Talk:2019 Saugus High School shooting
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2019 Saugus High School shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | On 24 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2019 Saugus High School shooting to Saugus High School shooting. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Request for comment: Victims' names
[edit]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.
Should the article include the names of the dead victims? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: This used to be a formal Request for Comment. What happened to that? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: This happened to that. Note that I have re-opened yesterday's ANI complaint per the mainspace activity, if you haven't already noted that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Survey: Victims' names
[edit]- Omit - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing – Wikipedia is not a democracy – and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[1] It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss—you say "there are arguable privacy concerns". If there are privacy concerns I will join you in arguing this information should be omitted. What are the privacy concerns? Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- I expounded at some length in one of the many previous discussions. I haven't been able to find that since, and I doubt I could be that eloquent again, but it had to do with the increasing societal desire to be as anonymous as possible, even in death, and that the families' privacy should be considered as well. I have not claimed any solid policy basis for this – even though I believe the spirit of it can be seen in some policies such as WP:BLPNAME – but these discussions would be a small fraction of their size if everybody limited themselves to solid policy basis.I won't be debating this point at length as if there is one correct answer; you and others are free to agree or disagree as you see fit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- It was June 11, Virginia Beach. You thought you "live in an increasingly crazy world", I reassured you they died in one. They were the best of times and the worst of times, and if I remember correctly, went on like this longer than any of these wastes of precious thinking time. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- I expounded at some length in one of the many previous discussions. I haven't been able to find that since, and I doubt I could be that eloquent again, but it had to do with the increasing societal desire to be as anonymous as possible, even in death, and that the families' privacy should be considered as well. I have not claimed any solid policy basis for this – even though I believe the spirit of it can be seen in some policies such as WP:BLPNAME – but these discussions would be a small fraction of their size if everybody limited themselves to solid policy basis.I won't be debating this point at length as if there is one correct answer; you and others are free to agree or disagree as you see fit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss—you say "there are arguable privacy concerns". If there are privacy concerns I will join you in arguing this information should be omitted. What are the privacy concerns? Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include of course, as we do in over 90% of similar articles. WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply as this is not an article about the individual dead. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply as there is certainly additional information about the dead that is not being included. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, as does WP:NPOV, see more at Wikipedia:Casualty lists. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include. There is nothing remotely indiscriminate about the names of the victims, no one is arguing the name of the perpetrator should be omitted, all reliable sources carry this information, this is not a creative writing project, there are no "privacy concerns" associated with including the names of the victims, greater than 90% of articles that could contain victim names, do contain victim names, and lastly—we follow sources; if all the sources contain the victim names then an article derived from all the sources that contain the victim names should also contain the victim names. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- My inclination is not to include the names of victims in this kind of article. I am not passionate about it and I realize that different conclusions are reached at different articles. In this case, with the victims being minors, I prefer not to name them. And of course we
neveralmost never publish the names of people who were wounded but recovered, to protect their privacy. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- "And of course we never publish the names of people who were wounded but recovered"... I see from your comment below that you now understand, based on Chardon High School shooting (and others), that you should never say never. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just a comment. I looked at Chardon High School shooting to see how they dealt with the names because the numbers are similar: 3 killed and 3 injured. You can see how those editors handled it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suspect it took you some digging to find that article about a shooting seven years ago. In that case, they went into great detail about the injuries and deaths. I very much doubt if that would be done in any such article nowadays. But in my comment above I should probably have said "almost never." As the saying goes, "always remember never to say always or never." -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- You suspect incorrectly. Actually, I did no digging whatsoever. I went directly to that article because that shooting is unforgettable in my state, where it happened, and I knew there were a few killed and and a few wounded, similar to the Saugus shooting. So I wanted to see how Wikipedia handled the names of the students for that school shooting. I would suggest that in the future you state what you know, not what you assume, when responding to others. You've done it twice in this discussion and were wrong both times. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suspect it took you some digging to find that article about a shooting seven years ago. In that case, they went into great detail about the injuries and deaths. I very much doubt if that would be done in any such article nowadays. But in my comment above I should probably have said "almost never." As the saying goes, "always remember never to say always or never." -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Name the dead The coroner has publicly IDed them, any privacy concerns are thus only deep-rooted personal anxieties of editors who would project them onto every stranger they read was shot to death in a shooting/death article. Not cool. You do you, people! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- In wikipedia we should refrain from naming other editors even if it is publicly stated (outside of wikipedia). So im very doubtful that applies. Plus while "You may do you" we should respect everyones privacy because we cant just assume they don't care only because you don't care, That's even more inconsiderate! --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include the names of the victims. All the RS covering the story include the names of the victims, and so should we. Doing otherwise would be artificial editorializing and would violate WP:WEIGHT. Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Omit. The deceased victims were not notable in life. Their untimely demise does not vary that lack of notability. Readers' understanding of the event is not enhanced by inclusion of the victims' names. Publication of their age and gender will satisfy any demographic understanding of the event. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Some people choose to think of people as male or female, old or young, dark or light and rich or poor. Others find individual names more distinctive, less likely to blur together with completely unrelated Asian minor dudes. The exact same source could as easily satisfy both kinds of readers, why arbitrarily starve one, especially if it takes more effort to be selfish, or justify the hypocrisy of giving deceased victims who were't notable in life a mini-biography if they kill the nameless randos before leaving their families to grieve their suicides in private? I'm no fame-hungry depressed suggestible teen with daddy issues, an attention deficit, a smartphone, a gun and access to dehumanized young blood, but if I were, I'd be tempted to have the world remember me as the exceptional one, that "special little snowflake", more interesting than my peers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- What a blatantly hypocritical argument. Why don't you substitute the words "victims" with "shooter" and see how it reads, like this: "The deceased shooter was not notable in life. His untimely demise does not vary that lack of notability. Readers' understanding of the event is not enhanced by inclusion of the shooter's name." So, why aren't you also opposed to including the shooter's name? Was he notable in life? Of course not. The fact is that the notability of both the shooter and his victims are the same. They all became equally notable upon the publication of their names in most mainstream reliable sources across the world that provided any more than cursory coverage of the shooting. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, that's the problem when an anonymous IP editor with three days of experience edits Wikipedia. Blowing away innocent students moves you closer to notability. Dying at school does not. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- You're trying to minimize and belittle me personally because my views are different than yours? Perhaps you should think about controlling your temper and instead focus solely on the points being made by those who disagree with you. If you're confident with your argument(s) and believe they're sound, there's no need to be rude or condescending to those who think you're wrong. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- WWGB—you are mixing up notability with noteworthy for inclusion. You are saying "Ah, that's the problem when an anonymous IP editor with three days of experience edits Wikipedia. Blowing away innocent students moves you closer to notability. Dying at school does not." We are not discussing "notability". Please note: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." I don't think we are contemplating the initiation of new articles on these deceased individuals. "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, that's the problem when an anonymous IP editor with three days of experience edits Wikipedia. Blowing away innocent students moves you closer to notability. Dying at school does not. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- WWGB, you are correct. They were not notable in life, they are now notable in death because of their widespread coverage in our reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- They're still not notable. It's the shooting that's notable, not the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- WWGB, you are correct. They were not notable in life, they are now notable in death because of their widespread coverage in our reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- The victims need not be notable to be briefly mentioned in the article. They are content in the article. Wikipedia:Notability tells us "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article...Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". (All bolding has been added by me.) Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- But there's no need to name them. It doesn't help our readers understand what happened. Jim Michael (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- The victims need not be notable to be briefly mentioned in the article. They are content in the article. Wikipedia:Notability tells us "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article...Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". (All bolding has been added by me.) Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include Other articles include the names, this one, (and all the rest that don't have names) should to, provided names have been publicly released. Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Omit - as I've stated on several other talk pages. The names are of otherwise unknown people (killed or injured) are of no relevance to over 99% of readers. We don't need to follow the media's practise of giving excessive details about the victims of fatal incidents which invades the privacy of those people who were injured as well as the families of those killed. Discussions on these events have been concluded on other talk pages with the judgement that names shouldn't be in such articles. Jim Michael (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jim Michael—you say "Discussions on these events have been concluded on other talk pages with the judgement that names shouldn't be in such articles". Should one editor be closing 4 RfCs pertaining to victim names—all with the same outcome—to omit victim names?
