Talk:Uvalde school shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Include section on recent Trudeau action on gun control?

Trudeau has condemned the shooting and his party has recently taken steps in proposing gun control measures, including a freeze on handgun sales. Since these legislative actions were triggered by the shooting, it seems appropriate to put them in a separate section. 1 2 3 4 5 Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a short para with a link to Canada Gun control law page will be useful. Venkat TL (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to include every foreign leader/state's reactions to every mass shooting in the US? Or even other foreign leaders' reactions to this one? Just as it would seem strange to bring up the US President's reaction to a tragedy in other foreign countries and would be deemed, rightly, as egocentric, this would seem more a fact to include in an article on Gun Control in Canada if it is indeed relevant. KatrinkaG (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Phillip Samuel: Having a separate for Canada alone seems inappropriate. However, we can have a section for "International Response", if there are more examples, and add any notable actions taken in response to this shooting. Not for simple "they condemned it", but for countries where there was concrete action taken in response to this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Captain Jack Sparrow Thanks for the response. I agree that if there is not just general condemnations but concrete action taken by other nations, then it would be appropriate to designate another section to those countries. As far as I am aware, Canada is the only country that is taking serious action. Would it be more appropriate then to have a paragraph on Canada's actions? Phillip Samuel (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For now, make the section and add information for Canada. If other countries do something, then we can add them. Right now, we can add the "condemnation" notes for all the countries in one sentence, saying "Representatives from several countries, including <insert countries here> officially condemned the incident". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The "Response" section should have an "International" sub-section, and that's where Canada's legislative change could be inserted.--Tallard (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Personally, I think that where the current sentence in the "Legislative action" section is a logical location for it at this time. If an "International" section is created, then it might need to be moved, but for now I feel it makes more sense where it is. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - As long as we cite the fact that the Uvalde shooting influenced this in some way, I don't see any reason to oppose this at the moment. Love of Corey (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Victims section

@Love of Corey: can you provide a rationale for your revert? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The consensus regarding a list of victims was just to provide a list, not one full of biographical details. Love of Corey (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So that's it? You're not asserting that the material was unsourced, or violates any policy or guideline? You just don't like it? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's just what the consensus agreed on. Love of Corey (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC to clear up that specific matter, since it's clear the previous consensus was clearly generalized and nonspecific. Love of Corey (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The consensus discussion did NOT decide upon the level of biographical detail, which you admitted on your talk page when I confronted on you that. When I asked you point blank why you indicated otherwise in this edit summary, you refused to answer, choosing as your only reaction to alter the spacing in my message. Nice try.

At least three people favor the information's inclusion: Myself, Locke Cole, and Davide King. Nightscream (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of people wouldn't even think it a possibility that including mini-bios would be seriously advocated for by long-term, regular editors. We don't do that, nor should we start doing so. The burden is on those who want to include material whose inclusion is disputed. I've been proven correct when I said I suspected that adding the names was a foot-in-the-door technique to add bios of non-notable victims to articles about mass shootings. My concerns were dismissed by retorts that no-one wants that & I was fabricating a straw man to exclude the names. This obsession for victims' details only happens in regard to attacks that happened in the US, of course. The total number of people who will want the names & bios of victims added to Celaya massacre will of course always be zero. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So here's the thing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collegial, cooperative editing environment. But so far there appears to be a faction of die-hard "anti-victim" editors (for lack of a better term) who will remove any attempt to write about the victims of these events (without even trying to discuss compromises or improvements). Now I'll accept that certain policies and guidelines here make this possible, but it's turned into wiki-lawyering at this point, with the processes being abused to discourage and disrupt the regular maintenance of our articles. And it needs to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Editors who don't want mini-bios of victims in articles of mass shootings (or other mass-casualty incidents) aren't anti-victim; they're constructive editors who are opposed to including intrusive trivia on encyclopedia articles. Details about the hobbies, long-term aspirations & families of children who were killed at random by a stranger is unjustified, unencyclopedic & highly inappropriate. That needs to stop. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Jim. We manage to hold our position without the need to be nasty to those with a different opinion. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, for very good reason being civil is a requirement of WP editors.

The push for including names & trivia-laden mini-biographies of the randomly-shot victims is to make articles victim-focused, when they should be event-focused. We shouldn't be memorialising/honouring/praising the victims. It's unencyclopedic, non-neutral & intrudes into the lives of grieving families. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of a victims' list with names and ages was already a compromise between the "pro" and "anti" victim-list editors. The inclusion of trivia about the victims wouldn't be a compromise any more; it would just be that group of editors 100% getting their way. If victim mini-bios are a compromise, then the non-compromise would be full, individual articles for each victim. EatTrainCode (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Serial Killer task force

Is this really the right task force to use on this article? --Trade (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Text at WP:SKILLER says The goal of this task force is to update and maintain all articles relating to serial killers, mass murderers, and spree killers. This includes all topics from criminal biographies to profiling and apprehension techniques. So yes it looks like it is the right task force. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a mass murder, which is covered by the project. It needs to be renamed (perhaps multiple killer task force), because its scope - which is stated on its banner - is wider than its name states. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong info

According to this article, the info we have (about which border patrol agent that killed Ramos) is wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Do other WP:RS support this? Love of Corey (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

KVUE, Snopes Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

New details from investigation

• Body-cam footage details
• Possibility of students and a teacher dying of bleeding could have been saved
• “hellfire” trigger device made semi-automatic weapon used as automatic
• clearer details on timeline and delays of police response.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

References

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:

• Robb Elementary School shooting.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 10 June 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:

• Armed officer outside Robb Elementary School.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Salvador Ramos Photo?

