Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting

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

Alleged neo-Nazi ties[edit]

8+ sources have independently confirmed that the suspect has ties/interest to neo-Nazism and the alt-right movement. I would say wait and see, but it appears at least a dozen news organizations are independently confirming it. Should we include the allegations into the article? -- AJackSpear (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The sources that you have listed are mostly entertainment related sites and are opinion based. As I stated before, they all reference the suspect's Facebook postings which is not a reliable source. I suggest leaving this off of the article until it is confirmed by authorities to be truthful. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The social media profiles have been confirmed as authentic by classmates. At the very least, the New York Times is one of the most reliable sources that an article can cite. As long as it doesn't go into stupid and trival details, I think it's alright to be included. AJackSpear (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the suspects classmates confirmed that they are authentic, as in posted by the suspect, this does not qualify as being truthful. It is easier to spread false news then to investigate the truth. I still say remove it for now and if confirmed by authorities as being truthful, then put it back in the article. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He had nazi AND communist symbols on his jacket. He was an edgelord, not a nazi. The media is so quick to blame anything and everything on the alt right. Edit: and he had some bisexual heart pin thing. Real neo-nazis hate gays. Alex of Canada (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Premeditated Chaos for the revert. AJackSpeark, those weren't "investigations". Alex, as long as we're freewheeling, real neo-Nazis are closet gays. I suppose that's the point: this is all speculation. What we can say for sure is that he was male, which is relevant, and apparently white, which is also relevant, but I don't think we add "white" to white killers. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He also had a peace symbol. Looks like he was going Full Stanley Kubrick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:DD0A:488:3683:D36B (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Pagourtzis: a self-described atheist on his Facebook page[edit]

Dimitrios Pagourtzis is a self-described atheist on his Facebook page. sources: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-santa-fe-school-shooting-20180518-story.html and http://abc13.com/what-we-know-about-the-santa-fe-shooting-suspect-/3491593/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alleged-school-killer-dimitrios-pagourtzis-was-nondescript-betraying-a-growing-darkness/2018/05/18/d69f5b88-5ade-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1147c1dc2d21 and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44173954

Reliable sources indicate he is a self-described atheist.Knox490 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much trivial as problematic and off topic unless it helps to explain the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to go use many words, those would be decent words to use. I think WWGB is on board, but either way I appreciate their recent fluffy FLURRY! FLURRY! of article-improving edits. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
include. Highly relevant, or it wouldn’t have been reported. Shows why he committed the MAss murders. Atheism drove him to it -- 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:2D62:8752:21F3:1B1F (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant unless an official investigative source says so. Bohbye (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motive in a mass shooting is a lot harder than it looks. Even the mainstream media can make mistakes early on and jump to conclusions that are subsequently disproved. The atheism angle is irrelevant unless it emerges that it was a factor in the motive. His Facebook page had a red pentagram on it,[1] which will no doubt interest some people, but beyond being a bit of an odd person, no clear motive has emerged so far. The red pentagram seems to have been taken from the cover art from the 2014 album Dangerous Days by Perturbator.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered by mainstream media right? So why we can't state it? Lorstaking (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It fails to distinguish him from innumerable other people. Bus stop (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lorstaking, I think the best answer to that question is at WP:ONUS. RS coverage is the first step in the filtering process, not the only one. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highly relevant, or it wouldn’t have been reported. See WP:ONUS. Shows why he committed the MAss murders. Atheism drove him to it. See Correlation does not imply causation and WP:SYNTH. Oppose inclusion unless RS connects it to the shooting, and I mean more than one or two minor sources. New York Times or Washington Post would be nice. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is the Washington Post. Another is the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
unless RS connects it to the shooting - Reporting the mere fact is not connecting. Connecting is reporting something like, "Investigators found papers in his room in which he wrote that he wanted to kill to show that there is no God." Then we would have relevance.
Newspapers have entirely different inclusion criteria than we do, and they report any factoid they can get their hands on because that's what newspapers do. They have no relevance filter, we do.
Sources also report that he is a gamer, so are we to include that because they report it? He could have been influenced by FPS games! Would anybody care to propose other WP:SYNTH editing for our consideration? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Investigators found a ton of first person shooter video games in Adam Lanza's house, but did not believe that these ultimately led to the Sandy Hook shooting. The media, however, is prone to Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I've yet to see any media report claiming that the Santa Fe shooting occurred because he was an atheist, and would be wary of this unless it came from his own lips or the words of investigators who had looked at all of the evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss—you referred to "one or two minor sources...New York Times or Washington Post would be nice" but the sources provided by Knox490 are Washington Post, BBC News, LA Times, and ABC News. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of which connect atheism to the shooting. As I said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about any connectedness between atheism and the shooting. Nothing, as in n-o-t-h-i-n-g. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shana Fisher pregnancy allegations[edit]

