Talk:Uvalde school shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

time period

Please remove 1 day ago. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please change May 24, 2022; 1 day ago to May 24, 2022. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing one day ago anywhere in the prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not clear what information you need? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. @ScottishFinnishRadish: it was in the infobox, being derived from Template:Start date and age. I've changed it now to use Template:Start date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sideswipe9th! I found out my signature is in UTC and was not sure whether the date in my signature had anything to do with how long ago the date of the shooting happened, as the date where I am is not 25 May 2022 yet. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (2)

This attack surpassed Columbine High School Massacre by the death toll going up to 22 people at Robb Elementary School 205.213.171.21 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving this, there is no longer any mention of Columbine in this article, the lead includes " third-deadliest American school shooting after the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, ". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

The lede links to Newtown, Connecticut instead of Uvalde, Texas. Change Uvalde, Texas to Uvalde, Texas. 170.142.177.35 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done PRAXIDICAE💕 14:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Twitter timestamp wrong

Citation 19 is for the school district tweeting out the presence of an active shooter. The timestamp given is 1:17 PM, but the real time of the tweet was 12:17 PM local time. Additionally, citation 19 doesn't mention the tweet at all. https://twitter.com/Uvalde_CISD/status/1529149659939315714— Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkraisefold (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Checkraisefold: I updated the timestamp, and used this reference for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

'fundamental'

During a playoff basketball press conference, Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr expressed his outrage at the inaction of politicians on a fundamental gun law, highlighting the shooting and multiple recent mass shooting events, including the Tops grocery shooting in Buffalo, New York, and a church shooting in California.

the phrase "fundamental gun law" is lifted from the source, NPR, a US State news organ. Kerr was apparently referring to HR8, which was passed by the house last year but never taken up by the senate, and therefore the word 'fundamental' (of central importance) should not appear in the article text. .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@.usarnamechoice Robb_Elementary_School_shooting#Gun_control_discussions has been rewritten already, are you concerns resolved? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: yes, thank you for responding. .usarnamechoice (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference 1 and 18

I added the injured in and it turns out 1 and 18 are the same so can you turn the 18th reference into the first one? Thanks. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld It looks like these got sorted out? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request, add inline reference

For the sentence in the lead Ramos was killed after a shootout with law enforcement. add https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/texas-elementary-school-shooting-robb-elementary-uvalde/ to Reflist.

Thank you 2601:1C0:5382:250:D8E4:24C8:7A1B:26CC (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done that phrase is no longer present in the text, and that reference doesn't mention the phrase "shootout" (anymore at least - it appears to be dynamic content). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The gunman was in the school for an hour before being shot. Please add this vital info.

NYT reports, "The gunman was inside the school for roughly one hour before a tactical unit from the Border Patrol shot him several times, killing him."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/25/us/shooting-robb-elementary-uvalde/the-deadliest-us-school-shooting-in-a-decade-shakes-a-rural-texas-city?smid=url-share Perfecnot (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perfecnot: the Robb_Elementary_School_shooting#School_shooting section has been updated significantly, since you posted this - are your concerns resolved? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes 00:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Perfecnot (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrator

The article says he was a high school student. I thought he was a drop-out? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

He was both. It's a chronological shooter profile. At the end of the first paragraph, he drops out and lets his hair down. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Horrific Elementary School Shooting in Uvalde, Texas

Could someone here upload Joe Biden's remarks on the shooting to Wikimedia Commons and add it to the 'Responses' section of the article? We did the same with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Responses--Trade (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. @Trade:, if you need help with this next time, let me know. benǝʇᴉɯ 08:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Page has been edited with shit about John Cena.

Can someone please fix this? 73.20.18.84 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Looks like it's been removed, and I've requested further page protection. --Kbabej (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Leading Paragraph Edit Request

On May 24, 2022 ... killing a minimum of 21 people.

For the Second citation (reference error)

I think citation 1 also work for this one, if more presice citation is needed, I think CNN Works. --QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I also notice that the newly updated citation 2(WWFF)'s title is incorrect, the correct title is "At least 19 children killed in Texas elementary school shooting" --QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspect Truck Crash

Addition to backstory: The truck believed to be the one that the gunman, Salvador Ramos, crashed before entering Robb Elementary School and opening fire, as it was sitting in a ditch taped off by police earlier today. Doobie777 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/students-hospitalized-after-active-shooter-incident-at-robb-elementary-school-in-uvalde-texas

"After Ramos shot his grandmother at her home, local law enforcement got a call about a car crash involving an armed man close to the school, Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson Lt. Chris Olivarez said Tuesday evening."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/24/us/shooting-robb-elementary-uvalde

"The truck believed to be the one that the gunman, Salvador Ramos, crashed before entering Robb Elementary School and opening fire, as it was sitting in a ditch taped off by police earlier today."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y76v80GQrrI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0roO9-jtfs8

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23140441/uvalde-shooting-robb-elementary-school-texas

"The gunman allegedly entered the school following a violent encounter with his grandmother and after being involved in a car crash. "

Hope this helps. @ScottishFinnishRadish Doobie777 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I have taken the task of defining all of the references in {{Reflist}}. However, there are still some issues with references. Namely, most of them haven't been updated to account for publications updating the death toll and many are in a weird format. I've standardized the dates within them, but the positions of where the parameters for the reference templates are all over the place. It would be very helpful if someone could update the references to account for the latest version of the page and to follow the order defined in the documentation for {{Cite web}}.

Thanks! elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Responses

I've tried, a couple of times, to add an observation to Biden's speech noting that although he said we have to act, he didn't actually take or propose any action. This statement is both true and supported by the reference, but it has been reverted twice by Benmite for NPOV reasons. I plan to reinstate the change, this time with the wording Biden did not elaborate on what, if any, action he had in mind. This definitely is true and supported by the reference--if this does not pass NPOV muster I challenge you to propose an alternative wording, not simply revert, as I am working in good faith to try to come up with a neutral wording. Dash77 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dash77: The problem here is sourcing. The reference in question makes no mention of Biden lacking a plan of action. On top of that, something being true and something being necessary to include on Wikipedia are not one and the same, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you can find other articles that mention this in enough detail that it isn't undue, then I would reconsider my stance. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

My revised wording, as given above which differs from my original text, doesn't actually claim that he lacks a plan of action, merely that he didn't state such a plan in his speech. As such I am going to make the revision as proposed above, and with respect to you, Benmite, would ask that you wait for others to opine before reverting again. Thank you. Dash77 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dash77: My apologies, I meant to say that you said that he didn't include a plan of action in his speech. Either way, this still isn't supported by the reference. Furthermore, the burden to provide a sufficient inline citation for this claim falls on you. I won't revert it this time, but I will be tagging that sentence as needing a better source. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Verify Deadliest school shooting "in Texas history" ?

Source: NBC DFW...Uvalde Shooting Now the Deadliest School Shooting in Texas History...reported around EOD 5/24/2022...Checking if there's consensus among RS and editors for this. DN (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems verifiable, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. I don't think that information is really pertinent. ––FormalDude talk 06:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We can always circle back to it later if it keeps getting confirmed by RS, and if its prolific as a predominant historical fact, it might have WP:WEIGHT for it. Time will tell. Today just sucked out loud, I'm so tired of writing about these shootings over and over...DN (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

the deadliest American school shooting since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary a decade ago

the deadliest American school shooting since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary a decade ago. - Not only "elementary school" , like it is mentioned in the intro of the article. M.Karelin (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Миша Карелин the lead has been updated several times, has your concern been addressed? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux Yes, it was. M.Karelin (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Shooter's infobox

I'm coming from Turkish Wikipedia. First of all, my condolences to those living in the United States. Should we use infobox under attacker's infobox? We follow all the current developments here and organize them simultaneously on the Turkish Wikipedia. --Jelican9 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've never liked the practice of having multiple infobox's within an article. However, it can be discussed at a late time. At this point, there isn't enough info about the perpetrator to hardly have an infobox or even quick biographical sum. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your responding. Jelican9 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has a second "Victims Infobox" (or is it a "List box"?) that works well in that article.
I encourage people to take a look at it.