- Sept. 22, 2019 Virginia Beach shooting Result: omit victim names
- Oct. 2, 2019 2019 El Paso shooting Result: omit victim names
- Oct. 3, 2019 2019 Dayton shooting Result: omit victim names
- Oct. 6, 2019 Midland–Odessa shooting Result: omit victim names
- The above four RfCs on victim names were closed by Cinderella157. I think an editor should close a maximum of one article on this subject. Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Omit - There are legitimate privacy concerns related to the survivors of the event which should be respected. Listing the names of victims can indirectly affect relatives and other people related to the victims. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Does this indirect effect concern their privacy in some hypothetical way? If so, are you concerned with outing the Tennosuke or Berhow clans. Maybe talking about a grieving mother's dead hunter husband will get get animal rights or anti-Japanese outrage nuts doxxing these unrelated relatives. Or just folks who don't take kindly to groups who ignorantly support child murderers financially? Aside from Sandy Hook, digging up dirt on the families and friends of reported innocent victims just doesn't happen on any appreciable scale. If it did, I'd be aware of and opposed to the legitimate threat local cemeteries, coroners, police, fundraisers, Facebook memorial walls, public vigils and press pose to private citizens. Damn opposed! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include It's clear that Mandruss is obsess with refighting this same battle over and over again as he did in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Santa Fe High School shooting and doesn't have anything new to add. TheHoax (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- In multiple extensive discussions at the Village Pump, the community has required us to "refight this same battle over and over again", as I think you know. The words they used were "decide on a case-by-case basis", far less inflammatory, combative, and aspersion-casting than yours. I was strongly opposed to that outcome – I favored a guideline to avoid all this – but I lost, and I know how to lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly this is preferably decided on a case-by-case basis. For most of Wikipedia's history, until very recent years, the question as to whether victim names should be included or omitted was decided with little fanfare. On article Talk pages, often without RfCs. Involving only those editors interested in writing the article. Until recent years there has been no need for a community-wide ruling. And there still is no need for a community-wide ruling. It is not the same battle being fought over and over again, as you put it. It is a unique set of circumstances and a unique set of people writing each article. The question as to inclusion versus omission has come up many times and it has been resolved just as many times. I say this because I have examined over 200 articles, some of which had Talk page discussions about this. I have even examined archives at these articles for discussions about inclusion/omission of victim names. My conclusion is that until recent years this has been anything but an insurmountable problem requiring a community-wide ruling. My conclusion is to relax. Relax and allow the editors most involved in writing a given article to reach a conclusion as to whether to include victim names or not. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- In multiple extensive discussions at the Village Pump, the community has required us to "refight this same battle over and over again", as I think you know. The words they used were "decide on a case-by-case basis", far less inflammatory, combative, and aspersion-casting than yours. I was strongly opposed to that outcome – I favored a guideline to avoid all this – but I lost, and I know how to lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include After weighing both sides, I've concluded that since most reliable sources in the U.S. and internationally include the names, it would be completely non-sensical not to include them here. I see that even Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting includes all the names, even though all the students were just first-graders (6 and 7 years old). There are many other school shooting articles that include all the names. Sure, anyone can run a long list of Wikipedia articles that do not include names, but that doesn't mean it's right; it only means the anti-namers put up enough resistence on those talk pages to prevent it. For me, the bottom line is that if the victims' names in these tragic events are published worldwide in most, or the vast majority of, mainstream publications, they should also be included on Wikipedia. There obviously are no longer any privacy issues when the names are already known by everyone, so that excuse clearly becomes bogus. So, include the names. Not to do so is nothing more than censorship disguised as concern. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- — 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Occlude more of these discussions by running that RfC again. "Case by case" was an obviously poor choice. We should set a guideline one way or another. (And it should be to omit, because naming the names adds no value to the reader.) – Levivich 01:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- STRONG INCLUDE: – We have this debate at every article. Once again, I believe we should INCLUDE the names of the deceased victims. But, not (necessarily) the names of the injured victims. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- OMIT - we often omit violence victim lists for various reasons, determined case-by-Case for reasons like WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Unless a person is covered for something other than just as a victim identification, it does not seem providing event information or actions during the event (e.g. fought back, rescued others, etcetera) and adds no narrative value or help to understand the events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Actually the opposite is true: we DO NOT often omit violence victim lists. 90% of articles of this type include a victim list. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is erroneously mentioned here as that policy applies to articles about victims, not to them simply being mentioned as part of a larger topic. WP:ONUS is self explanatory, our sources discuss the victims by name, it would be WP:OR to not include them. Finally WP:NOTEVERYTHING is irrelevant here as we are only talking about names, not full biographies (which would then be everything). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include - we aren't talking about writing an article regarding these victims. As for the rationale WP:ONUS:
Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article