The neo Nazi claims above are ridiculous but reliable news outlets are reporting that Shana Fisher was pregnant with Dimitrio’s child. So he killed her and her friends in a targeted attack. Far more reasonable proposition than neo Nazi claims. I do concede that his lawyer disputes this but... you know lawyers disputes everything... 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:2D62:8752:21F3:1B1F (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? Where? Zero that I can find Bohbye (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything in the reporting about Shana Fisher being pregnant. There are reliable reports that Fisher's mother told the Los Angeles Times that Pagourtzis had made unwanted advances on Fisher for four months, that Fisher rejected his advances, and then finally stood up to Pagourtzis and embarrassed him in class last week. Fisher's mother then stated her belief that Pagourtzis deliberately targeted Fisher in the school shooting as a person he didn't like. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it’s spaculation by a mother of a victim, it’s not backed up by witnesses (yet) and neither is it mentioned by authorities as part of the investigation. We all know that kids don’t necessarily tell the full 100% truth to their parents and sometimes parents will make up stuff as well when their child is dead and the child isn’t alive to say otherwise. At this point this info should be left off the page unless there will be more info released by the authorities or stories from witnesses in school specifically saying that she was a target and why. --Bohbye (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bohbye, please don't start citing Facebook pages for anything of this kind in a BLP. I am going to put an alert on your talk page: be aware that you can be topic-banned for serious violations of WP:BLP. Thank you. And I'm saying this here because there is way too much speculation here from way too many editors. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before the day was out, the person interviewed as the mother in the reports had a facebook fundraising campaign. I'm not even sure we could reliably say it was the actual mother yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:DD0A:488:3683:D36B (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t go that far to say that she is not the mother, and don’t judge heartbroken parents when their life just fell apart. --Bohbye (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Sadie woman listed earlier is not her mom and is a liar according to this post a by a famkly member so nothing should be quoted by that woman. --Bohbye (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims' names[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
  • Summary:-There is a checkY consensus to include the list of victims.
  • Details:-
    • First things first, any argument bordering along the lines of similar stuff exists have been practically discounted.Solely clinging to precedents doesn't fly in the face of valid argumentation from another side and they have been assigned either little or no weight-age as a variant of circular argumentation.
    • The most prominent argument in the entire debate is the fact that the names have been mass-reported in a variety of reliable sources.In that case, the debate of inclusion/exclusion boils down solely to editorial discretion.
      • Weighing editorial discretion without indulging in super-voting is practically impossible and accordingly, a head-count leads to the result......
    • FWIW, I have a far nuanced reading of NOTMEMORIAL, somewhere along Carwil's line(s) and would urge the community to settle the debate about it's ambit, via a RFC.
  • Signed by ∯WBGconverse at 15:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have to have this discussion again. Such a list is quite common in school shooting and massacre articles. WWGB (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed currently as being "...Victims section is unencyclopedic and violates WP:BLP". I fail to see where this list is any different that any other victim list on other school shootings. BLP: Deceased Persons states that there needs to be a creditable source, which are listed within that section of the article. There are actually quite a few creditable sources that list the victims of this tragedy. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance of WP:BDP which you linked. zzz (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are the individual that put the "violates the WP:BDP" so I ask what part of it does the list of victims violate? As stated before on many of these shootings, a victim list is populated in the articles. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are the individual who raised WP:BDP. I asked what the relevance is. zzz (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to get into a pissing match over this. I have recently been updating the references to keep the article easily editable. Here is the history of the edits where the WP:BDP was invoked. So, if this is not in violation, lets remove the notice. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are the individual who raised BDP. I don't know what your difficulty is, or what the relevance, if any, is. zzz (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Cleanup notice from the article. I feel that there has been enough talk in past talks on articles related to shootings that this removal is justified. If not, put it back or better yet, clean up the article to get it within standards. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of full lists of the victims' names, but know from past experience that some people will insist on having one. WP:OTHERCONTENT becomes involved here, and it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. At 2017 Las Vegas shooting there was a consensus not to have a full list because it doesn't add much to the article, but articles like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting do.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some people will insist on various things. That is irrelevant, as is WP:OTHERSTUFF. It should be removed unless there is consensus that it adds to the readers understanding of the event. zzz (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, it demonstrates the age, gender and racial/ethnic distribution of the deceased. 124.169.107.104 (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Age doesn't require a section, or any names. What do you mean by "for starters"? zzz (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So there is an entire section and a load of bullet-points just so the reader knows that 2 were possibly Hispanic. zzz (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, how many times are we going to have this discussion? TheHoax (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really needed to add that comment I guess: [3] [4] [5] [6]... zzz (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many times are you going to keep deleting other people's comments? Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that you get to delete their comments on the talk page. TheHoax (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted your comment. Do you like it? TheHoax (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since your contribution, this has degenerated, so it doesn't matter. zzz (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, how many times are we going to have this discussion? The community has failed to reach a community consensus on these lists, so we are condemned to debate the question at each article in which somebody cares to raise it. You are not the only one who finds it tiresome, but the community has given us no choice. Furthermore, what editors at the other articles have decided is not relevant to the decision at this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You must enjoy creating a scene on any page with victim lists. Makes you happy? Will you live happily ever after if you succeeded to remove a fatality list on one page on Wiki? will it help you to prove a point on future massacres? After you raised my edit count by bragging technically about yours you lost all credibility IMHO. --Bohbye (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Did you think that we wouldn't all be back here again? You have to accept that there is no community consensus on the issue. If you want to do something then there are other venues as I stated before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: Huh? I do accept that there is no community consensus on this issue. I said so on this very page here, and I said so to you at Stoneman Douglas too. So I really don't get your point. The fact that there is no community consensus is precisely why we're here in this discussion. The community has decided (for now) that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, so that's what we're doing. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pattern of disruptive editing to create a scene on talk pages. Didn't get the consensus to agree on MSD, and patiently waited for another shooting to prove a point, must be happy there was one finally. Also down talking others for having fewer edits all while so much of their edits are just talk is just showing the true character. --Bohbye (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, if you would care to test those theories, WP:ANI is that way. Don't forget to notify me per the instructions at the top. Otherwise you're boring me and most likely everybody else too. This will be my last response to your nonsense. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you think it will be different this time? Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. TheHoax (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bohbye—you can't say "patiently waited for another shooting to prove a point, must be happy there was one finally.[7] That is ugly. We shouldn't even be talking about one another much less attributing vile character to another editor baselessly. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of lack of political courage, the next school mass shooting in the near future is inevitable. Cowardly politicians will give their "thoughts and prayers" and move on. TheHoax (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are a distinct category from politicians, by and large. I wasn't addressing politicians. Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Victims list[edit]