Also, thanks for the condolences from Jelican9.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong details (2)

It's the biggest school shooting since MSD in 2018. 70.161.243.166 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"The attack is the deadliest school shooting in Texas history,[4] and the deadliest mass shooting at a U.S. school since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012.[1]"

This is wrong. It's the deadliest elementary school shooting since 2012, but the last deadliest school shooting was Marjory stoneman Douglas in 2018. 70.161.243.166 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've corrected the issue. The LA Times article concurred with the statement by the IP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The number of victims may change over the next 24 hours. Last I saw it was 18 children and 1 teacher. That's not including the grandmother who may have survived. I'll add a link to a source for everyone regarding your reference, it may be relevant at some point, only time will tell. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting...DN (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Deadliest since" doesn't mean since the last one with the "deadliest since Sandy Hook" record. It means since a deadlier school shooting. This is the new "deadliest since", MSD simply falls to "second deadliest since Sandy Hook". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

True, it seems to bare relevance to the subject and context by which shootings are often measured in the news IMO, it doesn't seem beyond the scope of the article in that regard. It appears no less relevant than "It was the 27th shooting on school grounds in the United States for 2022" and debatably holds as much weight. "Second deadliest since Sandy Hook" isn't off track either. DN (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. All I'm saying is this was the deadliest American school shooting since Sandy Hook. It was deadlier than the Stoneman Douglas shooting by five, regardless of context, opinion or debate. "Second deadliest since Sandy Hook" is flat untrue here. It might not be "off track" in the other shooting's lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

Toast776 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"they later confirmed there was no school resource officer on duty." I'm suggesting a change from 'on duty' to 'on campus'. This change conforms with the article and I think may be more accurate. The school resource officer seems to have responded to the scene and therefore may have been on duty but off campus. Toast776 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  09:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspect

don't most of the claims here need to have "allegedly" added? even tho it's not BLP, it still seems premature to assert [name] did this and [name] did that, when the news is still saying allegedly. not to mention calling the suspect "perpetrator"! 2601:19C:527F:A680:7C19:BB6:D5D0:89BC (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:WEASEL...It's early, lots of info is yet to come, for now, lets just stick to what sources say and try to avoid edit wars by being patient and working towards consensus by looking for consensus among sources after things cool down. DN (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

exactly! sources say suspect, leave it as suspect! 2601:19C:527F:A680:7C19:BB6:D5D0:89BC (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

He is dead, he will never sue anyone for calling him the perp. WWGB (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

not a matter of being sued. it's just jarring to read lines like "so-and-so did this, so-and-so did that" when the investigation has barely begun. even in casual conversations, i'd still be adding "supposedly" there. 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Relevance

Of saying 90% of the school is Hispanic? 76.181.201.214 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. It's worth mentioning racial demographics in the context of attacks like Buffalo or El Paso, but why on Earth here? I once found a Wikipedia page about a man on death row that had to point out that he was African American and only killed African Americans - something as unusual as Ted Bundy (likely) only killing whites, or the Columbine boys largely killing whites in their white-majority school. As a non-American, I can't work out this fixation. I was unsure about whether the information on the other page I mentioned was added by a white supremacist saying that people are criminals because they are black, or an extreme progressive trying to imply that murderers are falsely imprisoned for being black. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Need to make corrections

Ramos then shot a UCISD police officer who attempted to stop him from entering the building.[1] Ramos walked into the school through its south entrance at around 11:30 a.m. CDT.[18][23][24] Soon after, police reported that 911 calls were received about a vehicle crashed near the school and a person armed with a rifle that had been seen heading inside. Responding officers reportedly engaged with the gunman and returned fire before he entered the building.

If he was already in the building at 11:30 how he get to his vehicle and start a gun battle with officers. Repeating sentences 2601:243:822:179B:488A:D707:3172:54D2 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Salvador-Ramos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (3)

Paul Gosar never shared photos of the shooter or anyone he believed to be the shooter. The original tweet and quoted tweet can be seen in this Independent article.

Suggestion for updating:

"Paul Gosar, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona, tweeted that the shooter was a "transsexual leftist illegal alien", sharing a fake post co-opting photographs of a referencing disinformation that the shooter was a trans woman who had nothing to do with the attack. The tweet was deleted about two hours later."

Phillycj 16:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 17:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Did the edit not go through? The wording is still there as of replying. Phillycj 18:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated the wording from misinformation to disinformation as the new part of the paragraph has. Phillycj 19:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Condemnation?

What is the last sentence present? Of course the president and any sane person would condemn the act of a deadly school shooting. It seems to be irrelevant information that should be removed. It also detracts from the reading flow. Hawkiloo (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, such condemnations by world or state / local leaders are in MANY such articles on Wikipedia.

Quoted reactions from a sampling of notable leaders are notable, as well as being part of the news coverage.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree the last section seems entirely pointless. It is not notable, and barely newsworthy, to note that a leader condemned a mass shooting of children. It might be slightly notable if the politician is from the USA or Texas. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - Reactions to tragedies are commonplace for Wikipedia articles. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Eh... except it has been effected. The sentence Hawkiloo is referring to was removed from the lede at 15:08 by ElijahPepe. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to add reaction by Texas Governor Greg Abbott

Texas Governor Greg Abbott had a lengthy press conference, which included many reactions by Abbott. So far, the article includes politicians reacting by calling for gun control reform, including: Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Collins, and Beto O'Rourke. The reaction by O'Rourke is especially interesting, as he himself was reacting to Abbott, but the article does not include the reaction by Abbott.

I propose a quote be provided, or a summary of the quote, where on this very topic he said "And we need to realize that people who think that, ‘Well, maybe we could just implement tougher gun laws, it’s going to solve it.’ Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis. And so if you're looking for a real solution, Chicago teaches that what you're talking about, it's not a real solution. Our job is to come up with real solutions that we can implement." [Source]

A summary could be very similar to the headline, stating "Texas Gov. Abbott says Chicago, L.A., and NYC crime proves harsher gun laws not solution" Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Something can probably be added, but not from FOXNEWS, as it is deemed an unreliable source for political topics. ––FormalDude talk 20:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. It is not deemed "unreliable." Rather, there is no consensus, so therefore it should be used "with caution" per your link. Since the article I provided provides an actual quote (which I also provided), and that quote is indisputably consistent with the headline (and summary I mentioned), then using Fox News would be consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and practices. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like ABC or NBC instead:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/pritzker-criticizes-texas-governor-after-he-cites-chicago-crime-during-address/2842100/

https://abc7chicago.com/gun-laws-chicago-texas-governor-greg-abbott/11893976/ ––FormalDude talk 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Add on to the first sentence

`18-year-old Salvador Rolando Ramos fatally shot nineteen students and two teachers, and wounded seventeen others at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.` Should also include his grandmother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requity (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation concerning shooter's identity is not a "conspiracy theory"

A conspiracy theory is a theory which supposes the existence of a conspiracy, which is a group of people colluding to execute a plan or achieve some goal. The (false) theory that the shooter is transgender or leftist is by definition not a conspiracy theory, because it involves only one individual. Furthermore, none of the cited sources refer to this theory as a "conspiracy theory". The subsection currently titled "Transgender conspiracy theories" should be retitled "Misinformation concerning shooter's identity" or something like that. Mounched (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Amen! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Double Amen! HieronymousCrowley (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree Triple it. This is misinformation, disinformation and should be appropriately titled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkat TL (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Children wounded in lede but not in body of article

Hi all

The lede gives an approximate number of children wounded but I don't see this number anywhere in the body of the content. I don't know the subject well and many US news sources are blocked in Europe so I can't access them so I won't attempt to do this myself.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead also says he wounded "a police officer", which is half as many as the two noted in the Shooting and Victims sections, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings and InedibleHulk: this article has had many updates since you posted this, have your concerns been resolved? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: thanks for checking, I don't think its been added yet. John Cummings (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @John Cummings, sorry I might be missing what you are asking for. The lede says ...killed 19 students and two teachers, wounding 17 others... and the body has this in the section, Robb_Elementary_School_shooting#Victims. Is there something else missing? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

New timeline from WaPo

New timeline from WaPo:

• A grisly checklist and a sickening rampage: Inside the Uvalde massacre

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

In Victims, change "According to its CEO, fourteen were admitted to Uvalde Memorial Hospital, of which eleven were children." to "Uvalde Memorial Hospital's CEO reported that eleven children and 3 others were admitted for emergency care following the attack." This makes the sentence a lot more natural to read. Usage of "it" being used before being defined, plus the "of which", makes the original wording very awkward to read. ~XyNq^t_c 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 18:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Transgender conspiracy theories

Why do irrelevant hate comments, made by right wing extremists, which have been identified as misinformation posted on 4chan, belong on this article? Why must we all pander to the conspiracy theorists who do nothing but discuss opinions and distract from the facts? 48Pills (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@48PillsIt looks like it has already been removed by user:Iamreallygoodatcheckers. I do agree that there should be consensus and creditable sources before it is re-added. Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 01:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've actually removed the conspiracy section as I see it as WP:UNDUE Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers Pokelova reverted your change. 48Pills (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Pokelova: the content you added back was added today. Under the WP:BRD cycle it's best to discuss before adding it back. I disputed the content inclusion as well as 48Pills and Taxin609. The right thing to do is discuss here not just put it back. I suggest you revert your edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers I reverted it for them and added pretty much what you just said in the summary. 48Pills (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to acknowledge rubbish dreamed up by loonies and trolls. WWGB (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

When it's spread by several notable people including a congressman? Yeah we kinda do. --Pokelova (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included, see my comment in subsection below. --Venkat TL (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should only be described as "Conspiracy theories" in Wikipedia articles. Debunking sources should always be included with them. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 18:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Change subtitle for The Intercept

In the section Criticism for delay in police response, the text is no longer correct. I guess the author changed the subtitle, it says now "And they might have made it even worse" instead of "And they won't stop the next". Can be changed, or indicate that it was changed to the current one. Or removed. Or change the source to have the archived version of the article, which isn't there at the moment. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. When I had added the source, the subtitle was the old version. I've updated it! --Kbabej (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Deactivated template. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple uses of Ramos's, should be Ramos'

I can't edit the page, so someone else could do it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.197.102.223 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:'S, for the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, we add 's. ––FormalDude talk 20:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No assault rifle was used.