Why is there no photo of the shooter in this article? Shouldn't people be able to see what the person behind the whole event looks like? It feels incomplete since Wikipedia is supposed to be informational. The page is locked, so someone with access should put it in. --Reversalmushroom (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It was already decided in a previous discussion that there's no consensus for a photo of him. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If there's a free image available of him I think it deserves inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not grasp what information you expect to gather from a picture of the shooter. We don't usually have photos of the shooters in articles. The MSD shooting is one of rather few exceptions – principally, far as I understand, because he's one of the very few captured alive. The norm is much more represented by our article on Sandy Hook than by MSD. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't typically have a photo because there typically is not one available in the public domain. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to second Iamreallygoodatcheckers here. If We don't usually have photos of the shooters in articles is true, it's not based on any policy but because PD pictures of shooters are uncommon given that many of them are killed or imprisoned. But if there are PD photos of shooters, what's the resistance to including them in their appropriate articles? -- Veggies (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

[W]hat's the resistance to including them in their appropriate articles? Their lack of encyclopedic value. The MSD and Columbine shootings contain images of the perpetrators that actually convey something. The former has an image of the shooter being captured alive. The latter has a still from a security camera that captured the event. They provide an underlying context. I'd argue that the mugshot in the MSD article is valueless as it says nothing about the subject matter. It's there solely for the fact that it exists. Not because it adds anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Their lack of encyclopedic value. That's dubious at best. A free-use photo of a perpetrator is absolutely pertinent and encyclopedic when it's used to illustrate what the person looked like. If we're going to have "perpetrator" sections or (in some isolated cases) standalone articles for them, a free-use picture would absolutely be encyclopedic, whether a "context" photo or not. Also, remember that the Columbine photo of the shooters you're referring to is copyrighted fair-use. We're talking about a PD picture. We have FA-quality articles with non-contextual mugshots of the perpetrators or suspects (cf. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#2005 arrests of multiple suspects, Assassination of_Robert F. Kennedy#Perpetrator, Moors murders). -- Veggies (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're claiming that knowing what the person looked like is an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject matter of this article? Citing the same guideline: [i]mages must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. That does not support introducing 'non-contextual' images. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's right. I am claiming that. He is, like it or not, the central figure in this event. Without him, it wouldn't have occurred. That makes a photo of him significant and integral. If you think only "contextual" images should be permitted, fine. But I've already offered FA-quality counterexamples that disprove your assertion. We'll just have to disagree here. -- Veggies (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The FA argument is necessarily unconvincing, as I can simply cite counter-counterexample FAs such as Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem and Ecole Polytechnique massacre which lack an image of the perpetrator(s) and are yet equal to the counterexamples. The latter article is particularly instructive as the perpetrator has been deemed notable enough to have their own article that does contain an image of the person – allaying the argument that an image is omitted for its non-existence in the public domain. It is the event, not the personality, that is the subject of this article. The perpetrator is not notable. Hence, I maintain that an image of the individual without an underlying context is not relevant, let alone integral to the article. Yes, we'll have to disagree here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The FA argument is necessarily unconvincing, as I can simply cite counter-counterexample FAs Except that I'm not trying to prove that FAs require photos of a perpetrator, but that articles with non-contextual photos of perpetrators can achieve FA status, thereby negating your assertion that they "lack encyclopedic value". -- Veggies (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The assertion supported by a guideline. It's policies and guidelines that dictate content. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The most relevant guideline here is fully in line with my position. We can disagree on its interpretation, scope, and specific application, but in no way am I violating a guideline. -- Veggies (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

... but in no way am I violating a guideline - I'm not sure why this is a concern for you. I haven't claimed that you're violating any guideline, nor would it make any sense. At the top of every guideline is this blurb: [i]t is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. There is some editorial discretion allowed to editors with regards guidelines. This is distinct to, for example, 3RR, which affords leeway only to specific circumstances, mainly anti-vandalism. I assume you're not claiming that I am violating the guideline either. I'll close by stating the obvious. We will not convince each other regarding this matter. I have a stricter interpretation of [i]mages must be significant and relevant in the topic's context than you. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sutherland Springs church shooting, University of Texas tower shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, 2009 Fort Hood shooting, 2014 Fort Hood shooting, Easter Sunday Massacre, Washington Navy Yard shooting, Oikos University shooting, Rancho Tehama shootings, Northern Illinois University shooting (GA), Binghamton shooting...

Plenty of articles covering American mass shootings contain photos of the shooters. Most of them committed suicide or were killed at the scene. If a free image is available, why not add it? Although I can only assume that many people want such images added to the articles to sneak in some kind of “gotcha!” about the perpetrator's race or whatever. In this case, a lot of people seem to be wanting to push a debunked narrative that Ramos was transsexual, and might still believe that the fake widely circulated photos supporting the conspiracy are in fact pictures of the shooter. Mooonswimmer 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just because lots of people do something (example: putting photos of killers in WP articles), doesn't automatically mean those people are right. History is full of lots of people doing the wrong thing. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

While I understand both sides of this argument, I just want to lay down my marker that I don't think pictures of the perpetrators improve these articles, and in fact, in a curious way, tend to act as a distraction. That said, though I often say this, it is absolutely an issue on which people can disagree in complete good faith, and if consensus should be for inclusion, I will not caterwaul. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxford High School shooting, East High School shooting, Edmund Burke School#2022_shooting, Tanglewood Middle School shooting and Robb Elementary School shooting are all school shootings from this decade (i.e. the past two and a half years). They are all navigable from the navbox at the bottom of this article (a couple instances don't have individual articles). None have such an image. Check any decade or any period and that'll be the general outcome. Indeed none in the navbox have an image until you get to MSD – that is the last 12/13. This is the norm. The claim then that an article is incomplete without it is consequently a fabrication. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I oppose a photo of the shooter. We already have an WP:UNDUE problem with these articles, making them tilt more towards the shooter is not my idea of balance. As to the issue of free use vs. fair use, that is not an issue for images of the dead AFAIK. For the living it's an issue because it's reasonable to think we can get a free-use picture of the person at some point. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

See List of mass shootings in the United States. I don't think it is as common as Moonswimmer is inferring, none the less, having a photo for the sake of having a photo is WP:UNDUE. It must fit in the context of the article. DN (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the article is about the school shooting, not the shooter. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

But there is a whole section Robb Elementary School shooting#Perpetrator covering Ramos. If there is an available photo, it should go there. Not in the lead, but in the section about the shooter. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is an available photo, it should go there. Why? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Question: is the purported PD photo represententative of him at the time of the shooting? I am agnostic on the general question of inclusion of an appropriate photo.Davidships (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Photo authenticity problem-- if you find his (only) (non copyrighted) photo on Wikimedia Commons, you will see that it has been challenged (for a few reasons) as being a photo of the wrong "Salvador Ramos". And WM COMMOMS does not currently have any other photos of "Salvador Ramos".