Oppose inclusion of the victims list
Support inclusion of the victims list

  • Oppose per the same arguments I presented here (first !vote), which are too lengthy and complex to repeat redundantly here. As for showing genders and ages (and ethnicity, if that's deemed relevant), that can be summarized without listing names, so that kills that argument completely. And some of these names are gender-ambiguous anyway, such as Chris. I'm removing the list pending consensus for it here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove just because it's your opinion. --Bohbye (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove just because it's my opinion. I removed per routine editing process. I linked and quoted WP:ONUS in my edit summary but, since you ignored it, I'll quote it again here. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Also see WP:BRD, which describes the most commonly accepted process thusly: You add content. I dispute it by reverting it. You seek consensus for the content. You are turning BRD upside down based on a few weeks of editing experience and less than 1,000 edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your 43K edits doesn't make you better than anyone else. School shootings list names of fatalities, pretty much consensus across the board. So if you have a problem with it, use the talk page to get your opinion known and seek consensus. --Bohbye (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS clearly puts the consensus burden on you, not me. Show me how that's a false statement. Even if there were some PAG that gave weight to precedent, and there apparently is not because my request for one was ignored, it wouldn't shift the consensus burden from you to me. It would give you a stronger argument in the discussion, but it wouldn't be the last word and you would still need consensus to include, per WP:ONUS. It's both unwise and useless to ignore cited rules while inventing your own to replace them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to jump in here but Bohbye, "that's just your opinion" is a laughable argument, esp. if reasons were given. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that you bring an example of an article that actually has the names on it? so your argument falls flat. It didn't work then, and should not count here either. --Bohbye (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That closed with "no consensus", and the list was left in only because it had been in for a couple of weeks before the discussion was started. And that only because nobody noticed that there was an 8-8 tie to include it in the prior discussion, and therefore no consensus to include it; otherwise it would have been removed at that time and the consensus burden would have been on those wanting to include it. That was an aberration and almost never occurs. This is a completely different situation, and, even if that had been a consensus to include, what has been decided at other articles does not bear on this article. Local consensuses are local in effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it ok to list the victims in other articles related to murder but not in murders that are school shootings? If we exclude lists from these articles, which we are voting on, then we should remove the lists from all articles. These victims gained notability after they were murdered not prior. Cases in point are the following: Victims of John Wayne Gacy, victims of Ted Bundy, victims of Jeffrey Dahmer. All of the examples given notability due to massive media coverage just like the case in point with every school shooting in the 21st century. I agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial and that people need to have some notability but this article is no different than other articles. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the removal of those as well. Unless the killer was specifically going after a particular person, the names of those victims aren't really relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If we look at every US school/campus shooting article in the 21st century, we find that every such article contains the names of the victims: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. This is not an other stuff exists argument, it is a consistent established precedent. Yes, it is unfortunate that we have this discussion every time there is a school shooting, but there is no majority interest in excluding the names of school shooting fatalities. WWGB (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WWGB: Can you please cite the policy for established precedent? It's possible I just missed something. But if that's truly a thing, it seems it would be worth one or two sentences somewhere in the morass of policy and guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WWGB: You're saying that deaths at school should be treated differently by Wikipedia? Unbelievable, of course they shouldn't. That would be absurd. zzz (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I love a soccer game where one team is behind 13 goals to nil, but they never give up. Wonderful! Such perseverance ... WWGB (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You actually are saying that, then?? zzz (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohbye: Contacting only supporters of a particular position is clearly canvassing and is most unfortunate. I suggest you contact the opponents as well, to restore balance and avoid administrator scrutiny of your actions. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK @WWGB: Thanks for the clarification - Mass ping of all opponents as well. @Mandruss: @Natureium: @Tribe of Tiger: @MrX: @Ohconfucius: @CookieMonster755:(partial support) @Pincrete: @Mr rnddude: @Khajidha: @Chaheel Riens: @Edison: @ValarianB: @Bkellar: @GreenMeansGo:(Fairly apathetic support) --Bohbye (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here now, but your first ping to the supporters of previous discussion didn't actually ping me. You need to sign at the end of line of the pings for it to work I believe. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was signed. Added the signature, hopefully, the ping worked now. Thanks for the heads-up. --Bohbye (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging with signature. @Knowledgekid87: @WikiVirusC: @Bus stop: @Legacypac: @Pharos: @InedibleHulk: @Spirit of Eagle: @ScratchMarshall: @Starship.paint: @TheHoax: @Carwil: Bohbye (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've never been a fan of full lists of the victims' names, but usually end up on the losing side.