- That is what we are establishing here. The victims are notable in context of the event, quite often foundations and trials involving the victims come out as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Omit: The names are of small relevance to the reader and simply would just be Out of the scope. As others have stated very clearly WP:NOTEVERYTHING is going to be featured in wikipedia "Just Because". --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Omit - Not going to go into a long rational here, I've just seen many of these discussions and they always end up "omitted" so in the interest of consistency, my opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- If we're doing anything in the interest of consistency, we'd be including the names as 90% of articles already do. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Locke, I am getting tired of your constantly pushing that 90% figure. It is one statistic, based on what has been done throughout the entire time Wikipedia has existed. Recent usage is that roughly half of such articles include the names and half don't. Recent usage should carry more weight; we do a lot of things differently now than we did in 2001. In any case, "consistency" is irrelevant. Several discussions on the subject have said there is not a default to include or not to include - that the decision is made on a case by case basis. That is what this discussion is for. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, the 90% figure is very compelling however, as it shows just how common these types of lists are in articles. But it's hardly the only reason to include a listing: WP:NPOV requires that we provide proportional coverage to our sources, and our sources often go into minute details on the victims in these events (far beyond simply naming them, our sources can often be found providing detailed biographical information). Further, WP:NOTCENSORED clearly tells us that simply because something may be uncomfortable does not mean that we omit it. There haven't really been any compelling reasons provided to omit the names, which boils the dissents down to simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I'd like to see omission of facts from an article be for a better reason than that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Locke, I am getting tired of your constantly pushing that 90% figure. It is one statistic, based on what has been done throughout the entire time Wikipedia has existed. Recent usage is that roughly half of such articles include the names and half don't. Recent usage should carry more weight; we do a lot of things differently now than we did in 2001. In any case, "consistency" is irrelevant. Several discussions on the subject have said there is not a default to include or not to include - that the decision is made on a case by case basis. That is what this discussion is for. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include - It's only two names and they're the two people who were killed in the shooting. People central to an incident don't need to be otherwise notable to be referenced by name. Cjhard (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We shouldn't be adding names just because they died at a certain place and time. There are notable deaths but otherwise this seems too random. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Include It is relevant and not unreasonably long. HAL333 03:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Include Other mass-shooting articles, such as Columbine High School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and Virginia Tech shooting, name the victims. And unlike in Orlando where 50 people died, at Saugus "only" 2 people died. This article certainly has room for the names of the dead. Sanjay7373 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about whether or not the article has room or how long the list of people are. The names simply add no encyclopedic value to the article and have no real relevance to the information provided here. If people care that much about the names this isn't the place to go, the media has that covered (although I would heavily question that person on why he needs those names). The people aren't even notable in their own right which would warrant a place in an article. Although WP:NOTWHOSWHO doesn't directly condemn including information such as those involved in an event it does make it very clear that it still has to be WP:DUE. Simply being at the event with no actual relative importance (You literally can't write anything specific about anyone there.) doesn't give you a place in an article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- If the name of the perpetrator is encyclopedic, then so is the name of the victims. Also, it's a WP:NPOV violation to omit their names as they're the other side to the story, and our sources name them as well. It's borderline original research to actively remove their names, to be honest... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about whether or not the article has room or how long the list of people are. The names simply add no encyclopedic value to the article and have no real relevance to the information provided here. If people care that much about the names this isn't the place to go, the media has that covered (although I would heavily question that person on why he needs those names). The people aren't even notable in their own right which would warrant a place in an article. Although WP:NOTWHOSWHO doesn't directly condemn including information such as those involved in an event it does make it very clear that it still has to be WP:DUE. Simply being at the event with no actual relative importance (You literally can't write anything specific about anyone there.) doesn't give you a place in an article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Victims' names
[edit]I wanted to evaluate Locke Cole's and Bus stop's assertion that the names are included in more than 90% of similar articles. So I looked at Category:2019 mass shootings in the United States. Here is what I found:
- Aurora, Illinois shooting: Six killed, not named.
- 2019 Dayton shooting: nine killed, not named.
- 2019 El Paso shooting: 22 killed, not named.
- Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting: three killed, named in the article.
- Midland–Odessa shooting: seven killed, not named.
- Orinda shooting: five killed, named in the article.
- Poway synagogue shooting: one killed, named in the article.
- 2019 Sebring shooting: five killed, named in the article
- STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting: one killed, not named.
- University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting: two killed, named in the article.
- Virginia Beach shooting: twelve killed, not named.
- Summary: out of eleven articles, five include victims’ names. The one article that is specifically about a high school shooting does not name the victim.