I strongly doubt no assault rifle was used in the massacre. Whoever wrote that in ‘Weapons’ has no business writing wiki pages. 2600:1700:14E0:82E0:6CF5:3F39:D298:606D (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community effort consisting of users who are bold, and mistakes will be made, as I am sure you are familiar with them; they have the right to write as much as you have a right to correct them. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It was absolutely an assault rifle. This argument is one of semantics, not reality.

The rifle was used to kill 22 people in just minutes.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

i think "assault rifle" has a specific definition, not just any old rifle used in an assault. if you have nonbiased sources claiming this was indeed one, pls share. 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2 things: "Assault Rifle" is extremely vague and just about everyone has a different definition of it, thus it really has no place in an informative article. "assault-style" is more accurate, but still leaves interpretation unfortunately. "AR-15 style rifle" Is the most accurate to use.

Also, I haven't seen any confirmation that the rifle was used at all, every source I've seen pointed to the handgun as the primary weapon. Because of that, we can't definitively say which gun was used to kill people, or which was used for whom. Dudeofthelake (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that an assault rifle was used either doesn’t know what an assault rifle is or is lying. Fix it! 2600:1700:14E0:82E0:6CF5:3F39:D298:606D (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@2600:1700:14E0:82E0:6CF5:3F39:D298:606D I agree. Zeon26 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Say please.  Not done...DN (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So... you're willfully permitting misinformation in the article because you think the guy who told you to correct it was rude? 58.185.209.98 (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry officer, they used an exclamation point, and I panicked!...and no. DN (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Changed to AR-15 style rifle because that conforms with the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It was absolutely an assault rifle. This argument is one of semantics, not reality.

The rifle was used to kill 22 people in just minutes.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You're starting to become a prosaic, disruptive editor. -- Veggies (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

An assault rifle is select fire capable. The rifle used is not. It is, by definition, not an assault rifle. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Not to dogpile on, but literally on Wikipedia's entry for Assault Rifle defines "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." While the AR-15 and M-16 platforms only differ by the select fire switch, the AR-15 quite literally does not meet the definition as seen on the Assault Rifle page. I saw the same user in a different thread about the weapon state that the AR-15 could be defined as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, which is basically to imply that the AR-15 is not only capable of killing lots of people, but it does it through massive physical or environmental damage. Again, I say this not to dogpile and chide the user, but rather because I have personally observed discussion in which users are not actually looking into what they are stating, and instead taking common media and political pundit talking points about the issue. It's ok to have an opinion that the AR-15 should be banned, but do not use sloppy or inaccurate points to make factual looking statements about a thread that is trying to be as objective as possible. If you have an issue with how those pages define terms such as assault rifle, or weapon of mass destruction, take that discussion to those pages, and make a compelling argument as to why you believe that your assessment is more accurate. User:Deltasword1517

There are two definitions of assault rifle in use today. The older, better defined and more accurate definition is the military definition. A fully automatic single man portable rifle designed for sustained automatic fire used for assaulting an enemy position. No such rifles have been manufactured since world war 2. The other definition is so undefined as to include just about any rifle with at least one of the features - semi automatic, detachable magazine, pistol grip. To be clear neither the AR-15 nor the M-16 meet the military definition. The modern m16 has three round burst not full auto. The older version which was full auto is not designed for sustained automatic fire, the barrel will warp and melt after about 15 magazines. 500 rounds, or about 30 seconds. A bb gun from walmart meets the other definition. AQBachler (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction, the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) Could meet the definition. Along with a few others, all of which require a federal firearms license. AQBachler (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Widely Condemned

In the second paragraph, it states "The shooting was widely condemned nationally, including by President Joe Biden and by gun control advocates, as well as internationally.". Is this sentence really necessary? There are no US politicians on either side or notable organizations condoning this shooting. I recommend that is sentence be removed as it provides no value to the article/page. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence no only provides no value, but is an attempt at framing to make it a political issue, and more specifically a political issue regarding "gun control advocates." Well, "gun rights activists" also condemned the shooting, including people mentioned later in the article. Yet the sentence doesn't say it was also condemned by gun rights advocates. It only mentions gun control advocates. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The lede is based on the article body, which currently does not include mention of any gun rights advocates condemning the shooting. ––FormalDude talk 20:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not correct. The body includes Ted Cruz, and also mentions Greg Abbott, both of whom have a history as gun rights proponents, and who have both come out against more gun control regulation in response to the shooting. It also mentions John Cornyn, and Paul Gosar, who I am unfamiliar with, but who I understand are very strongly in favor of gun rights.

The most salient individual would probably be Ted Cruz, who is a gun rights advocate who absolutely is included in the article condemning the shooting as "yet another act of evil and mass murder". Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are all state officials, and, if you'll notice, the sentence is talking about who the shooting was widely condemned by nationally. ––FormalDude talk 21:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Cruz, Cornyn and Gosar are federal officials. They are not state officials. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When I read about people "nationally, as well as internationally," that language doesn't exclude locals, but rather expands it past the local area to the national, and then international. Also, it seems absurd to exclude anyone within Texas, one of the largest parts of the nation, when talking about it being "widely condemned nationally". Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple terror attacks and shootings include a "reaction" section. I dont see whats wrong with this article having a sentence dedicated to it. 96.76.44.98 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Those sections are always full of trivia and platitudes. EvergreenFir, thanks for cleaning up. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to some sort of sentence in the lead about the reaction, but the current sentence seems to be a bit lack luster. Obviously, everyone is gonna condemn it. I think the article would be better off without the sentence as currently written. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried rewriting it to not spotlight Joe Biden, include both sides of the debate and avoid needlessly reiterating "widely" as "nationally...as well as internationally", but apparently general summation, concision and neutrality aren't everyone's idea of a good line. C'est la vie. Support removing lengthy loaded version. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont think its appropriate to mention that sentence or any of the politicians who have zero to do with the shooting, leave that to news agency articles. Wikipedia is not twitter, stick to the relevant facts. Yes everyone condemns the shooting. But how is that relevant to someone reading about it in 10 or 100 years? AQBachler (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Confusing Timeline and Conflicting/Unnecessary Information

As it stands, the text of the article is confusing and has several parts of repeated information. Something like:

". . . A witness said Ramos first fired at two people at a nearby funeral home, both of whom escaped uninjured. He then shot and wounded a school district (UCISD) police officer who attempted to stop him from entering the building; afterwards, he dropped a black bag with ammunition inside and ventured further into the school. Soon after, police reported receiving 9-1-1 calls about a vehicle having crashed near the school and a person armed with a rifle who had been seen heading inside. Ramos evaded law enforcement outside the school, and the gunman walked through the school's south entrance at around 11:30 a.m. CDT (UTC–5). Police initially did little to prevent the shooting.

After entering the building, Ramos walked down two short hallways, entered a classroom that was internally connected to another classroom, and barricaded himself inside while opening fire on the children and two teachers in the room. All of the victims were located in the fourth grade classroom where the shooter barricaded himself. The UCISD police chief estimated that this shooting began at 11:32 and, according to a Facebook post by the school, the school was locked down at 11:43 in response to gunshots heard in the vicinity. According to Christopher Olivarez, a lieutenant of the Texas Department of Public Safety, first responding officers had insufficient manpower and were unable to enter the classroom, and they instead evacuated children and teachers by breaking windows around the school.

Ramos stayed in the classroom for 40 to 60 minutes, hiding behind a steel door that officers were unable to open until they obtained a master key from the principal. In the moments after the shooting began, onlookers urged police to enter the school, but they did not. At 12:17 p.m., UCISD sent out a message on Twitter that there was an active shooter at the elementary school. As UCISD officers exchanged fire with Ramos, Border Patrol Tactical Unit agents joined them in response to a request for assistance; one was grazed on the head by a bullet and was hit hit by shrapnel. According to Governor Greg Abbott, the wounded Border Patrol agent shot and killed Ramos."