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In the same manner as Mandruss: per the same arguments I presented here. I'll quote but a single sentence from that entire debacle: It's a block of text that tells me nothing of what happened, how it happened, why it happened, or why its important. Names give no context, and contain little informational value. It's a form of memorialization. It's also making me think of the recent video by Cody from the Alternate History Hub and a comment about how the media score keeping is fueling a cycle of copycats. Though that's unrelated to this discussion here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've managed to be on the 'losing' side on almost every one of these discussions - the same arguments are repeated each time. On the 'pro' side the argument is almost always that 'incident X has such a list'. I endorse the oppose argument that it adds nothing whatsoever to understanding the event - and may even be intrusive. Ages, genders and other relevant info is better summarised in text. I respect the impulse that causes editors to wish to record names - to individualise victims, - especially when feelings are high in the period following the event, but on balance, it isn't the purpose of WP, which is to create a neutral record of the event, which is done more successfully if we put such feelings to one side IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments made by Mandruss, Mr mddude, and Pincrete --Khajidha (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I have not been involved in any other school article, all I can say is the list is intrusive and the idea that it is required by some rule is absurd, and incorrect. zzz (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion, generally don't find any reason not to include, and it is information that a reader may want to know. Don't really think we need to mention who was an exchange student or not. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No question Oppose. We have never, until it seems fairly recently, included a list of victims for disasters, accidents, massacres, but these lists are out of place. These lists seem to be creeping in on the backs of an emotional factor and not based on intellectual vigour. Such lists fall within the realm of what Wikipedia is not... a memorial, a laundry list, the news. I am personally totally supportive of effective gun control measures in the USA, but WP is not the place for any sort of WP:ADVOCACY or WP:SOAPBOXING. Furthermore, other stuff exists, so their existence in a few places elsewhere does not grant licence to include them systematically. These lists should be summarily removed on sight. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support same as my logic at Stoneman Douglas and because there is no point covering a murder without saying who was killed. Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We compile information, and inarguably who died is pertinent and relevant to a shooting. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Encyclopedic value is added by giving the names as they are notable within the context of the event. I suggest that WP:MEMORIAL be looked at (reworded to clarify) as it only seems to apply to people that have their own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposish - No information value and seems disrespectful. If the name appears in narrative of events and how they were shot does tell a tale. A list does not provide the same recognition of the person, seems a bit disrespectful. I have no WP policy for or against here, just a negative that this is not a good way to present a name if one is going to do so and left out seems better than a list. Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Markbassett: Can't remember where I read this, and someone might correct me, but I think your vote has to be bolded in order to be counted by automated tallyers. Mathglot (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything bolded? Or just the words "support" and "oppose"? I am concerned that the machine might get torn up by a fanciful term like "opposish". We don't want to cause a mental breakdown in an inanimate device. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Names are the easiest way of keeping track of victims, motives, and involvement in a complex event where the deaths were anything other than simultaneous and indiscriminate. As I've said elsewhere: "I think that sequenced events with a small number of total fatalities should include the death list so as to provide a clearer explanation of what happened. In this case, we have not just a sequence but individuals who died after intervening in the event." Also, in this case, reports indicate that the shooter targeted certain individuals and avoided targeting others. These are encyclopedic details best indexed by naming the victims involved. When the victim list is short and several people are individually notable, and demographic characteristics are part of reliable source coverage (here regarding purported gender motivations of the killing and the effect of the shooting on a foreign community who lost one member), it's best to just use names and basic characteristics. In my understanding, WP:MEMORIAL prohibits eulogizing the dead unduly, not listing them where it is relevant.--Carwil (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am not going to mention my reasons again since it was already debated and put up to a vote twice already on the Stoneman Douglass shooting and my reasons haven't changed. TheHoax (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Who died in a tragedy, especially young people deserve their due weight in this article. This is especially true if there are reliable sources that detail the names, ages, etc of the victims, so as to not violate WP:BLP or WP:CRYSTAL. Even searching the recent news, there are many reliable sources detailing the victims and their biographies. As such, the least we can do is to list their names and ages, but we shouldn't get so intricate in the details. List name and age only. WP:MEMORIAL deals with articles surrounding the individual victims, and as such does not apply to the due weight of this supposed list. Tutelary (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First, credible media sources (the same ones being used to write this article) have given and will give substantial coverage to the victims of this tragedy. Writing an article about a shooting without information on the various victims would make the article, as well as the “Victims” sub-section, incomplete. Second, when there is intense media coverage of a certain aspect of a certain event, I think there is a presumption that the aspect should be included in the article. It’s true that we are not required to include everything the media says in an article. However, the mere fact that we can exclude is not a valid argument to exclude. Third, WP:NOTMEMORIAL prohibits the creation of articles on non-notable individuals (even if they died heroically or tragically), and requires that all language within an article be encyclopedic. It says nothing about the inclusion of verifiable information of debatable encyclopedic significance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given reliable sources. Other articles on similar attacks include victim names, and any given reader is likely to be looking for this information, without which the article will not be complete. I agree with Spirit of Eagle, just above, that people are mistaking the meaning and scope of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It is exactly the same confusion as "don't include this in the article because it's not WP:NOTABLE". Both the notability and memorialization rules apply to creation of stand-alone articles, not the inclusion of verifiable information in articles on clearly encyclopedic topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on keeping on Names and ages always, hometowns and jobs where sensible, ethnicity never. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support List of names victims is something that I expect to find in an article about a mass shooting, if the list is not too long (like hundreds of names). Ankit2 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Process - Victims list[edit]