- Conclusion: there is no consistent practice. Whether to publish the names or not is a matter of consensus at each article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN—you say "Whether to publish the names or not is a matter of consensus at each article". True and correct. But in most instances the victim names are included. I list over 200 articles containing the victim names here. The conclusion of that and other discussions is this is decided on a case-by-case basis. But in my estimation over 90% of eligible articles contain victim names. Other factors must be taken into consideration. A cadre of editors show up at articles at their inception in recent years to block the inclusion of victim names, this being an example of that. More importantly, victim names can't be included for incidents deriving from parts of the world where such information doesn't flow freely. It is a complete contrivance to argue that an incident of this nature taking place in the United States should not include victim names. The reporting practices in the United States not only include names but pictures too. What is Wikipedia accomplishing by omitting victim names? Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for repeating the point that has been made by me and others at one article after another. The counter-argument is that you're cherry-picking; that if you look at a much larger sample, including (1) articles from ten years ago, before this issue was on anybody's radar, and (2) articles where the question has received little or no discussion, inclusion appears to be far more common. The argument one chooses depends on whether they favor inclusion or omission.In my view the most compelling point is that repeated discussions at the Village Pump, involving extensive discussion by editors not especially invested in the issue, have failed to reach any consensus other than "decide on a case-by-case basis at each article". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss—yes, we decide on a case-by-case basis. But that involves dialogue. Why are you repeating your entire "omit" argument from countless other articles? You have repeated that wording a dozen times. Do you consider that engaging in dialogue? Why repeat the same boilerplate? That is the avoidance of dialogue. So, how are we supposed to decide on a case-by-case basis when you post the same language at every RfC on this subject that you initiate? Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- The argument is the same because the question is the same as far as I'm concerned. As I've explained to you on numerous occasions, extensive circular debate on this is not going to change your mind or mine, and is worse than useless since it reduces the chances that new arrivals will read any existing discussion at all. I decline to contribute further to that. Your trollish assertions that I am refusing to engage in constructive dialogue have never gained any traction, as you know, and I advise you to drop that stick. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bus stop, I’m not going to plow through that wall of text looking for your “over 200 articles”, nor would I look at all 200 articles even if I found them. I did some research here, specifically about similar articles, specifically in the 2019 time frame. That research did not support your “estimation” of 90% of articles; in fact, it found the victims’ names in 45%. Bottom line, no argument along the lines of “we always name them” or “we almost always name them” or “we never name them” is going to fly. I see that the discussion you link to did not result in a rule either way - to include the names or to deprecate them. We still determine by discussion on a case-by-case basis whether to name them or not. Apparently your argument is "the press reports the names so we should too," is that correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN—of the eleven articles you examine above, four of them were closed by the same editor. Do you find this as troubling as I do? The editor's name is Cinderella157 and I list those 4 articles above. I include the statement saying, if I can quote myself,
"I think an editor should close a maximum of one article on this subject."
Do you disagree? Has Cinderella157 ever closed an RfC on victim names in favor of including victim names? Perhaps they can weigh in with an answer to that question. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN—of the eleven articles you examine above, four of them were closed by the same editor. Do you find this as troubling as I do? The editor's name is Cinderella157 and I list those 4 articles above. I include the statement saying, if I can quote myself,
- Bus stop, I’m not going to plow through that wall of text looking for your “over 200 articles”, nor would I look at all 200 articles even if I found them. I did some research here, specifically about similar articles, specifically in the 2019 time frame. That research did not support your “estimation” of 90% of articles; in fact, it found the victims’ names in 45%. Bottom line, no argument along the lines of “we always name them” or “we almost always name them” or “we never name them” is going to fly. I see that the discussion you link to did not result in a rule either way - to include the names or to deprecate them. We still determine by discussion on a case-by-case basis whether to name them or not. Apparently your argument is "the press reports the names so we should too," is that correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Response by Cinderella157 (since I have now been pinged twice[2][3] by Bus stop and the most recent is a specific request for my comment: Has Cinderella157 ever closed an RfC on victim names in favor of including victim names?
I was unaware of this discussion until I was pinged.)
- An RfC for a community consensus on the question at WP:VPP closed with
consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Consequently, arguements falling to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are, in this case (and similar), invalid by virtue of the consensus of the broader community at WP:VPP.
- The question by Bus stop has the tacit premise that a close can be made "in favour" independent of the comments. It cannot.
- As indicated, I have closed four RfCs on inclusion of victims' names.[4][5][6][7] These are all recent shootings. Bus stop has characterised the result of these four RfCs was to
omit victim names
. This does not capture the nuance of each close and of each RfC - even to the point of being incorrect. The RfC at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting was closed:There is a consensus for inclusion of the victims names in prose in a way that helps explain how or why the events occurred but not for prose which is a defacto list.
So, in answer to Bus stop, I have closed an RfC to include the names of victims [per emphasis added].