2) Wikipedia does not have biography articles about (most) (recent) alleged convicted killers. In recent years, Wikipedia editors have reached consensus that killers do not deserve the "soapbox" effect and (craved) notoriety of having their own bios on Wikipedia. Instead their bio info is included in the article about the crime and their victims-- and only enough bio info, that is highly relevent to the crime, is generally included (with the exception of the killers birthplace). So if alleged killers don't rate a Wikipedia bio article anymore, then why should they rate a photo? Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been challenged for copyright reasons. You're the only editor who claims it's not the person that the police and all the media say it is. That's the definition of OR. -- Veggies (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Most mainstream media won't use that picture. Only the Independent did (Newsweek sources are banned on Wikipedia due to it's long pattern of unreliable reporting). Everything else is copying those two "sources".

Wow-- you are saying the police can't make a mistake? In this case?

Observing the obvious isn't OR. The contested picture has a round face, his Internet video has a very long (vertical face).
That's not "research" it's common sense, requiring a 20 second comparison.

There is no Wikipedia rule that says that you abandon common sense-- and believe whatever you are told. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia policy list on unreliable sources say's this about The Independent-- "In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date."

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek sources are banned on Wikipedia Do you just shamelessly make up anything, however brazenly false it might be, to support your claims? Newsweek is not "banned" on Wikipedia. -- Veggies (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Veggies please note--

Newsweek sources (after 2013) are not readily accepted on Wikipedia (NW sources before 2013 are accepted). See WP:NEWSWEEK

Also, @Veggies

• The "Salvador Ramos" photo (that I have been discussing here is now banned from use on Wikipedia). This is because it was found to have a phony ("bogus") made-up "police source" (supposedly at the Texas Department of Public Safety). Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 00:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The section on Newsweek (2013-present) does not say the source has been 'banned' or that it is 'not accepted', presumably you mean 'blacklisted'. It says that consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis.

The image was deleted because the license it was using is not valid. See this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it says "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable." and then it says (later in the same paragraph) "Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."

Also-- regarding the photo-- THERE IS ANOTHER WMC PAGE it was (on that page) deemed (by the Admin)-- to have a "bogus PD source" ("bogus" is the Admins exact word--. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Definition of "Bogus"-- "not genuine : COUNTERFEIT, SHAM" (Exact words from MWD [All CAPS is from the MW Dictionary, not me]).

Here is the other page where the Admin said that-- (look inside of red box, ignore empty page below, the Admin says "bogus PD source" exactly)-- [CLICK HERE to see the OTHER PAGE YOU DID NOT SEE]

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 01:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so you acknowledge that Newsweek isn't "banned". And, no, the photo wasn't deleted because of a "made up 'police source'", but a poor interpretation of Texas statutes that led people to believe that the works of the Texas government were, by copyright, in the public domain. It actually benefits to read the discussions and guidelines instead of unabashedly making false assertions. -- Veggies (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veggies

No, it says "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable."

Also-- regarding the photo-- THERE IS ANOTHER WMC PAGE it was (on that page) deemed (by the Admin)-- to have a "bogus PD source" ("bogus" is the Admins exact word--. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Definition of "Bogus"-- "not genuine : COUNTERFEIT, SHAM" (Exact words from MWD [All CAPS is from the MW Dictionary, not me]).

Here is the other page where the Admin said that-- (look inside of red box, ignore empty page below, the Admin says "bogus PD source" exactly)-- [CLICK HERE to see the OTHER PAGE YOU DID NOT SEE]

It is not me, but you that did not read carefully.

And you did not acknowledge when you made a mistake here.

You used insulting language to address me-- calling me "shameless" but it was in fact YOU who thought that Newsweek was a legit source.

And it is you who did not carefully read the OTHER PAGE where the Admin said it was "a bogus PD [police department] source".

If you continue to insult me and berate me-- you will be reported for harassment.

Don't talk to me here any further. Talk to others, but don't talk to me anymore. You have harrassed me enough.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm reformatting your reply indentation for better flow. Not sure why you're upset about being called out on your mistakes, but you're welcome to report me for whatever anytime you wish. Newsweek is not a banned source and PD, in that case, means "public domain", not police department. I'm simply correcting your mistaken assertions. -- Veggies (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You wrote to me (on this thread): "Do you just shamelessly make up anything, however brazenly false it might be, to support your claims?"

That is harassment. Do not harrass me any more. I have also asked you not to speak to me any more. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I was about to write the same above, but then I noticed the reformatting, so I'll just add a link. Yes, 'PD' refers to public domain.