Would be easier to read and leaves out unnecessary, previously-mentioned information. I edited out the sources to make the text clearer, but of course they should be put back in on the original page. I also added 2 articles showing the injury sustained by the agent, both of which are the best sources I could find, since the publications or their correspondents were the ones who originally obtained the photos.

Perhaps it is also worth noting the previous accounts that ISD and BORTAC exchanged fire before Ramos entered the school building to clear up confusion; however, I am unsure that would fit in this, and not, for example, the "Criticism for delay in police response" section. Duttysuddy (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The shooter's estimated time of death would seem to be of encyclopedic value. LA Times suggesting 11:43am but I haven't been able to find another definitive source. AlwaysImpartial (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that's just poorly written; what they mean is, "where a Border Patrol officer would eventually kill Ramos." According to WaPo, his death was most likely some time between 12:51 (reports of shots fired) and 1:06 (police give all-clear) EatTrainCode (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times article has since been updated. It now says that Ramos was killed sometime between 12:45 PM and 1 PM EatTrainCode (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic

We shouldn't ask for too much: the police themselves were not clear about the timeline in the press conference this afternoon. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Honestly, it isn't surprising that the police are not being clear given reports that they restrained and tackled parents. Even the police statements today have contradicted statements they have made Tuesday and Wednesday. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Police criticism in lede

I've added the line: "Police first responders received widespread criticism for their handling of the shooting" to the lede.

This is in line with other shootings, like the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that had bungled police responses.

Criticism of the first responders is leading every major newspaper right now: NYT, WSJ, WashPo and Houston Chronicle, from what I've seen. When does that ever happen?? Schierbecker (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

At the state of the current lead, I don't think its proper WP:WEIGHT to include the police criticism at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? Schierbecker (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Schierbecker: you need to remove the sentence in question from the lead. Doing so would respect the WP:BRD cycle. I think adding it right now could be premature since this criticism is new founded. Also the current lead is a small paragraph, so the WP:WEIGHT of its content becomes a concern. If the lead was 3 paragraphs long right now, it probably would warrant inclusion, but that's not the case. Right now the lead should just be a very brief summary of the shooting, not discussing the police criticisms. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It's quite clear that scrutiny of the police is becoming a major issue with this event. Love of Corey (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree. Scrutiny of the agonizingly slow law enforcement response is growing, and videos of heavily armed law enforcement officers carrying out aggressive crowd control tactics on distraught parents instead of storming the school have emerged. It seems that at least one parent was wrestled to the ground and others were handcuffed, and the cops were putting up yellow crime scene tape instead of trying to rescue the children. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been covering law enforcement topics for many years and never have I seen such a strong unified reaction to police conduct (not even Ferguson or Minneapolis); least of all when the person they were up against was killing 10-year-olds. Schierbecker (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it should remain at least a mention of it. Similar to how Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and criticism is. Different situations but this is getting heavy coverage already in this regard. Douglas shooting I believe mainly focused on one officer in particular who waited outside and did nothing. This one it seems they had a much larger squadron of officers. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Police Outside of Robb Elementary School.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Tony Gonzales 2022.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022 (2)

Change Miranda Mathis to Maranda Gail Mathis Purplegrapevines (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 17:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Clear mis-spelling of Maranda corrected, as requested. Davidships (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Two gratuitous sentences

"The Secret Service ironically forbade its attendees from carrying firearms during Trump's speech, despite NRA's lobbying of publicly carrying guns for safety."

"Cruz has received over $440,000 in total from gun rights interest groups since 2020, according to OpenSecrets."

Would remove, but I'm all out of reverts for today. Schierbecker (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Another line:

"[O’Rourke] then criticized Abbott as being hypocritical for, on one hand, opting not to expand Medicaid and to defund mental health services in the state, while on the other hand attributing the cause of the shooting to mental health—despite the fact that Ramos had no known mental health issues."

User:Phillip Samuel, you are making an inference, not drawn by the cited source, that O’Rourke went up to the stage because he wanted to correct the Governor. This is not true.

[1]. Schierbecker (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Schierbecker Hello! Quite a few news outlets notably did point out the irony in the first sentence. Cruz did receive substantial public criticism for the large amount of money he received from those interest groups which should be noted. As for O'Rourke, he did confront Abbott and accuse him of inaction. That was the headline for a lot of news articles about his heckling. I also paraphrased this paragraph from the source:O’Rourke continued his remarks outside of the event. He railed against Abbott for not funding mental health care services for Texans and for not expanding Medicaid, which could in turn expand mental health care access. Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be saying here that O'Rourke criticized Abbott for gaslighting the shooter. This is nonsense and not in the source material. In fact O'Rourke also seems to think the shooter had mental health problems. Schierbecker (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Abbott did blame the shooting on mental health despite saying in the news conference that the shooter had no known mental health history, and O'Rourke did criticze him on his policies for mental health. O'Rourke first went up to the stage to accuse him of inaction, then criticized him on his mental health stance outside. If O'Rourke said that the shooter had mental health problems, you're welcome to add that in the article. Phillip Samuel (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you meant it that way, but the whole sentence is clunky and ambiguous. Can you re-write? Schierbecker (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I'll rewrite some sentences and be more brief. Phillip Samuel (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Including victims' names

There seems to be some contention surrounding the inclusion of victims' names in the article. Leaky.Solar stated that it's not right to identify some and not others, while Harizotoh9 wrote that it was unclear why these victims should be singled out by name or why they're so special. Therequiembellishere similarly commented that they weren't sure if singling out names of a recent shooting is appropriate or the standard among dozens of other victims, and Charliestalnaker alleged that children's name[s] [are] not allowed in [sic] Wikipedia if possible. In response to the first three arguments, the issue here is that, as of yet, only certain victims have been identified, meaning that it's impossible to include the names of all of the victims. It's not about the ethics or practicality of listing all of the names, but about what information we have available to us now. To address the last point, there is no policy stating that the names of minors are "not allowed" to be included on Wikipedia. Yes, information about minors should be added with care, but their names have already been widely publicized by news outlets, and no overly personal information about any of them was included.

The question then becomes, do we include the names of the victims as they're publicized, or do we wait until a full list of names is released? The other overarching question here is, do we even include the names at all? WP:VL cautions against including lists of victims of mass casualties, per several policies, including WP:NOTMEMORIAL, while WP:CASL encourages including names of victims. I'm in favor of including names as they come out, so long as the sources used to verify those names are reliable. I want to hear what other editors have to say about this matter, and am opening this question up to discussion. benǝʇᴉɯ 14:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I've previously advocated omitting both victims' and the perpetrators' names. The perpetrators' simply to avoid encouragement of copycats. The victims' because a list of names does not improve a reader's understanding of the subject. Consequently it is not encyclopedic material. An article is meant to summarize accepted knowledge, not present all extant facts. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In general, I err on the side of VL and NOTMEMORIAL, unless some of the victims were notable or develop into a posthumously notable figure as stories emerge and an article is created. Particularly at this phase when we don't have a complete picture, I don't see what we get from adding the few known names--especially with the sensitivity around the majority of victims being minors. If we do go with a list, I think it should come as completely as possible in one addition in the coming weeks, not as a trickle. Could also be worth looking at what was/is done at the Sandy Hook article as the most comparable similar recent event. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Missed Mr rnddude's comment a second before mine! Agree with everything said there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

None of the victims' names should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New shooting, same discussion. I feel reliably sourced names should be included. There is no policy to necessitate exclusion, and it is information that some readers may want to know. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is always brought up, but that is specifically for subjects of articles. So an article on a victim or a standalone article with list of victims strictly to memorialize them is prohibited. Either way based on previous articles, once contested a discussion for adding names should happen first, which you have started. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

For the over 99% of readers who didn't know the victims, how is it helpful for them to know their names? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: See this Rfc in the Buffalo shooting article. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes please refer to my response when you asked me basically the same question there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's very different to knowing the names of attackers, who choose to actively commit mass murders. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We should treat this as we would any other information we get from reliable sources: updating the article as it is released. Obviously more names are coming, and these names will likely become more relevant as multiple sources pick up on them. Not including the names is a violation of WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. We should follow our sources and not try to influence or cherry pick what information we do or don't include in a way that imbalances the article towards the murderer. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You think the victims' families' privacy shouldn't be respected? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a nice straw man, did it take long to build it? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a relevant point. You regard including the victims' names to be more important than the privacy of the victims' families, whereas I don't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it's irrelevant. You didn't reply to anything I said. You simply erected a straw man. Go have fun arguing with yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