- I am unaware of any guidance or convention that would preclude me from closing more than one similar RfC. It made simple sense, since many of the same comments were being made by the same parties and I was familiar with the merits and "strength" of these. Also, these closes were made over a span of more than two weeks. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157:
Consequently, arguements falling to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are, in this case (and similar), invalid by virtue of the consensus of the broader community
: I'm mildly disturbed that you could use such faulty logic. On a "case by case basis" does not mean you ignore the prevailing trend that most articles include a list (whether as prose or as a bulleted list). Are you saying you completely ignored my comments because I made reference to that fact? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)- Locke Cole, a for the definition of case-by-case in reputable dictionaries, this was the first in the list of my google search, of which others are similar:
Considering or dealing with each instance separately, taking into account its individual circumstances and features
(From the Oxford Dictionary - emphasis added). Something assessed on a case-by-case basis is made without reference to the precedent of other similar cases. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)- Case-by-case should not involve four cases being closed by the same editor with the same result. That is because editors—all or most editors—have biases. Evaluations of this sort should be made by multiple editors rather than vested in one editor. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Locke Cole, a for the definition of case-by-case in reputable dictionaries, this was the first in the list of my google search, of which others are similar:
- @Cinderella157:
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- @MelanieN: You can see the data I was working from here. I worked my way through a sizable chunk of the category before being told (by an editor partaking in this very discussion) that my data was irrelevant because I was "cherry picking" (by using a large cat and proceeding alphabetically instead of the actual cherry picking and just using more recent articles). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Some survivors of mass shootings & bombings have been accused by conspiracy theorists of being crisis actors who chose to take part in faking the attacks which they were victims/witnesses of. Although many media sources state the names of victims (killed & injured), we should not add to that. Jim Michael (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of that is from their own political activism. I am not saying that what conspiracy theorists doing are okay (in fact, I believe the opposite), but it's still pretty far fetched that a Wikipedia page is responsibled. TheHoax (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have opposed "case-by-case" precisely because I felt the factors don't change significantly from case to case (assuming we're talking only about mass killing events). I can't help it if the community disagrees with that viewpoint, and I'm not going to vary my arguments simply because they do. You seek to avoid all this by agreeing to accept outcomes reached at other articles, but you're only interested in accepting outcomes that match your preference for inclusion. And in fact you have accused me of bad faith because I refuse to go along with that. No, thanks.Never mind that any such agreement reached on an article talk page would never be accepted as binding by other editors at other articles, nor should it be.I guess I'll reiterate two points for about the fourth time in this eternal saga:
- My order of preference is:
- A guideline establishing "omit" as the default for these events.
- A guideline establishing "include" as the default for these events.
- No guideline; i.e. case-by-case.
- "Default" means that it should apply to roughly 95% of cases, and to deviate from the default editors should seek a consensus that there is something exceptional about the case that justifies said deviation. Thus, I do not advocate blind inclusion or omission, so the argument (seen often at Village Pump) that "one size can't fit all" is a straw man. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Process: Victims' names
[edit]The dead victims' names were in the article for less than five hours before being challenged, not nearly long enough to establish status quo ante.[8][9] Therefore that content should remain out pending consensus to include it. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss—how do you concoct what constitutes "status quo ante"? Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia tradition, there is no precise definition, but it's fair to say that very few experienced editors would consider five hours long enough. User:NeilN is the only admin I've ever seen give anything like a precise definition, and he said "four to six weeks" in May 2018.[10] Sadly for this and other reasons, NeilN has not been active for over a year. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your propensity for arguing against the inclusion of victim names at the inception of every article eligible for the inclusion of such information is not what NeilN is addressing. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- The "status quo" upon your arrival at this article was the names being included as your first (and only, thus far) edits were to remove what was already there. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Mandruss is correct. When something is added to the article and promptly reverted, the default is to leave it out until consensus to include it is reached at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- {{ping}MelanieN}} If you will put on your admin hat and restore status quo ante (or if Locke Cole does so), I will withdraw my ANI complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I am editing here as a regular editor, not an admin; you know that. When I quote a rule or a guideline, it is one that anyone could quote. I see that you removed it and I agree with that. Let's continue to discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can't we stop this debate?
[edit]Okay, this is getting too hostile. Both sides are repeating arguments because the question remains the same. El_C 04:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's clear that Mandruss is obsess with refighting this same battle over and over again as he did in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Santa Fe High School shooting and he doesn't have anything new to add. His argument is the same as the last two times. TheHoax (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Why were the victim's names removed?