Regarding the Newsweek entry, WP:MREL explains the status that Newsweek (post-2013) and other 'additional considerations apply' sources have on Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And the section you are referring to also says of Newsweek "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable." Later, in the same section, it goes on to say: "Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase." Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The section about the shooter is a fine place to put such a photo, but we don't seem to have the best options right now. I think Chesapeake77 is acting in good faith, and I don't see why there is any rush to add that particular photo. Until there is a viable photo that gathers some consensus, I think it will be fine on the back-burner, for now. There's plenty of other work that takes priority as more info keeps coming out. DN (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with DN. ––FormalDude talk 04:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) blamed the shooting on wokeness, critical race theory, and liberal indoctrination.[157]

Why are we presenting this quote uncritically, especially since the quote is ungrounded? 2600:1700:5890:69F0:D44E:6F6:1FA5:EFC7 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added quotes around what he said. X-Editor (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor this is disinformation and distraction. This has no place on an informative encyclopedia. Please move this to this politician's political opinions section on his Bio. Venkat TL (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This reaction of a Senator to the shooting should be included. It has every place on an informative encyclopedia as a reaction by a politician to the shooting. starship.paint (exalt) 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both, usually the way to address incorrect information is to put it in context. Considering that it's a short sentence and is attributed, it somewhat passes. It sports its own ridiculousness (some strange claim that racism awareness is somehow responsible)... If sources add analysis, the BLP would be a good place. —PaleoNeonate – 02:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Although peoples opinions can be quoted, they should not be WP:FRINGE theories, unless the fringe theory has infected lots of people and so has become WP:NOTABLE, which this hasn't. This is pure fringe stuff - Johnson is just being a paranoid person who believes that EVERY problem is due to "Wokeness, CRT and people who are Liberal".

This is exactly how cult members think-- they live in a paranoid bubble. So it's WP:UNDUE] becuse it's fringe, paranoid, cult-like thinking not based on actual facts and doesn't belong in the article.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 09:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how closely you've been following U.S. politics, but «EVERY problem is due to "Wokeness, CRT and people who are Liberal"» has been mainstream Republican philosophy for several years now. And you're right, they've been operating like a cult, and living in a paranoid bubble ever since the dawn of Trump. (All those "this is unprecedented in U.S. politics" comments by scores of political analysts were not hyperbole.)

I think Ron Johnson's quote is a perfect illustration of the modern Right's narrative, and definitely belongs in the article as a potent (yet not even that extreme, in context) example of how the Right wants to deflect from any suggestion that this event indicates changes should be made to gun control regulations. By comparison, theories that this was because the shooter was trans are much more fringe, but that ridiculousness is an important piece of the puzzle to leave in the article as well. --Dan Harkless (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I find very little to disagree with in User:Dan Harkless's comments immediately above. My concern is by leaving the comment with no warning of irony or no context, we may give an initial wrong impression of the situation as accurately portrayed by Dan Harkless. We need to be able to attach such reckless and purely base-motivated comments to the pattern exhibited by one political party at this time. Otherwise we're normalizing an absolutely bizzare statement from a US Senator. BusterD (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

After reading these comments I wanted to add that I also don't object to removing it without more context, considering that I perceive a slight consensus that it's problematic as-is. And there's another way to perceive this statement, a type of undue and distasteful provokation in an inappropriate context... —PaleoNeonate – 04:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX (a place for people to push their ideas). Mr. Johnson is not central to the RESS story, plus he suffers from conspiracy theory syndrome and WP:FRINGETHEORY ideas, which means including his far out theories gives them WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the article. Also there are many conservatives who do not subscribe to Ron Johnsons reality-deficient thought process (regarding the Robb Elementary School Shooting).Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Reactions to mass shootings by those on all sides of the political spectrum are indeed a prominent part of the discussion/coverage of them. Undue weight should not be given to any one politican's comment, but it's reasonable to summarize the most prominent recurring reactions, with maybe an example or two of each. If anyone feels that the inclusion of Johnson's comment gives it undue weight, perhaps this could balanced with reactions to his reaction, since there's plenty of coverage of it ([1], [2], [3]. There's also coverage of criticism of other rationales and suggestions by Republicans, like the lack of prayer in schoools, the idea that there are too many doors on schools ([4] [5]), too many liberal teachers, the lack of armed teachers, etc. Conversely, there is coverage from a libertarian view (in the person of John Stossel) of how the idea of armed teachers has been criticized. We just need to summarize the major reactions without giving undue weight to any one. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no large numbers of conspiracy theorists touting Johnsons theories on the Robb shooting. People do talk about "Wokeness" and attack "Liberalism" regarding other subjects, but not related to the Robb Elementary School shootings. Only conspiracy theories that get wide followings (lots of adherents) are included in Wikipedia articles.

There is no "wide following" of the Robb shootings as an example of "Wokeness and Liberalism".

Adding rare, very isolated opinions are not included due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 08:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This article changes every day, because the story changes every day

Somebody needs to put a warning or a disclaimer on the article, because key details continue to be changed.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 09:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No they don't. In the last 36 hours, the only changes have been minor word rephrasing, adding a few sources, syntactic, and four new sentences that flesh out the police response a little more. There's no "key details" that are being regularly changed. The fundamental facts are established. New details may come out and continue to supplement that, but there's no sudden paradigm shift going on. None of that merits a special warning/disclaimer beyond the one that's on every Wiki article. -- Veggies (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This came out today on NPR (National Public Radio)--

"News of the federal review--"

"There has been a great deal of false and misleading information in the aftermath of this tragedy," CLEAT stated. "Some of the information came from the very highest levels of government and law enforcement. Sources that Texans once saw as iron-clad and completely reliable have now been proven false."

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We literally have a subsection about the inaccurate statements made by government officials and another large section that deals with the conspiracy theories being pushed out. Feel free to discuss and edit the article with reliable sources, but there's no need for any Current event templates and, in fact, the guidelines for those templates run counter to the situation here. -- Veggies (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That section is for "initial" innacuracies.

However innacuracies have persisted.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: - exactly what inaccuracies have persisted? starship.paint (exalt) 02:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is OK for details to change, because more details come out, like Arnulfo Reyes harrowing interview. You need to be more specific on what is inaccurate. --StellarNerd (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Latest innacuracy-- the Chief who has been heavily criticized for defining the shooting as a barricade was actually on vacation and away from town during the shooting. Someone else was actually in charge.