My point - which you haven't tried to respond to - is that the privacy of the victims' families is more important than adding the names of randomly shot people to the article. Do you think many people, years in the future, will want to know the names of these victims? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a straw man and irrelevant. The names are widely reported in our sources. There is no expectation of privacy. See also: Streisand effect. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• As this is actively being discussed as a matter of policy - of which WP:BLP still absolutely applies and has nothing to do with WP:NPOV in any way, I've reverted Locke Cole again, in favor of gaining consensus here. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae: See this RFC closure at 2022 Buffalo shooting and this RFC closure at Oxford High School shooting. The 2022 Buffalo shooting closer even went so far as to note that NPOV was relevant. When we artificially include or exclude very relevant parts of an event, that is impacting the neutrality of the article. Including the names of the victims of these events is standard practice. Please self revert. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, and we're here to discuss this article, not another article. Until there's consensus here it shouldn't be restored. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The victims names are ALL included in the Sandy Hook shooting article.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say wait until all names of the deceased are released so that its confirmed spellings and names instead of adding as we go. As you mentioned the names of deceased victims are listed for the Sandy Hook shooting as well as for the [[Stoneman Douglas High School shooting]], but it would be best to wait. The most recent article I've found only lists the 2 teachers and 10 of the children's names. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a wiki, there's no need to "wait for confirmed spellings". If we have multiple reliable sources that we use in good faith, and they issue corrections, we can update the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Again, quoting WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how not including victim's names, at least until all of them have actually been released, is a violation of NPOV.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Then you fail to understand NPOV. Specifically, you should familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE (a subsection of WP:NPOV). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Just linking to those policies is not enough, you have to actually explain your position. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean it should be obvious, but by omitting the victims and their details we are making the article imbalanced towards the perpetrator. See also the repeated addition of the photograph of the shooter. There is no doubt that the victims are as relevant as the shooter, if not more so. WP:NPOV applies. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The shooter is far more relevant. He actively chose to cause it. Had he not done so, it wouldn't have happened. The victims were random; if they weren't there, he'd have shot others instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This event would not be notable if not for the victims. If he'd gone into a room and shot up drywall the entire event wouldn't warrant an article. You literally can't describe this event without discussing the victims. Full stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

He would have shot others instead, not an empty room. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations: those other people would be relevant and notable then. You appear to deliberately be missing the point though: if nobody had been killed, this event would not be notable and we wouldn't have an article about it. The victims are integral and inseparable from the event. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

They're not notable. If they were notable, they'd have their own articles. The victims weren't individually selected. They were unfortunate strangers, shot at random. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You have my permission to go start individual articles for the victims. I look forward to seeing what you can produce. Thank you for the offer. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not an offer. If anyone starts an article about the victims or any individual victim, it'd be quickly deleted due to a lack of notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The basic problem is common in Wikipedia. It's a conflict between "I don't like it" and to deliver more information. It's true that WP is not a memorial but this whole article is basically a memorial as are airplane crashes. I believe WP should err on the side of more information, not censorship even though the product may look less pretty. Disclaimer: this is a general philosophy, not my vote on what to do with this question (list names or not). Charliestalnaker (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The event is notable, not the individual victims. Why should several random people be cited but not everyone? Next, does a list even help? It's just random names. You can summarize the information and give what is relevant, such as the age range. As with any big attack there will be profiles on victims but nothing out of the usual. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Over 90% of our articles include at least the victim names. Some articles go further with additional details. We should simply follow what our sources say and stop trying to impose what we prefer on our readers. Excluding the victims, in addition to ignoring our sources, also is a WP:NPOV concern because it slants the article towards the murderer. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That's only true of articles about mass shootings in the US. There's no good reason for our articles to be different on the basis of which country they occurred in. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A few things: 1) It's irrelevant because we're discussing a US mass shooting article. 2) You've provided no proof of your statement. 3) International mass shootings may be handled differently by our reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's relevant because we should be consistent & because you often say that about 90% of articles about mass shootings include victims' names. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

And we are being consistent with other US mass shooting articles. You've still provided no proof for your claim that international mass shooting articles don't have victim lists. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The articles about mass shootings & other mass-casualty incidents in other countries clearly show that. Recent examples include this year's Las Tinajas massacre & Celaya massacre. No-one added the names or said they wanted to. Even if many RS report the names, it's unlikely that anyone will want to add them. The vast majority of people - including most of those who read this comment - have no knowledge of or interest in them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey

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.

This discussion has been closed; there is overwhelming consensus to add a victims list. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Oppose adding a victims list.
Support adding a victims list.

• Support - I support adding a victims list, but the list should be a small table and shouldn't comprise most of the Victims section. However, it's too early to begin adding a victims list. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support adding a victims list. See the Sandy Hook shooting article. They have one as well. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support for reasons stated above, no policy reason not to, and it is information a reader may want. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons given again and again and the closing of these previous RFCs: 2022 Buffalo shooting RFC and Oxford High School shooting RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Parents have literally come out to repeatedly state they don't want the kids to be forgotten. --Trade (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support if enough secondary sources cover the names and ages of the victims, which they most likely will. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support NY times has listed names of all victims on their front page. [[2]] - -Abhishikt (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Abhishikt: Dead link --Trade (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support I don't really see a reason not to and most sources have listed their names. The furret lover (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• With 8 supports and 0 objections, it's obvious there is wide support for a victims list. I will work on adding the full list using an article from the Houston Chronicle. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @ElijahPepe after just 5 hours of !voting? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware it had to be longer. It seemed like there was clear consensus, though. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir: WP:SNOW exists. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. It's TOOSOON to see if a "victim list" should be made. If the list turns out to be needed I would prefer a list more like this (for formatting/template usage), this (for adding somewhat helpful information about the victims) or this (for the same reasons as the others, but far more in-depth) rather than a bland, undetailed, list such as this one. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support I always support having a list provided it is not extensively long (such as 9/11 where having a list is not practical) which I believe is the case here, it is not too long of a list to not post.
• Support This article exists because people were murdered. Providing basic information about the victims (such as their name and age) is wholly consistent with writing an encyclopedic article on the shooting. WP:NOTMEMORIAL always comes up in these discussions. However, that policy requires article topics to meet notability requirements; the policy simply does not prohibit including factual information cited to reliable sources independent of the subject. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support this would be consistent with the Sandy Hook article and recent trends on Wikipedia to include victim names for events such as these. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: It is not "too soon" to add the list, as someone said. All of the victims names (and ages) have already been provided to the press. So it is time to add it. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 06:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of names. The names mean nothing to over 99% of people. Including them violates the victims' families' privacy. Including them on articles about US mass shootings but not on mass-casualty events in other countries is inconsistent. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The parents have already provided the name of their killed child to the press. How does this violate their privacy?--Trade (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    • All of them have? They've all chosen to talk to the press? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Who said all of them? --Trade (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support as widely reported and, by my lights, a crucial part of the story. Cheers, all, and be good to one another. Dumuzid (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Sources and relevant. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - So long as it's reported with RS, a simple list or short section is fine. -- Veggies (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of names. No encyclopedic value to list otherwise non-notable people. Potential violation of privacy. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Statement from Governor Abbott’s office on the day of the shooting

I don’t know where to include the statement made by Governor Abbott’s office the day of the shooting. (URL below)

Governor Abbott Statement On Shooting At Robb Elementary School In Uvalde | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-statement-on-shooting-at-robb-elementary-school-in-uvalde;

--Sroth0616 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You can add it in the response section where most politician statements about the shooting goes.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 17:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Husband of a teacher killed dies of grief

Does it worth the mention in the article? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/husband-of-teacher-killed-in-uvalde-shooting-suffers-fatal-heart-attack/ar-AAXLMqS?ocid=uxbndlbing -Abhishikt (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say so. I think it can be mentioned in a note or one sentence. -- Veggies (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This another victim here, it should be covered. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