[edit]Why were the victim's names removed? They should be re-instated until consensus to remove them occurs. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- They were removed per standard process. Disputed and controversial content is omitted pending consensus to include it. They were in the article for less than five hours before being challenged, so they were far short of status quo ante status. This has been supported by multiple admins including El C and MelanieN, and opposed by no admins. It is a settled issue despite the refusal of a couple of involved editors to accept that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Where did you get that "rule" from? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- From the last sentence at WP:ONUS, from WP:BRD, from standard accepted process, and from repeated re-affirmation by the community. As a fundamental principle, Wikipedia does not need reasons to omit content, it needs reasons to include it; therefore the default position for new content is always omit – regardless of the type of content. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at the Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- There are reasons to include this content, and you've read them for years. Nothing changes when the shooter and the dead do, in this context. My favourite reason is because the lead sentence is about them, and only them. If something or someone is in the lead sentence, they matter by default. Things that matter should be identified in the same story entirely circling them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Likewise, there are reasons to omit the content and you've read them for years. That part of my comment was only in response to Spadaro's claim that the content should remain in pending consensus to remove it, which is exactly backwards until new content has existed unchallenged long enough to acquire status quo ante status. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- There are reasons to include this content, and you've read them for years. Nothing changes when the shooter and the dead do, in this context. My favourite reason is because the lead sentence is about them, and only them. If something or someone is in the lead sentence, they matter by default. Things that matter should be identified in the same story entirely circling them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- From the last sentence at WP:ONUS, from WP:BRD, from standard accepted process, and from repeated re-affirmation by the community. As a fundamental principle, Wikipedia does not need reasons to omit content, it needs reasons to include it; therefore the default position for new content is always omit – regardless of the type of content. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at the Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Where did you get that "rule" from? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Stop the personal bickering and accusations. Don't make me put my admin hat on.-- MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The removal also survived a trip to WP:ANI yesterday (permalink), which was read and considered by at least the two admins who commented in it, El C and Cullen328. If it had been improper I have no doubt someone would have said so there and it would have been reversed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
General note about this discussion
[edit]This is a discussion to obtain feedback from the community on whether to include, or not include, the names of the students killed in this attack. Those names are currently not in the article, per BRD: The names were boldly added, they were promptly challenged by being reverted, and we are now discussing to see if there is consensus to re-add them. That discussion has been repeatedly disrupted by arguments over process and accusations against other editors. Today I have hatted multiple such arguments, to make this a reasonably readable discussion for those who wish to participate. Any future commentary should be only about reasons for or against inclusion, not about the behavior of other individuals. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with MelanieN's note and advise participants to take it to heart. El_C 22:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with both of those admins who are not acting as admins. Er, at least MelanieN is not acting as an admin, not entirely sure about El C. Wikipedia needs cops. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned on ANI, I'm not going to invoke the GC/DS to enforce WP:ONUS pending an RfC closure like I did with those other mass shooting articles — it is just a suggestion this time. This does not mean that I'm prevented from otherwise acting in an admin capacity. I have already applied 1RR on the article and further administrative intervention is possible, though unlikely. More than anything, I'm waiting for another admin to step in, if and/or when it is necessary, and act as they see fit. El_C 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with both of those admins who are not acting as admins. Er, at least MelanieN is not acting as an admin, not entirely sure about El C. Wikipedia needs cops. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Amusing but off topic. I am really trying to keep this discussion from becoming a wall of text. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
After some discussion, I have restored the RfC tag. IMO this subject has become a battleground that is unlikely to achieve consensus without input from additional people. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: This issue with including victims names in articles about mass shootings needs to be taken to the Arbitration Committee for a policy ruling, or added to one of the WP Policy Essays instead of it being a battleground each and every time it comes up. One general rule should be that if the victims are notable in their own right, or if the shooting event makes them notable (one of the victims gave their life protecting others, or someone at the scene did some extremely notable act of bravery or sacrifice which is notable) they can be included, otherwise, they should be omitted out of respect for the privacy rights of the victims and their families. I have observed that shooting victims who are wounded and survive the event are never mentioned in most cases based on WP:BLP. There needs to be a policy decision made here and posted as such or this same debate will just keep happening. Comments? Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- We already have essays: WP:VL for the omit side and the more recently-created WP:CASL for the include side. This needs a proper and binding BLP supplementary (with a default to either omit or include) — so, over the last few months, I've been consistently encouraging participants to put time and effort toward that end (i.e. cementing an actual policy or guideline). El_C 02:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughts, Octoberwoodland. Setting up a general policy on this has been discussed several times on general WP discussion boards. There has never been a consensus one way or the other, and the "rule" remains that it is decided by consensus at each individual article. I feel sure that ArbCom would not take this question up or find it to be within their mandate. (As for wounded people never being mentioned, I said that earlier and had to correct it to "almost never"; somebody linked to an article from 2012 that reported the names and hospital courses of the wounded.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I nominate User:El C to put forth a proposal at WP:VPR. It needs to be somebody with extensive knowledge, not only because the proposal will be sounder and therefore stand a better chance of success, but because they will be taken more seriously at the Pump (i.e. a proposal can easily be welcomed or booed off the stage, depending on who is proposing it). I would be happy to help formulate the proposal in any way I can. (Note: "Nominate" is not meant literally, I know this is not an election.