This was just on CNN (late this evening). Is it true or false? I don't know, but the story keeps changing.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth}

@Chesapeake77: - I think you misunderstood the reporting. [6] The mayor said that the city’s police chief was on vacation at the time of the shooting and that the acting city police commander was on the scene. That's not Pedro Arredondo, that's the UPD chief. starship.paint (exalt) 10:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint

OK-- thanks for the info!

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 03:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd @Starship.paint

Update: See here-- [New details from investigation]

Note: It's a very long article (keep looking below all ads and photos)-- the article continues after each of them.

The new information is there (after some rehashing of old news, periodically). You have to read the whole article to see all of it.

This includes newly released police bodycam videoss which change the narrative in some cases and exapand on it in others.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And Chief Arredondo just now claimed he was "never in charge" during the shooting at RES and that 'he never stopped anyone from opening the door' to the classroom where the killer was. CLICK HERE TO SEE Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

CLICK HERE: Texas state senator says Uvalde school police chief's narrative on shooting is 'directly in contrast' to DPS reports

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@starship.paint @StellarNerd @Nightscream @Dan Harkless @Valjean @Locke Cole @Richard-of-Earth

On June 9 2022, Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan ordered an investigation into the shootings stating that “we still do not have an accurate picture of what exactly happened in Uvalde" then saying that "every day, we receive new information that conflicts with previous reports, making it not only difficult for authorities to figure out next steps, but for the grieving families of the victims to receive closure.”

This was just a few days ago. Notice needs to be put into the article that facts are still subject to change. Is there a template that can be added?

(Boldface only added to highlight key points).

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate. WWGB (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, and this article if at all is more updated and watched than most. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Unlocked school entrance door

How did the door not lock? Did the other doors also malfunction? 2603:8081:501:391D:68A8:24B:FBC2:4E55 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A malfunction of the lock? Need a source for this. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT and WP:NOTAFORUM. cookie monster 755 06:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The article currently states that [t]he door did not lock despite being designed to be locked when shut. The cited source (the Associated Press) further comments that this is being investigated. You'd have to look at news sources to find if there's been an update on this matter and then present it here for an editor to update the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Pedro Arredondo interview - where should it go?

I've put it under Shooting, should it be there? [7] Or should it be at Law enforcement failures and controversies, or Aftermath#Pedro Arredondo? starship.paint (exalt) 06:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint

Actually I just gave the Arredondo interview a slower read and now I see how it fits very well right under the Timeline too.

Maybe "Controversies about the timeline" should be made a new section title-- and the Timeline (followed by the Arredondo interview) should be placed under it. In other words, because the timeline is now controversial.

This also means IMHO, that "Police failures" as a section title, should be removed (or changed to "allegations of police failures") since at this point there are conflicting claims about what the failures were, or were not. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Law enforcement source: classroom door may have been unlocked all along

Due to this [8] - we need to be careful on stating that the classroom door was definitely locked. starship.paint (exalt) 03:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: ^ starship.paint (exalt) 06:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint Agreed, this is an important detail. Care should be taken to assure that this change and any possible future changes in the story be noted. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I too agree, it's amazing how much more bungling up by police appears every day. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Room 109 (and our lede)

Our lede until very recently stated [9] that regarding the gunman: He then locked himself inside two adjoining classrooms, killed nineteen students and two teachers, and remained there for more than an hour before members of a United States Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) fatally shot him. Whether the classroom door was locked is the topic of an above discussion. Regardless, there is a mistake here. According to WaPo, [10] DPS official McCraw said Ramos had locked the doors to Rooms 111 and 112 but briefly re-emerged into the hall — at a time McCraw did not specify, but this is likely when those in Room 109 were shot at — before locking himself in the adjoining classrooms again. There is an account, by a student in Room 109: Initially, Daniel said, he could hear the gunman firing on another classroom at the end of a hallway ... Then, Daniel said, he could hear the gunman make his way down the hall, firing into another classroom. About 15 minutes after the shooting began, Daniel said he saw the gunman approach his classroom door ... Then Ramos fired through the door’s glass window ... "... then he stopped and then went back to the classroom next to us.” During the gunfire, Daniel’s teacher was shot twice but survived. Thus, clearly the lede needs to be rectified. starship.paint (exalt) 08:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Adjusted to "remained in the school for more than an hour...", which is actually how I (incorrectly) read it, before seeing the template and this discussion. You're right, and its important to get the wording right. Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

harassment of trans people

details of the harassment that trans people faced in the aftermath of this, due to baseless lies told by government officials, have been removed. they are significant and should be restored.2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:D24D (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively and consensus is that only a brief mention of Gosar's tweet is currently appropriate for inclusion. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Legislative action section mentioning Canada

Is there any relevance to mentioning legislative action in Canada given this is a shooting that took place in the United States? If it's ok to stay, should it be the lead? --Sethcampbell7293 (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Has anything even been passed yet in Canada? Has the Liberal Party actually linked their proposals/new law to this shooting? starship.paint (exalt) 13:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New, detailed accounts of events

I'm kind of busy, but here's a link for anyone interested. Texas Tribune starship.paint (exalt) 12:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• ... and here's another article by Statesman starship.paint (exalt) 12:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • ... and here's the Texas Department of Public Safety findings. starship.paint (exalt) 13:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The photo at top of infobox should be changed to this photo [11] which is more appropriate for the article and event, and was taken inside the school during the event. I don't know how to change photos so requesting a user who knows how to alter it. Yodabyte (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:SHOCK, I would tend to prefer the current image; I don't think your preference is terribly shocking, but more so for me. As ever, happy to bow to consensus if it's against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Question: What is copyright status of this photo? I could not find the original on the gray-kwtx-prod website. But from here and elsewhere it is described as from the school's fixed videocam installation. Davidships (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't believe there are any copyright issues with the photo so it should be okay to add. Yodabyte (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific. What is the copyright status of that photo? Non-fair use images have to have their public domain statuses absolutely clear. -- Veggies (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if it's in public domain but it is very similar to the infobox photo used on the Stoneman Douglas shooting page so I'm assuming its okay to use. The current photo looks horrible IMO, you cannot tell what it is unless you enlarge the image, it just looks like two large pink balloons and a background of obscure colors. Even if the photo isn't changed to the one I'm recommending it should be changed to something better. Yodabyte (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The Stoneman Douglas photo is not PD. It's fair-use and the justification for its inclusion is, I would argue, extremely weak. If this proposed photo is the same, you'd have to make a compelling WP:NFCC argument. -- Veggies (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Including victims' biographies in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not include the victims' biographies.