  • Note Noting for the record that my decision not to edit war to enforce correct process does not constitute de facto consensus for this content. The content is being left in to avoid edit warring, not because editors are silently supporting it. I disputed the content less than 28 hours after it was added, not nearly long enough to establish de facto consensus to include it. That means that a "no consensus" in this discussion means the content will be removed. That being said, I would prefer that some knowledgeable editor set things straight by removing the content pending consensus to include it, per WP:ONUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-correction - The content was disputed by at least two editors before me, here and here, but I wasn't around to see it. Make that 13 hours, not 28. This should have come to this page upon the first challenge, and multiple editors involved in that have been around long enough to know that we don't resolve content disputes via re-reverts and edit summaries. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop having this debate?[edit]

This issue was already debated and put up to a vote twice after the Stoneman Douglas shooting. Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. Just because Mandruss doesn't like the result doesn't mean that he should keep putting the same issue up for a vote again, and again, and again. TheHoax (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the close statement at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles. "There is a consensus against enacting this proposal, and consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis." Per that community consensus, no, we cannot stop having this debate. If you disagree, take it up with the community in an appropriate venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the same arguments are thrown in each and every time. It would make sense to me to make an exception for those who are notable in the context of the event as we would do for with any other subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: I have no problem with discussing anything that collaborative editors want to discuss. That's what this page is for. I won't tolerate much more baseless and combative sniping about a situation I did not create and a discussion I did not start, however. It would be helpful if one or three of you experienced and responsible editors would speak up in that regard, so we could eliminate the distraction and get on with the business at hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and how is this shooting different from the Stoneman Douglas shooting three months ago? If there are 100 victims, you can make a very convincing argument that the two shooting are sufficiently different and that we need to have this discussion. TheHoax (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The result at Stoneman Douglas was "no consensus". There, that meant the list stayed in, since the closer judged that there was a de facto consensus resulting from the list being in the article for two weeks. No such de facto consensus exists here, so "no consensus" would mean the list comes out, per WP:ONUS (and it would be out now, per WP:ONUS, if a few people here were willing to respect accepted process). So sure, let's use Stoneman Douglas as a precedent, I'm all for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and what makes you think that the result from this discussion would be different from the results of the previous two discussions? TheHoax (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I just wrote? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Are you going to answer my question or not? TheHoax (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already have, and I don't waste space repeating myself. Have a good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more question: If there is a no consensus again, are you going to keep re-opening this discussion again, and again, and again until the cows come home? TheHoax (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus again, the list will come out per WP:ONUS and I will have no reason to re-open this discussion. Are you? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not the one opening the discussion so I don't know why you are asking me. TheHoax (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you think I opened this discussion, apparently. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the next similar school mass shooting is inevitable and going to happen in the near future (because of political inaction). I would hope that there won't be another discussion on whether to include the victim list or not, so there won't be another discussion on why we are having the same discussion again. TheHoax (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My order of preference is: 1. A community consensus to omit these lists as default, allowing for exceptions by local consensus. 2. A community consensus to include these lists as default, allowing for exceptions by local consensus. 3. A community consensus to decide case-by-case, or no community consensus at all, either of which kicks the issue down to article level.