He is not a victim of the event itself and the source doesn't say anything about it being related to it. You're just inferring it. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case should it go under Victim section as indirect-victim or under Aftermath section? [3] -Abhishikt (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't state that he died as a result of the shooting, directly or indirectly. You're attributing it to something that is unproven. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As an indirect victim. This literally happened preparing the funeral of his slain wife! --StellarNerd (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added to the victim count, but I would say it's as valid for a quick mention as the correlative deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds were—whether causative or not. -- Veggies (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in the Victims section. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe it should go in aftermath. The man wasn't directly a victim of the shooter and died the next day. Aditionally, it is relevant as the family said he died of grief tied to the death of his wife.Jaguarnik (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@PRAXIDICAE no one is inferring anything. They are going by what reliable source state. Deaths as a result of massive grief which causes considerable stress on the body are well documented. His death was indirectly caused by the slaughter, and there is nothing contentious about stating as such. You wouldn't like it if someone stated that George Floyd died form a drug overdose which supressed his raspatory system (and neither would I) but your argument is frighteningly similar to that one spread by white supremacists and alt-lite trolls...--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:9015:CB55:E9D3:335C (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - The heart attack, while unfortunate, does not make the person a victim of the shooting. I agree with @Praxidicae - it is inference and "attributing something that is unproven." I think it's only tangentially related; his wife was a victim of the shooting, and then two days later he died from what was likely stress on his heart. Unfortunate, but not pertinent to this article. It seems as if I am in the minority on it not being included, however, so I won't push that point. What I will push for is not including his death in the victims section. --Kbabej (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Victim lists are already a gray area; attributing a natural death to grief is both speculative and a privacy concern. EatTrainCode (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed it from the Victims section since it's already listed in the Aftermath section. I think it's clear that if it should go anywhere it would be there. ––FormalDude talk 22:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the aftermath section. He shouldn't be listed as a casualty of the shooting, unless RS begins presenting him in that manner, which I don't anticipate happening. A brief mention, like it is now, in the aftermath section is good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the aftermath section. For now, this may or may not carry weight in prevalence among RS, but this is a VICTIMS HUSBAND...I say aftermath is a respectable place for now. DN (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the aftermath section per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in aftermath section Let the reader decide. The man had a heart attack after his wife was shot to death. Coincidence? Much more likely it wasn't. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in aftermath section per everyone else as well. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the aftermath section he died after putting flowers on the memorial. Grief stricken.Venkat TL (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Readership

I noticed this entry was viewed over a million times in a day recently. Here I've asked if the article should be added to Wikipedia:Article traffic jumps, for folks who might be more familiar with this area of the project. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Detailed timeline from CNN

CNN posted a timeline of the shooting in their live updates. The article should be updated to reflect the times accordingly, or if another article disputes it since this info is changing, try to merge them together. CNN Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Should article mention protest outside NRA convention in Houston?

Currently this article mentions the NRA convention in Houston, but unless I'm overlooking, not the protest being held outside. Should this be mentioned? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include briefly. It's at least somewhat significant, and the NRA convention in Houston has gotten some coverage connected to this shooting. I say add one sentence in the "NRA" paragraph in the gun control discussion subsection covering the protests. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"After firing shots outside the school for approximately 12 minutes"

Who was he shooting at? Would it have taken him 12 minutes to fire a few shots at a funeral home? Texas authorities have finally conceded that there was no law enforcement officer, armed or not, at that school when the shooter arrived. Is this still appropriate for the lead when the law enforcement narrative seems to be unraveling? Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of the reported timelines agree that Ramos crashed his car at 11:28 and entered the school at 11:40. During that time period, he fired several shots at or around the school. There's witness testimony of this time period from both the people at the funeral home and the women who tried to assist him after his crash (it's unclear if these are the same people) EatTrainCode (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean that he got out of the vehicle in the ditch and immediately started firing? The police department was 1.2 miles away. Why didn't they arrive and intervene in that twelve minute period? It actually took law enforcement over an hour to respond forcefully. The statements from senior Texas law enforcement authorities in the past 48 plus hours are complete baloney and every single word they have said needs to be scrutinized intensely before falsehoods are enshrined in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It does appear that the Uvalde police took over an hour to "respond forcefully.". There are even 911 calls over a period of 48 min that appear to back this up. I think the statements from Wednesday should deserve the most scrutiny as they have been or appear to have been false multiple times now. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• All this information is coming from the same agency (Texas Department of Public Safety) that has provided misinformation. We should take it all with a grain of salt.- Ken Dilanian, NBC correspondent

  --Venkat TL (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• • According to the Austin American-Statesman, five minutes (not 12 minutes) passed from the pickup truck crash to the killer entering the school. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect rifle description

The AR 15 rifles the shooter purchased are described as military style, this is incorrect as all AR 15s are civilian sporting rifles and do not meet military specifications. 2001:5B0:2538:1278:FD25:B9F2:231B:970D (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The key word is "style".

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

meaning what? this clearly-not-military-grade weapon had a camo sticker on it?

i have a squirt-gun which is military "style". i don't think that bears mention in a serious article. 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

An analogy to a "squirt gun" doesn't work very well for something that was used to kill 22 people in only minutes.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 19:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

the point is, it's not military "style" in any meaningful way. has someone without firearms experience just said it "looked like one"? 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has an AR-15, I disagree. Style is not the same as specification. Though it might not be up to military specifications (which by the way it's dang close) it visually *looks* like a rifle the military would use, hence "military style". Also, please elaborate on how it doesn't meet military specifications for the knowledge of everyone here. Dudeofthelake (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The m16 is a military version of the ar15. The ar 15 was around a long time before the m16, so technically the m16 is a civilian style rifle. As someone who owns both I dont think it's appropriate to label either one as styled like the other. A mini 14 which fires the same round is just as deadly. The style is irrelevant and thus inappropriate for the article. AQBachler (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, civilians can own an m16 if you have an ffl. AQBachler (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is hair-splitting. Most people know that a rifle that can shoot 37 people in minutes is a military style weapon. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

so you're saying the term itself is meaningless?

i do not know guns myself. but a few people here have agreed there is a specific definition to the term. it may be hair-splitting, but if it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply.

why the obsession with squeezing it into the article anyways? just use a description which is correct instead. 2601:19C:527F:A680:99E8:8A20:F8E7:4711 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Style is correct. 1) Thats how it was represented in RS, so thats how it should go. 2) On a technical point, AR-15 style simply points out the gun architecture style, the fact that it is a DI gun, that it has the same bolt carrier group as a military AR, the same upper and lower receiver, has a similar trigger group (barring autosear and auto fire mode). Wording is appropriate and factually correct.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspect section: image of alleged killer

File:Salvador-Romas.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by B137 (talk • contribs) 2022-05-25T05:00:36 (UTC)

>> WHAT IS THE POLL QUESTION???? <<

without one stated, it is unclear whether "support" means support HAVING the image or support REMOVING the image!!!!

i think some of the ppl below have MISVOTED for this reason! 2601:19C:527F:A680:99E8:8A20:F8E7:4711 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, an image of the murderer is of no encyclopedic value. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

...unless he's white 76.181.201.214 (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support We should use the image since, looking through others mass-murders articles, they typically include an image of the murderer to be more detailed. Also, I have zero sympathy for any school shooter lol. Requity (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

i don't know why u wanna whitewash this thing, but the pic has already slipped out in the news. assuming they've flagged the right suspect, what is to be gained from a cover-up?

most of us have no such sympathy and say go ahead and expose the bastard! he lost any right to privacy through his actions. 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the a. killers picture ever being in article extensive research shows that mass-shooters "want to be famous for their killing". Wikipedia is not required to help mass-killers be famous.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

boy, that's some twisted logic if ever i heard some!

by that reasoning, we should leave out his name as well. are u advocating that? 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That is being considered high up in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considering never mentioning mass-shooters names.

The news outlet CNN decided to never report the a. Buffalo shooters name.

In order to deny him the fame that he wanted to get from killing those people.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

He may have lost his privacy, but that doesn't mean his family, friends, close ones, etc. lost theirs. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble Wikipedia does not allow it's articles to actively encourage acts of violence ( WP:NPOV ). Consensus is shifting as we speak about what this means about posting names, photos of mass-shooters who kill so they can get on Wikipedia.

(Boldface only added to emphasize key points.)

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

has there ever been a SINGLE victim's family who has said they don't want to know who was responsible? whether the killer seeks out such infamy or not, facts are facts, and news is news. wikipedia should not be part of any sort of cover-up. 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I second this; no good reason to remove Ramos' name. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow it's articles to actively encourage acts of violence

Adding a shooter's name doesn't "actively encourage violence."

Consensus is shifting as we speak about what this means

See False consensus effect. I don't see anybody proposing that we remove shooter's names.

about posting names, photos of mass-shooters who kill so they can get on Wikipedia.

There's no evidence Ramos had Wikipedia in mind when he carried out the massacre.

And as I said, Wikipedia isn't the place to do what you think is morally right. There isn't a policy saying the names of perpetrators should be hidden. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

RGW exists to prevent OR. This is not a concern in this case. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:CITINGGREATERPROBLEMS Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's... even less relevant than RGW as this is not an AFD. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the part that said: While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc.