Purely in terms of "does this content improve the article?", there is a clear (though by no means unanimous) consensus that it does not.

Some editors argued that we are obligated to include this information per WP:NPOV.
One of the arguments made in favour of this position was that it is necessary to include the information to balance the information on the perpetrator. Counterarguments included that this is a false equivalence because the perpetrator was an active participant in the shooting whereas the victims were not, and that if there is such an imbalance it could instead be remedied by removing excessive information about the perpetrator.
Another argument made in favour of this position was that the information appears in the sources and is thus due per WP:BALASP. Counterarguments included that different considerations apply for news media and an encyclopedia in terms of what information is appropriate to include.

Arguments in favour of excluding the victims' biographies included that inclusion would violate the spirit (if not the text) of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and privacy concerns. Some editors raised the possibility of including some relevant details elsewhere in the article where they can be placed in context.

WP:CONSENSUS is determined by weighing the strength of the arguments as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable WP:Core content policy and thus key to the outcome of the discussion. However, reviewing the arguments relating to this I find no consensus that the biographies must be included to abide by WP:NPOV. Reviewing the rest of the discussion, I find that there is a consensus that they should not be included.

There was limited discussion about what information about the victims would be appropriate to include, if not their biographies. Name and age and/or grade was suggested to be sufficient by some editors, though others argued that the names should not be included. At present, names and ages are included, and this close is without prejudice against discussing this matter further. TompaDompa (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the victims' biographies be included in the "Victims" list? Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The biographies in question were previously implemented here. Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include, the added section was proportional to the information provided on the shooter (actually, far less if you consider how much is dedicated to the shooter relative to each victim), well sourced and verifiable, and clearly relevant as it makes clear the victims are not just dry statistics but real people. Including them tilts the balance of the article away from the shooter, taking us further from an undue weight situation that most of these mass shooting articles succumb to. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can agree with the idea of listing victims but the amount of personal information in this diff you gave is rather worrying and has quite a few BLP violations. See for instance NPF and BLPPRIVACY. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude. Just no. A thousand times no. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious online encyclopedia, not mawkish melodrama. Are we seriously contemplating content like "hoped to be a cheerleader" and "made coffee for his grandparents"? WWGB (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB you are right that such details don't fit into the Wikipedia article about the shooting. However must you call those details "mawkish"? ("hoped to be a cheerleader" and "made coffee for his grandparents") They are hardly "mawkish". Those are very important details, although they don't belong in this article. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 22:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• And yet we know the shooter worked at Wendy's and apparently liked to wear dark clothing. You were saying something about melodrama? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your Wendy's comments miss the contextual significance of that content: his co-workers at Wendy's noted Ramos was a loner, intimidating and exhibited inappropriate behaviour. Red flags? Likewise, his dark clothing led them to prematurely call him "school shooter". So the Wendy's job and dark clothing are not "melodramatic" but significant and relevant aspects of his back story. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure seems like a lot of excessive detail (one might even call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since we're abusing that here) for something that could have been more easily summed up. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete that excessive detail, you have the keys. I don't know why we are discussing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. And since you raised WP:INDISCRIMINATE, why do you support the inclusion of material about wannabe cheerleaders and junior coffeemakers? WWGB (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I support the general idea of including relevant, source details on the victims as a NPOV balance. It's in no way indiscriminate as it's literally details many sources have included. The only reason we're here debating this is because Love of Corey unilaterally decided to remove the text without even making an attempt to improve upon it. So any criticism at the exact text used in the now-deleted revision is ridiculous. Of course it can be improved, and of course I don't agree with every single detail, but I do agree that some details are important. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ant yet LoC’s “unilateral” decision to exclude is supported by at least 23 !voters below. WWGB (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Two things: 1) it's not a vote (it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important (emphasis added)), and 2) I see a lot of people erroneously citing WP:MEMORIAL which is not relevant to this discussion as we aren't creating Victims of Robb Elementary School shooting. What's under discussion is relevant, well sourced details on the victims, as found in our reliable sources, to provide balance and neutrality to the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It was correct to remove it rather than improve it, because it was a load of unencyclopedic trivia, the vast majority of the types that aren't in any other WP articles about mass-casualty incidents.

What info do you want included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

For the first part, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. As to what I want included, as I said, relevant sourced details on the victims as a NPOV balance. The victims were people, trying to pretend they're just a statistic while giving the life history of the person who killed them is just terrible writing and gives WP:UNDUE weight to the perpetrator. We already have enough problems with our articles glorifying the killer, we don't need to make it worse by acting like the victims aren't relevant (when our sources clearly feel they are). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What type of details of the victims do you consider to be relevant enough to include in this article? Dates of birth, family, ethnicity, hobbies, long-term aspirations, their preferred subjects/food/music/celebrities? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude - Absolutely not. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And while they're important to report on, they're not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a mass murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Can you explain which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"

  Additionally, WP:NOTMEMORIAL makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize people. Though WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to whole articles, I argue that the spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL with the quoted part above from WP:INDISCRIMINATE mean that it would be inappropriate to make mini memorial BLP/BDPs on an article about a mass murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir The victims are not random data, which is what INDISCRIMINATE is referring to. Our sources clearly draw a line from this event to each victim both together as a group and individually. The context is the fact that these people were all killed during this event, multiple reliable sources have covered them in detail, even going so far as to cover the families of the victims. As to NOTMEMORIAL: As you correctly note, it does not apply to content within articles but instead non-notable subjects of entire articles, and even specifies that Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. To my knowledge, no editor here is a friend, relative, or acquaintance of the victims. Which brings us to WP:NOTEWORTHY which is clear that [t]he notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles but rather [c]ontent coverage within a given article [...] (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies.

