been a profitable avenue for greedy manipulative salesmen to brave for a while already. But yeah, it was the Walmart mass shooting that made Walmart want to disassociate itself from mass shootings in the current market, not this Honda/Journey/Cinergy business. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

"Democrats generally urged more gun control laws, while Republicans typically offered thoughts and prayers, called for cultural changes, and blamed mental illness issues." should be changed to "Democrats typically urged more gun control laws, while Republicans generally offered thoughts and prayers, called for cultural changes, and blamed mental illness issues. 2603:9000:F706:68:715A:2FF8:55B1:2FE9 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I think "typically" would be too strong a word for this? Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I am neither opposed or in favor of the suggestion. It would seem to me that it would make no difference. But I could be convinced by the person making the suggestion if they provided good reasoning for the suggested change. Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
As the person who introduced the adverbs (to not literally include everyone), I can verify your suspicion; makes no difference. Just didn't want to be repetitive and something had to go first. If "typical" is one of those words that sounds meaner than it should (or if "general" seems distinguished and cool), rotating the pairings periodically might be "fair", perhaps every four years (I don't care which team starts). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Could also go with "some" and "several", if we want pure vague numbers instead of implicit wider patterns (or if we'd simply rather describe nouns than verbs, nothing wrong with that). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The Lead

Can we make the lead more informative per MOS:LEAD? I’ve tried to change it a couple times but it keeps getting reverted. I’d just like to see the perp mentioned in the first sentence. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I oppose putting the name of the perp in the first lead sentence. It does not add anything to a quick understanding the incident. The second sentence paragraph gives his name and gives context. I think it works fine like that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. No need for the name in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be in the opening sentence, but should be in the WP:LEAD. Otherwise it looks like a flawed "don't glorify the shooter" argument.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So we should leave it as it is now with the name in the second paragraph. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The name of the shooter is not important in any way at all. His background might be, as it might help explain why it happened. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So in that case the WP:LEAD of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting should not say that Adam Lanza was the shooter. Obviously it does, because the WP:LEAD summarizes material in the rest of the article. This objection looks like a variation of "don't glorify the shooter".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I choose my words carefully. Do not try to claim I meant something else. The incident is important. What happened is important. Neither the name of the shooter, nor really the victims, are important to people who didn't know them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense not to name the shooter in the WP:LEAD section, as virtually all articles about mass shootings do this. Why is Ator different in this respect?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your only argument is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That essay answers your question. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering why Ator should not be named in the WP:LEAD when virtually all mass shooting articles do this. It is fully compliant with WP:LEAD guidelines to do this, and it still looks like some sort of "don't glorify the shooter" argument to remove the name while keeping it later on in the article. Quote: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Where does the shooter's name fit into that template? HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
There are WP:BLPCRIME issues when the alleged shooter is still alive and facing trial. When the shooter is dead and there is no serious doubt that he did it, there is no problem with naming the person in the lead section and the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
But why do it at all? His name makes no difference to what happened. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
HiLo48—why, in your opinion of course, would the name make no difference? Do you have some reason for wanting to omit this information from the lede? If so, can you articulate that reason? Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about my position. The name of the shooter makes no difference at all to what happened. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make any difference if the 2019 El Paso shooting was allegedly carried out by Patrick Crusius or John Doe, but he is still named in the WP:LEAD section and the main body of the article. We're now going round in circles on this issue and you still haven't given a clear and convincing reason why Ator's name should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
1. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 2. Surely my reason is 100% clear. As for whether it's convincing, you're simply saying it was done somewhere else, so again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You see, that reason is no reason at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is now beyond the scope of this talk page because it seems to revolve around making an exception for Ator. There have been numerous previous discussions about including full lists of victims' names (which I oppose) but saying "the shooter's name makes no difference" is controversial because it looks like a variation of a "don't glorify the shooter" argument. This argument has never gone very far on talk pages. Ator is named, it was in reliable news coverage, it isn't a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Any circles we are going around in here are entirely of your creation. This is NOT a variation of a "don't glorify the shooter" argument, although I certainly don't want to glorify him. My argument is precisely what I say it is. Stop trying to represent it as something else. That's bad faith. And I don't really care what happens in other articles. Have you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I am discussing this article, not others. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:OSE, "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". WWGB (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The question under discussion is whether THIS article should include the shooter's name in the lead, and that's what I have been commenting on. If the only reason for including it is that it's done in other articles, then I retire from the discussion now. The question here may as well not have been asked. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to understand why anyone would be agonizing over any of this. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I hesitate to revive an issue that appears to be resolved. But I doubt it would stay resolved forever, so here's my 2c. I oppose "because that's how it's done in other articles" reasoning, which seems a very weak argument at best. But this name should be in the lead for the same reasons the perp's name should be in the lead of any articles about events with similar characteristics – zero doubt about the perp's identity and there will be no trial. Those reasons:
  1. He is the active actor in the event. His actions and the event are one and the same.
  2. All RS coverage of the event names him. Any exceptions are articles about multiple events, related political issues, etc., not specifically and exclusively about this event.
It doesn't need to be in the first sentence, and what we have now (permalink, do not edit) seems fine to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that reliable sources would support that "his actions and the event are one and the same". But I think his name can be mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midland–Odessa_shootings/Archive_1&oldid=1140293154"