Italics added by me Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have not read the essay from top to bottom – indeed at 152,000 bytes and 15,000 words, very few people will have spent the hour necessary – but the section you cited appears to be geared specifically to deletion discussions: [b]ut a deletion discussion is about a specific article and not a place to right great wrongs with Wikipedia. That is the section I read, not the whole page. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@unknown IP You said "has there ever been a SINGLE victim's family who has said they don't want to know who was responsible?" The police and the courts always tell the victims families who the alleged killer is determined to be. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Very lengthy, uncivil back and forth between multiple editors that didn't really change any minds or move the needle seemingly —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop pointless censoring - His image is not fair-use. It's public domain. There's zero reason to not have it in the article. -- Veggies (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Veggies how is it PD? PRAXIDICAE💕 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) File:Salvador-Romas.jpg Can you not read the license on the file page? -- Veggies (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC) The fact that an image has been tagged with a license, does not prove said license is correct. Anyone can upload a copyrighted image and claim it is in the public domain. The image in question has been nominated for deletion because it was taken from a questionable source. Post-fact addendum: I take note that your provided source might be sufficient to resolve that issue, I did not see it at the moment of posting. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) If your argument is that "anyone can lie about anything", then we're not going to get anywhere. The image was tagged for deletion based on an extremely weak argument that I've refuted on the nomination page. Very reliable sources list the Texas Department of Public Safety as being the source of the photo. See here. Moreover, to take your argument to a logical next step: "anyone can nominate a photo for deletion, claiming it's from a questionable source". -- Veggies (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) ... And I just thought to check. The Independent article you cite was posted twelve hours after the image was uploaded to Wikipedia. There's a risk of citogenesis. The argument on the nomination page is that the image does not come from an RS. That's a credible argument because the source is listed as this. And that isn't an RS. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "There's a risk of citogenesis." Once again you resort to an argument from fallacy. There's no reason to suggest that The Independent gets its pictures from random users on Wikipedia. If it did, it shouldn't be taken as a credible source, yet it is. The likely reason that source is listed is because it's the one that that user found it on and decided to cite. He could just as well have cited the TDPS if he had gotten it straight from them. -- Veggies (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Evidently you don't know that Wikipedia has a history with citogenesis. Wikipedia makes a claim, reliable sources parrot the claim, and then Wikipedia cites the reliable sources parroting the claim as evidence for the claim. That a source is reliable does not mean it is infallible. That's a non-sequitur. The image may well be PD, but that needs to be demonstrated, not merely claimed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Fine. Give me the standard by which I can "demonstrate" that a photo is what RS claim it is. You don't accept the cited credit made by RSs, so please, tell me...how do I demonstrate this? -- Veggies (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) I've checked and the image is not properly sourced. And the Drivers License claim has no date. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) You didn't check hard enough. It's properly sourced. It's from the Texas Department of Public Safety. -- Veggies (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC) User:Veggies, please try to speak more respectfully to other editors. As for that image, as long as there is legitimate doubt about its status, and as long as there is no agreement between editors, the image is out. Note that there's no picture of the killer for the 2019 El Paso shooting or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) whatchu talkin' 'bout willis?!the el paso wiki has not one, but TWO photos of the killer, right up top! 2601:19C:527F:A680:2177:A157:A3DE:7DA2 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC) User:Drmies: What was disrespectful? There's nothing I've written that's untrue about that photo. It's sourced to the state of Texas and it's perfectly relevant to this subject. Also what does Note that there's no picture of the killer for... have to do with anything? There is a picture of the killer for the Sutherland Springs church shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. What point are you trying (and failing) to make? -- Veggies (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Hmm "Stop pointless censoring" (in bold), "Can you not read the license on the file page?", "you resort to an argument from fallacy", "You didn't check hard enough". And then "What point are you trying (and failing) to make?" Some of these are personal attacks, some are borderline personal attacks, all are uncollegial, and the copious use of italics and emphasis underscores that. That there are articles that do have those images, that is a good point--but the first two that I looked at didn't. This should be a matter of editorial consensus, not one decided by yelling at other editors. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Lol. That's it?... What of it? You conceded my point that there are plenty of articles with pictures of the perpetrators. No one is "yelling" at anyone here. But I'm not going around giving free backrubs, either. Sorry if you were expecting one. -- Veggies (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC) What I expected from you is some collegiality. No one is asking for backrubs from you, believe me. And no, I don't concede "plenty". Drmies (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC) 😂 Stay mad, big boy. That's how I like you. -- Veggies (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC) FYI The image of the alleged killer is on CNN AND IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE IMAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. (Looks nothing like the "Drivers Lecense photo). HOAX (Boldface only added to emphasize important points) Respectfully, Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 07:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC) thumb|Photo that Texas officials released. I don't know what you're talking about, and why you can't make your arguments in clear, non-rambling sentences. His picture on CNN is of the same person in the photo that Texas officials put out. This isn't a forum for venting your lunacy. -- Veggies (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) I don't know why you can't hold a conversation without insulting everyone in it. If this continues, sanctions will be levied. We need to hold conversations with some level of decorum and civility. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Here is the CNN link that shows the killers elongated, kind of bony face. The OTHER Salvador Ramos picture (Drivers License) (See to the Right) has a round face. These are two different people with the same name. Link to CNN photo-- https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/us/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-salvador-ramos/index.html Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 13:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC) I don't believe the image should be included for other reasons but this is taking a step toward WP:NOR - it's possible and even likely it is him, peoples weight and faces change in DMV photos and photos in general. Weight loss and weight gain can both explain this. In any case, it's not our job to make that determination. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC) +1 to Praxidicae. The threshold question is whether an image should be included at all. We should navigate that first. Chesapeake77, with all due respect, I find your arguments not terribly compelling on the identity issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Yeah, I'd rather we discuss whether or not to include the photo (and why/why not) instead of getting hung up on whether it's a "hoax" photo or not. It was released by a public agency and vetted and widely-published by reliable sources. Personally, I'm fine with it. The photo is relevant and pertinent to this article. There are articles upon articles of nasty events on Wikipedia with the perpetrator's face on them. It's not a values thing. It's simply a cold fact. -- Veggies (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Hello and also with Respect. (I will use boldface here only to emphasize key points, I am not upset) :) The CNN photo is of someone with a very elongated face. The face of the other person in the D.L. photo is round. Faces do change, but not from very elongated to round. These must be two different people named "Salvador Ramos". In Texas there could easily be more. I have Hispanic relatives-- in Texas. "Salvador" is a very common name and "Ramos" is a reasonably common name. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 13:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC) This is pretty much the definition of original research and I still don't think you're understanding why (nor do I think you're correct.) PRAXIDICAE💕 13:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC) It's just a simple comparison, no "involved research". And an elongated face (See the CNN photo) will not change into a very rounded face (See above). There has been a mistake. Likely these two (different) people have the same name. Someone pulled up the wrong photo at the Texas PS Office. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 13:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Again, this is getting to the point of disruption and I suggest you stop bludgeoning it. There is no evidence available to suggest it isn't him and you are resorting to extensive original research while beating the horse to death and doing more harm to your statement against inclusion than helping. The merits being discussed have nothing to do with your opinion of whether this persons face is the same. It's about whether it's WP:DUE and within Wikipedia's copyright and POV policies. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC) I'm not "bludegeoning" anything. This is the Talk Page area where people are allowed to have lengthy debates. I haven't made a single revert in the article about this, either. Not one. Also re your comment about me, "bludgeoning", please assume good faith (See WP:GOOD FAITH ). Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 13:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Chesapeake77, bludgeoning most often happens on talk pages, in my experience, and can occur with complete good faith, as I would agree it is here. You are insisting that other editors assent to your view based entirely on ipse dixit. Again, this question isn't even properly teed up at the moment. I would urge you to let it go until the question is ripe, and you have reliable sources or at least other editors who agree with you. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC) OK, I'll leave it for now. Thanks for your kind approach. My only (last point) is ipse dixit means "without basis" but I am instead pointing this out as a "reasonable test" (used in American law) (would a reasonable examination by the average person conclude that these are two different people?). I encourage people to look at both pictures-- and conclude for themselves. Sincerely and with respect, Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 14:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

no problem with u hiding all that, but i think your description needs to be tweaked. rather than saying it "didn't really change any minds or move the needle" u should point out it "focused on a different issue" (legitimacy of pic). kind of a given no minds or needles were moved on the MAIN issue, since it wasn't addressed in there!

(if u correct it, pls feel free to delete this comment outright) 2601:19C:527F:A680:99E8:8A20:F8E7:4711 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Suppose having image of the criminal in the article. The guy didn't do it to get famous, he did it because he was bullied to insanity, and perhaps other reasons. No reason not to show it. Dream Focus 18:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - No policy based argument, so if you wish to ignore, you may do so. However, in my mind, he should be erased as a Herostratus, whereas posting his picture might idolise him in the twisted minds of a few. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC) For the American editors, my sincere condolences. As a person from a country that has suffered several violent attacks, I feel your pain. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  hitler article has photos. were this guy's actions worse than hitler? 2601:19C:527F:A680:99E8:8A20:F8E7:4711 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

VOA has a photo of the shooter available for free use. See: [4]. However, should we include his photo? Or will that give him notoriety that he may want? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The link is a youtube video, if you want to add the image. Show the free use photo by link and if it is free use, then do it. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 18:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Opinions on possible edit, Request for consensus edit by a logged-in wikipedian

In the lead, what do wikipedians think of :

Ramos was killed after a shootout with law enforcement. instead of Ramos was killed after a shootout with police. ?