  We should follow our sources on this. And while I agree that there was definitely room for improvement in the initial revision that was summarily removed, this does not mean we simply give up on providing encyclopedic content that is relevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Include per Locke Cole. Koopinator (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude, the victims are not individually notable enough to warrant this. --Pokelova (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  See WP:NOTEWORTHY (notability does not apply to article content), and consider also that if not for these victims dying this event wouldn't be worthy of inclusion at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not notable, not noteworthy, doesn't really change my answer. --Pokelova (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If all those who were shot there had survived, this mass shooting would still easily be notable enough for an article. If they weren't in that classroom & it was empty, he'd have carried out the shooting in a nearby classroom instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude, adds nothing of encyclopedic value HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include — if RSs found it weighty enough to mention and have articles about it (The New York Times), it is noteworthy and short enough to make it encyclopedic and relevant. They are likely not going to have their own articles, so WP:NOTABILITY does not apply and neither does WP:MEMORIAL, and as noted, if we can mention that the shooter worked at Wendy's and liked to wear dark clothing, I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here — it is about works, lyirics databases, trivia statistics, and software updates, not providing some background context for the victims of a mass shooting, which would not be notable without them. It includes some useful and relevant information for context, e.g. Some of his cousins who also attended Robb Elementary were injured in the massacre, but survived ... Silguero asked her father to stay home the day of the massacare, but he left the decision up to her mother. Finally, I do think that WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT requires it per Locke Cole. Davide King (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously exclude because this is the most ridiculous addition of all to this article. I've mentioned in previous discussions about the inclusion of victims' names that it's a slippery slope towards including mini-biographies like many media sources do. I was told that no-one wanted to do that & I was making a straw man argument to exclude the names. I've now been proven correct. There really are editors here who want the victims' hobbies, aspirations & family included in an article about a mass shooting in which they were randomly shot strangers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really rather neutral on the idea, but I am a bit taken aback by your total rejection of the concept. Surely, if these details receive a lot of coverage in the reliable sources, it becomes WP:DUE? To be clear, having done only surface investigation, I would lean against inclusion right now, but that could certainly change. I guess I'd just ask if you could describe your objection a bit more? If not, no worries. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm taken aback by there being support from a few people for it. We shouldn't include things just because the media do. Much of the media loves to sensationalise & have the aim of maximising their readership/viewership/profit. We don't, and shouldn't. Mini-bios of children who were murdered at random by a stranger are a distasteful, disproportionate addition of irrelevant, trivial info. The main argument for including such things is that we do so for the killer. However, that's very different, as he chose to be the cause of it all; his life tells us about him & the lead-up to him doing this. The victims were shot at random & were there simply because it was their school. Unlike the shooter, they weren't active participants. If they hadn't been there, others would have been shot in their place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand this position to a point, but "we shouldn't include things just because the media do" strikes me as sort of in tension with WP:NPOV. Granted, there are reliable sources that are not what we normally mean when we say "the media," but in my opinion, we shouldn't disregard coverage simply because we consider it overly sensationalized or the like. That's more of a sort of source concern, if you see what I mean. Again, I don't think I lean towards inclusion here, but I do think we have to follow where the reliable sources lead us--and here or in some other case, it might theoretically go in this direction. I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree here. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Obvious exclude (invited by the bot) There should not even be a listing of their names. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and the large majority of our articles about mass shootings in other countries don't include names, let alone mini-bios. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of this, or are you just wanting us to take your word on it? At least *I* did the work for User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics (which showed over 90% of mass shooting articles included a list of victims). You're just out here living your best life making wild claims with no evidence. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Unlike most editors, I frequently work on articles about mass shootings in many countries. As such, I notice that most of those that happened in the US include victims' names, but the large majority of those which happened elsewhere don't. I've not seen any which include mini-bios of the victims. Your table is limited to US mass shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're not familiar with following our sources or WP:UNDUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude extended bio, name, age, maybe grade, should be enough. Maybe grouping the students with their classroom teacher if applicable, but I'm not sure how that splits. Exceptions if the individual has some sort of notability and extended coverage on their own. If the individual did something during the shooting their name can be mentioned in the prose as doing so. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Their names & grade/age would be sufficient. They weren't individually targeted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How do you know this, did your ask the shooter? Were you there? Are you familiar with WP:NOR? Because that sounds like exactly what you're doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence that any of the victims were individually targeted. Everything points to him having shot at random rather than having a hit list of names. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Obvious exclude Its empty information as the shooter shot randomly. By adding so, would make it look very informal. SohamAhire123 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude extended bio. Name, age, grade are fine; other content not encyclopedic. Neutrality^talk 14:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude extended bio - Age, grade and maybe a few words about actions they took during the shooting should be fine. Schierbecker (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude extended details - Mentioning the victims in terms of basic information is encyclopedic, but going into personal aspects of their lives isn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude Under WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Victim bios have no relevancy to the event unless it somehow ties in to the shooter's motives. WP:UNDUE does not apply here nor to any other mass casualty article, as that policy is intended to balance representation of competing viewpoints. EatTrainCode (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read WP:NOTMEMORIAL? You say WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, but are you aware of WP:NOTEWORTHY (which says WP:NPOV, of which UNDUE is part of, is how we decide what to include in article content)? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a single sentence, so yes I have. One could argue that it doesn't apply here since we're talking about the contents of an article rather than the subject, but the point is that including detailed victim bios serves no purpose other than to memorialize them. An exception would be if one of the teachers had previously taught the shooter's class or had some other connection to him.