Sadly I don't run the place, and what we have is 3. So we will unfortunately see more of these until that changes, and I'm sorry if it's the same arguments again and again. Actually this would consume very little time if editors would just !vote and move on. One minute per editor times about 30 editors, that's 30 editor-minutes for each mass shooting. Have you noticed that people who are tired of these discussions always want the other side to be the ones to give up and let it go? So it's not so much about the waste of time as it's about getting things their way. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, do not support the inclusion of victim names in articles, including school shootings. (Yes, I !voted to keep the list here, but only because I cannot stand inconsistency in similar articles across Wikipedia.) We do not include victim names in plane crashes, fires, building collapses etc. School shootings should not be any different. I suspect many "include" !voters are influenced by the emotion of the situation: acknowledging young innocent lives snatched prematurely by a fanatic. I agree with Mandruss that community consensus is the ideal. How to achieve that? I guess there should be a survey at a project level, but which one? Schools? Deaths? Voting for inclusion/exclusion on a case-by-case basis is tiresome and repetitious. We are likely to have fewer editors contributing opinions over time, making each decision more unrepresentative. I welcome suggestions where this discussion may be had, once and for all. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mention fires. The 2016 Oakland warehouse fire lists fatalities. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I think a second RFC is needed to establish a default rule on victim lists. The first RFC proposed a hard ban on even mentioning the names of non-notable victims; no exception was made for victims who were significant within the context of the tragedy. With the proposed second RFC, local consensus could override a default rule. However, supporters of an override would need to have good, specific reasons for the article in question. I believe that this would allow more flexibility (the lack of which caused a lot of editors to oppose during the first RFC), and prevent a lot of repetitive debates.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I want. But don't think the exception clause would make it a lot easier to pass, I've seen such "default/exception" proposals fail too many times. I would work on framing with anybody who cares to do that—which could be done in a user sandbox to reduce clutter on this page—but I'm not putting my name on a new community RfC only 6 months after the last one. As to WWGB's question, I think any new RfC should be at WP:VPP like the last one. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A de facto ban on the victim list with exception on a case by case basis is the wrong way to go about this, but if you are opposed to the victim list, it make sense that you would want this. It would strengthen your hand and weaken the hand of those who have the opposite position. TheHoax (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely in favor of a default ban on such lists. Individual victims should only be named when the perpetrator specifically names them. For example, if a shooter wanders through a school saying "Tommy, oh Tommy! Come out and die, Tommy!" we should mention who Tommy was. Or if a manifesto is left saying "I hate Mrs. Abdelnaby! She shouldn't have failed me in Physics! I'll show her!", Mrs. Abdelnaby should be mentioned. BUT, general rants such as "CHEERLEADERS ARE ALL BITCHES WHO MUST DIE!" would only allow us to say that "four cheerleaders were killed and two more wounded", but not to name the specific ones. --Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot things like those victims that the survivors mention as having made special efforts to stop the shooter or to help others escape. --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha Your conflict-of-interest has tainted your position. Obviously, since you oppose the inclusion of the victims list (as you stated above), you would likely want a default de-facto ban. TheHoax (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No more so than you. Obviously, since you support the inclusion you would oppose the ban. --Khajidha (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha Actually, no. I was going to suggest that we count the votes (that are above) of those that support and those that are opposed, and make that the de facto position of future school mass shootings articles. TheHoax (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing decided on this page can affect any other article. Even if we agreed on that locally, editors at future articles would have a good laugh if you tried to impose that on them. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss You just gave away your position: if you can't have the de-facto ban that you want, you will keep reopening the debate on the victims list after every school mass shooting. TheHoax (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rats! Ya caught me! ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and if you haven't noticed, the people who are discussing the Stoneman Douglas shooting and this shooting are mostly the same people. If there is another school mass shooting anytime soon, a lot of the same users will be returning for the discussions. So, there goes your "editors at future articles". TheHoax (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Over and out. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Time to settle it once for all. WP:NOTMEMORIAL Victim lists in mass tragedy articles - Round 2 Cheers, --Bohbye (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mother's ethnicity[edit]