I do not think Border Patrol agents are police officers. I could be wrong about that. Could we have a reliable source for this sentence and use the terminology used in the source ? The lead seems to possibly contradict the body where it says that he was killed by a Border Control agent.2601:1C0:5382:250:D8E4:24C8:7A1B:26CC (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

change sounds reasonable to me.

or even "Ramos was killed after a shootout with border patrol agents" to begin with. 2601:19C:527F:A680:7C19:BB6:D5D0:89BC (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the shootout included Border Patrol agents but was not limited to Border Patrol agents. Also, that might be confusing in the lead without the context, given later in the article, of how Border Patrol agents got involved. 2601:1C0:5382:250:D8E4:24C8:7A1B:26CC (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

if you're gonna keep saying it, the word is LEDE.

just fyi. :p 2601:19C:527F:A680:7C19:BB6:D5D0:89BC (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." 2601:1C0:5382:250:D8E4:24C8:7A1B:26CC (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

fair enough. if they want us to misspell it, that's on them, not u. u are absolved! :D 2601:19C:527F:A680:7C19:BB6:D5D0:89BC (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done

incidentally, he was killed IN a shootout with (whoever), not "after" one!! sounds like the shootout wrapped up and a bus came and clipped him! 2601:19C:527F:A680:99E8:8A20:F8E7:4711 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Weapons used

The main info panel includes the unsubstantiated claim that a semi automatic rifle was used in the attack. This article includes the following passage in the "Shooting" section: "Governor Greg Abbott said that the shooter had been carrying a handgun and might have brought a rifle along with him". Here is the reference: https://www.voanews.com/a/texas-elementary-school-shooting-/6587686.html

No major news outlet has claimed anything that contradicts Abbot's statement. Abbot's statement doesn't even mention the rifle being semi-automatic, that is pure speculation on the part of whoever made the post, so even if we believe it to be true the section should read "rifle", not "semiautomatic rifle". It is only confirmed that the suspect had a handgun. If nothing else, the weapons used section should be edited to also have "handgun" listed. The section is objectively wrong as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhyde1990 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This has long been resolved. The rifle was an AR-15 style rifle (semi-automatic).

Some do not consider an AR-15 to be a "gun", by the way. Some consider it to be a "weapon of mass destruction".

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Long resolved? List a reference that notates any proof of an AR-15 style rifle or any rifle being confirmed used by the suspect? Every single article I have seen either notates a hand gun only or "Possibly a rifle", nothing is confirmed with a rifle yet. It needs to be removed from the weapons used section until there is valid proof. 73.177.169.227 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@73.177.169.227|73.177.169.227

How many sources did you check? Here-- (confirming use of an AR-15) both big American news sources.

1) Houston Chronicle-- https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/uvalde-school-shooting-guns-17196715.php

2) CBS News-- https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/texas-school-shooting-robb-elementary-uvalde/

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, or a soapbox. You are engaging in silly hyperbole here. An AR-15 is indisputably a "gun". Wikipedia is for neutral encyclopedia editing, not

online campaigning for gun control. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There was no pistol. CNN reports 1 AR-15. My conspiracy hypothesis is they initially tried to say he committed suicide. I think antigunners are using the deaths of children to push their social agenda rather than consider the many security flaws and realistic solutions that could have easily prevented or reduced this event without trampling the rights of law abiding citizens. Things like armed security guards at the entrances not just one armed supervisor, metal detectors. Security lockdowns on individual classrooms and hallways. AQBachler (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, or a soapbox. You are making arguments about gun rights here. Wikipedia is for neutral encyclopedia editing, not online campaigning for gun rights. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it ironic someone on Wikipedia would be so uninformed. Gun control has been proven to work in countries that have implemented it: See Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom, Gun laws of Australia, Gun law in New Zealand, all examples of countries that enacted gun control in response to mass shootings too great effect, despite it "trampling the rights of law abiding citizens". I'll throw Overview of gun laws by nation#Japan as another shining example, albeit a rather old/long-term one. Now compare List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 (just this year) with List of massacres in Great Britain, List of massacres in Australia, List of massacres in New Zealand, List of massacres in Japan, or look up list of massacres in any other country you'd like and compare that to their gun laws.

It is not and should not be a political issue to suggest tried and tested methods of stopping mass shootings, especially compared to never-been-done-before suggestions like arming teachers.

Sorry Chesapeake77, or anyone else coming across this. I know it breaks the rules, I just had to vent. It shatters my heart every time seeing children murdered (at school of all places) and Americans refusing to learn from other countries. I'll refrain from doing this ever again, you have my word. 105.243.50.180 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality & sources, 'Criticism of law enforcement' section

Most police budgets are devoted to drugs, traffic, minor property offenses, debt collection, evictions, controlling unhoused people, and mental health calls, servicing those with political or economic power.

This feels more like an opinion that needs to be attributed rather than something the Wiki can include as encyclopedic fact. Additionally, the cited sources either barely reference or don't mention the police budget at all. If anything, it sounds like somebody wanted to say, "Cops don't do anything, all they do is (x, y, z)" on a currently popular page for criticism of law enforcement, and gussied it up with a tone that sounds encyclopedic sourced to two random op-eds about police abolition and reform. It shouldn't be included here. Cadenrock1 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah some parts of it definitely seem irrelevant to the shooting. Perfecnot (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Yep. Needs at least a re-write. Schierbecker (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. There's a full paragraph that just drones on about police abolition when it has little to do with this situation. Criticize the police response here, sure, but when did "the cops took a bit longer than I'd like" correlate with "remove police"? I should say now that it's my personal opinion that better training (which costs money) would have resulted in a better response for the police on the scene—but even if it wasn't, come on, schlock like this would be flagged any other day. Didn't know anarchism counted as NPOV, when did we make the switch? AdoTang (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Obama's tribute to George Floyd

@Benmite: Please explain your manual revert here. According to me, it is relevant considering the weight given to comments from other politicians and also the mention of second anniversary of Floyd's murder in the section "Criticism of law enforcement." Obama's tweet should be mentioned in either of the two sections. I won't add it back, unless other editors agree. - hako9 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

My main reason for removing that tweet was because the focus was on George Floyd's murder. The mention of the shooting itself was passing, and the article doesn't imply that Obama made a connection between the shooting and George Floyd's death in the tweet AFAIK. Also, the only reliable source I can find that covers that tweet is The Hill. Other than that, all I'm seeing is various unreliable conservative and far-right outlets. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the relevance and implication of "The shooting occurred on the day before the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd and days after the 2022 Buffalo shooting, leading to widespread discussion over the social function of police as an institution." in this article. What's the relevance of "Criticism of law enforcement" section in this article? Obama's thoughtful tribute to Floyd on the occurrence of this event is as relevant as comments from other politicians. Leave the implication business to our readers and don't insult their intelligence. You misunderstand the reliable sources policy. The claim that Obama made this tweet is verifiable through the tweet itself WP:SELFSOURCE and through 1 additional WP:RSP. The only matter to be discussed here is whether the inclusion or exclusion of this piece of info is in line with our content policies of due weight, balance etc. Do not bring your politics to the talk page with mentions of conservative or far-right here. You are just muddying the waters. Do everyone a favor by removing the thumbnail you added here. This isn't a forum for such idiocy. - hako9 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The tweet is mostly about Floyd. His murder is unconnected to this mass shooting, so it's largely irrelevant. It'd have made much more sense if he'd mentioned a similar attack instead, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mentioning the people who loved Floyd is strange, because few people loved him during his lifetime, although many thousands of people who'd never heard of him until after he was killed spoke highly of him after his death. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The president made a fairly unrelated remark about George Floyd. To conflate the two could be leaning into WP:SYNTH. If he mentioned Sandy Hook (during which he was president) I might be more inclined to support inclusion. DN (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

'Law enforcement failures' section proposal

I propose renaming and restructuring the "Criticisms of police" section to "Law enforcement failures". DPS now admits as much.

Maybe the criticism of public affairs is its own distinct subsection. Any ideas how to handle this? Schierbecker (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I also think more weight needs to be given to the conflicting reports that officials gave, as well as the calls for an FBI investigation and the governor speaking on how he was mislead. Some sources that could be added:

• The Uvalde police keep changing their story Vox.
• Growing calls for FBI to investigate police response to Uvalde massacre The Independent.
• Fact-checking misinformation about the Uvalde school shooting PolitiFact.
• Abbott says he was "misled" on Uvalde timeline Axios.

––FormalDude talk 02:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see the governor's response making it's way into the lede. Will work on that. Thanks for the links. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)