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm honoured? Anyway, I'm happy to submit the proposal, but both parties should agree on its contents in advance, I think. El_C 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Both parties? You mean both sides in this discussion? This is the working group? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, input from both sides should be given as to how the question is actually framed. El_C 07:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well I'm the wrong person to take the lead on that, so I'll back off and watch what develops. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, input from both sides should be given as to how the question is actually framed. El_C 07:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Both parties? You mean both sides in this discussion? This is the working group? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm honoured? Anyway, I'm happy to submit the proposal, but both parties should agree on its contents in advance, I think. El_C 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I nominate User:El C to put forth a proposal at WP:VPR. It needs to be somebody with extensive knowledge, not only because the proposal will be sounder and therefore stand a better chance of success, but because they will be taken more seriously at the Pump (i.e. a proposal can easily be welcomed or booed off the stage, depending on who is proposing it). I would be happy to help formulate the proposal in any way I can. (Note: "Nominate" is not meant literally, I know this is not an election.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughts, Octoberwoodland. Setting up a general policy on this has been discussed several times on general WP discussion boards. There has never been a consensus one way or the other, and the "rule" remains that it is decided by consensus at each individual article. I feel sure that ArbCom would not take this question up or find it to be within their mandate. (As for wounded people never being mentioned, I said that earlier and had to correct it to "almost never"; somebody linked to an article from 2012 that reported the names and hospital courses of the wounded.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment: While this discussion is ongoing, User:Locke Cole has added the victims' names back into the article again.-- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Luckily, I've set up 1RR, so that should keep the sheer number of potential reverts in check. El_C 03:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Don't count on it. Locke Cole added it on the 16th and again on the 17th, a few hours after the 24-hour limit set by 1RR. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: FWIW, I don't actually plan on adding it back (despite being within my rights to do so under a 1RR restriction), I simply felt like I was being challenged to do so by an editor on this talk page. Unless that happens again, I plan on letting this play out. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Don't count on it. Locke Cole added it on the 16th and again on the 17th, a few hours after the 24-hour limit set by 1RR. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring warning: Over the past 36 hours or so the names of the victims have been added to the article by User:Locke Cole, User:TheHoax, and Locke Cole a second time, And promptly reverted each time. If this happens again I will full-protect the article. WP:Edit warring is against Wikipedia rules. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I hope that warning is the end of this disruption, but if one or two editors are being disruptive, I think it would be better to handle this in a more-focused way than full-protecting the article (which discourages a bunch of other editors who are going to want to edit this article about a recent high profile event). A more-focused way might be, for example, a limited duration WP:ABAN for the disruptive editor(s), which I think is authorized under WP:ACDS. – Levivich 04:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly don't want to full-protect such a heavily edited article with new information coming in daily. I too hope that the parties get the message and don't provoke any drastic action. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- My first mass shooting article I intervened as an admin I fully-protected — I got so much heat for it. El_C 07:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, of course you did - you undoubtedly protected the WP:Wrong version. 0;-D Welcome to the club. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- My first mass shooting article I intervened as an admin I fully-protected — I got so much heat for it. El_C 07:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly don't want to full-protect such a heavily edited article with new information coming in daily. I too hope that the parties get the message and don't provoke any drastic action. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Victims' names proposal workshop
[edit]Workshop is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop. El_C 16:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- This was a nice thought, but consensus appears to be it was tainted because of canvassing and will not move forward right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. Its probably best to tackle it on again in a month or maybe more. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Elitematterman: Per the heading of Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposal phase postponed until 2020 — Workshop phase remains open, of course, written by admin El_C, the workshop phase remains open, of course. The only thing being postponed is the submission of any proposal that comes out of that process. In other words, we could have a proposal developed within a few weeks and then sit on it for some undetermined period. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable enough. I suppose that what comes from the proposal itself is what we are trying to keep untainted. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Elitematterman: Per the heading of Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposal phase postponed until 2020 — Workshop phase remains open, of course, written by admin El_C, the workshop phase remains open, of course. The only thing being postponed is the submission of any proposal that comes out of that process. In other words, we could have a proposal developed within a few weeks and then sit on it for some undetermined period. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. Its probably best to tackle it on again in a month or maybe more. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- This was a nice thought, but consensus appears to be it was tainted because of canvassing and will not move forward right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect Info
[edit]His father died. He had a heart attack and Nathaniel may have been the one to find him. 2603:8001:7A48:ABCA:B455:65FB:41F6:EA19 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Added death. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 24 February 2023
[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
2019 Saugus High School shooting → Saugus High School shooting – There has only been one shooting at Saugus High School. Similar articles include Virginia Tech shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Robb Elementary School shooting, and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. None of them mention the year. This article seems to have been moved without consensus. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 08:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support per nom. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class Los Angeles articles
- Unknown-importance Los Angeles articles
- Los Angeles area task force articles
- C-Class Southern California articles
- Unknown-importance Southern California articles
- Southern California task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- Low-importance school articles