If Heavy.com is good enough a reference for the father being Greek, then it's good enough a reference for the mother being Hispanic (which Heavy.com cites from here). Please can users not remove this information again unless they have a better reference to the contrary. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add his father or mothers background. None of his parent backgrounds contributed to the motive for his crime, and neither should any background be smeared with a crime. Removed both. --Bohbye (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removal per WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT. No relevance shown or even claimed by the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing the name of a juvenile suspect[edit]

Should the name of a living juvenile suspect be published at all, much less prior to his conviction? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it public information, published already by authorities? --Bohbye (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's 17, but this is the United States and this has received major media coverage. It's unlikely that the article will go down the road of some European countries and ban naming him unless he is convicted. Although I'm not an expert on US law, if mainstream media outlets such as CNN and the New York Times have named him, they must think that it is legally sound and there would be little point in Wikipedia concealing the name when it is in all of the cites anyway. His name is in court documents issued by the State of Texas [21] so there appears to be no bar to naming him.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Ianmacm:, in 1993, I was told that the Chicago Tribune omitted the names of juveniles solely as a courtesy, not as an obligation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overall though, his name has appeared widely in the media. I don't think that naming him goes against WP:BLPCRIME, and he waived his Miranda rights and admitted to the shooting. It would be more of a problem if he had pleaded not guilty, but even then it wouldn't really help if the article hid his name when it is in the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A 17-year-old Texan is not a juvenile in a Texas police reporter context. For what that's worth. Even if he were, this is a "sensational" case, so it'd be forgiven. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that 17 year olds are automatically considered adults under Texas criminal law. In regards to U.S. cases, typically juveniles' names are revealed in the media if they are tried as adults and this is reflected in Wikipedia practice. The shooter here will automatically be tried as an adult under Texas law. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Shooter[edit]

I think it will be notable to put an image of the shooter like other shooter incident article or serial killers. Hansonjay (t@lk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The limiting factor is WP:NFCC. Local police mugshots in the USA are assumed to be copyrighted. Attempts to add fair use images of mugshots often fail. The other argument is "we mustn't glorify people who do bad things" but since Charles Manson has a public domain image, he is in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded and replaced the image in this article. It was removed in this edit because it was previously uploaded to Commons, and they do not allow non-free images. I have added the fair use rationale as well. Tutelary (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean if we put image of shooter, we glorify killer, so all readers will know and embarassed himself as a killer. Hansonjay (t@lk) 09:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who shot victims?[edit]

To add to article: were all 23 people (10 people killed and 13 people injured) shot by Pagourtzis or were any of them shot by police in the crossfire? If all were shot by Pagourtzis, which weapon(s) were used, did Pagourtzis reload, and, if so, how many times? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say, and would not be in the article unless there was reliable sourcing. The amount of deaths and injuries suggests that the guns may have been reloaded. It's speculative whether the police shot anyone by accident, and there is no sourcing for this. This would have to wait for the coroner's report.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to know. You will need to wait for the conclusion of the investigation including the coroner report. Bohbye (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns About Glorifying School Shooters[edit]

I am concerned about the detail of school shooting incidents, especially on this page. I realize the need for information, but I fear that describing the way this shooter moved through the classroom and interacted with his victims glorifies his heinous act and gives a how-to to a degree for potential violent actors. Can you consider revamping some of the detail here? 216.48.192.75 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This leads to a WP:NOTCENSORED problems. Wikipedia articles report what reliable sources have said; they do not hide material that is necessary for a full understanding of what happened.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trey[edit]

Trey Lemley (he uses the stage name of Trey Louis) survived this unthinkable, unbelievable tragedy. Regardless of whether or not Trey Louis gets to the top 24 or beyond on the show American Idol, he deserves a paragraph on this Wikipedia article and on the city's Wikipedia page. He may well go on to get his own Wikipedia page. He is hugely gifted and I feel he will do great things. He is a credit to his city and the US.Infactinteresting (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if he wins AI we might write his back story. Until that happens, no way. WWGB (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, clear WP:TOPIC and WP:DUE issues otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wins? Seriously? I would say top 12 should get him his own article. He's already earned being mentioned on the three pages which are related: this pg. Santa Fe High School in Tx., and Santa Fe, Tx.Infactinteresting (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2024[edit]

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Santa Fe High School shooting → Santa Fe High School shooting – There is no other shooting at a Santa Fe High School and the current title unnecessarily makes the shooting harder to find. The year does not have to be included in the title of the article in the case of a school shooting unless another notable shooting happens at the same school (which, to my knowledge has never happened). MountainDew20 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting&oldid=1212409337"