  Regarding WP:UNDUE, I think what you're referring to is specifically the WP:BALASPS clause. I have two issues with the way you're using this clause: 1. per WP:RECENCY bias, the victims are always going to receive more focus in the source material while it's a current event. 2. even though the victim bios receive a proportional amount of focus in the sources, that information is not necessarily of equal importance to the event. it provides no insight into the 'why' or 'how' of the event.

  Additionally, I read the original edit being discussed here. Have you? Some of the information in that edit was patently ridiculous, like mentioning how one victim didn't want to go to school that day. Imagine if the article on the 9/11 attacks mentioned every victim who was only on the plane due to a previous flight cancellation, and every person who didn't wind up on that flight because they were running late. EatTrainCode (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include. The information in question includes material that is indeed of encyclopedic interest concerning the massacre, incuding:
  • Details pertaining directly to the massacare, such as the first victim identified, the last victim identified, the fact that one child was shot as she attempted to dial 911, etc.
  • Details pertaining to the effects/aftermath of the masscare, such as the fact that the husband of one of the two teachers died of a heart attack two days after the massacre.
  • Some relevant biographical information such as the fact that there were two sets of cousins among the children, how long the teachers had taught, where they trained, how long the two of them had worked together, etc.
  • Lastly, some biographical information that distinguished them as individuals, not for the purposes of memorialization or anything, but simply to render them as individuals and not merely names, like the fact that one wanted to be a lawyer, another wanted to be an artist, etc. This is reasonable for descriptive purposes, and is not indiscriminate or irrelevant to the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - The majority of the material that was added has no encyclopedic value and does not contribute to a reader's comprehension of the subject matter. Arguably half of it distracts from it. For example, that one of the victim's enjoyed football, or that another wanted to become a marine biologist, has no bearing on this event. The same is true of much of the material on the perpetrator. That the perpetrator was employed at a Wendy's or that he was born in North Dakota is not relevant, for example. This is an encyclopedia, it should summarize the most pertinent facts of the subject matter. It should not collect all available knowledge and include it indiscriminately. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• It depends what the proposed text will be. I wouldn't mind mentioning victims but it should run smoothly and not like a memorial. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include per Nightscream. ––FormalDude talk 22:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include per Davide King and Nightscream. starship.paint (exalt) 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude because these facts are not relevant to the shooting. Also WP:MEMORIAL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include- Davide King said almost exactly what I intended to say when I read the question: namely that naming the victims and giving some details which have been covered in WP:RS is WP:DUE, neither WP:NOTABILITY nor WP:NOTAMEMORIAL apply to this situation (which are about standalone articles), but WP:NOTEWORTHY does. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - I understand the urge to humanize the statistics and cause a stronger emotional response, but that is not encyclopedias are for. Listing the hobbies and aspirations of children killed in shootings doesn't really contribute anything to the value of this article. Wikipedia isn't a depository of all information, and there are plenty of "human interest" stories in the media that can and should serve a reader interested in such things much better than Wikipedia does. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude While I appreciate the sentiment, I dont think they can be included. WP:MEMORIAL. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude Per policies cited above. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude Per policies cited above. (as Richard-of-Earth said) — Ched (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude Per policies cited above. A different type of event, like the Montreal Polytecnique massacre, where all victims are adults, then sure, open for discussion. But not kids. --Tallard (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Long-term editors wanting to include the hobbies, aspirations & family of randomly-shot children is baffling. We need a strong consensus against including such trivial & intrusive personal info, otherwise pushing for mini-bios in articles of mass shootings will happen frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: It's very simple, really—if reliable sources give enough weight to the victims that include mini-bios, some of which may be relevant for the shooting and some of it may not but may stil be relevant not to memorialize the victim but to see it as a human being—no matter that it was chosen at random, they're a victim now, and as an empath I do find baffling your repeated "random-chosen" comments, even if true, rather than just another number—we must follow them per WP:NPOV, unless I'm missing out something. If RS have decided to focus away from the perpetrator, and closer to the victims, we must follow them per NPOV to balance the perpetrator and the victims. While the given proposed text can certainly be improved and I may not support it in toto, I'm not opposed in principle as many of you seem to be, in my opinion without a correct reading of our policies and weak rationales. As for privacy concerns, I assume that any information put up by RS has been given the consent by the victim's family. Finally, as for your repeated U.S. vs. international mass shootings naming victims convention, that may simply coming down to the fact that RS do mention the name of the victims of U.S. mass shooting, while not in the case of the other, for whatever reasons, or maybe they do, in which case, if they are given enough weight by RS, they should be added there too. As long as RS give WP:WEIGHT to them, they can no longer be dismissed as trivia. Davide King (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Much of the mainstream media love to sensationalise, which is why many include a lot of info about the victims. We shouldn't follow them in that regard. The victims certainly were shot at random; Ramos didn't have a hit list. Having empathy should mean not wanting to invade the privacy of the victims' families; we can't assume that all the info they've published has been approved of & checked by the families. This push to include mini-bios started with this article. I'd previously raised the concern multiple times that adding the names could be a foot-in-the-door attempt to add various biographical info to articles about mass murders & mass shootings. I was told that I was creating a straw man, because no-one wanted that. The intent by a minority turns out to be significantly worse than I suspected, because the types of info I said would likely be advocated for didn't include things as trivial as food or hobbies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Only if specifically important A victim's background can be somewhat uniquely related to the tragedy. In that case, they should be mentioned, either inside a larger section, or within its own short paragraph. If a victim is not especially remarkable, then no. Senorangel (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is not a memorial, and nor is it (in the words of WWGB) a "mawkish melodrama". There is zero encyclopedic value in material like Salazar anticipated new films by Marvel Studios and sang along to "Sweet Child o' Mine" by Guns N' Roses whenever her father Vincent drove her to school, or She was fond of vanilla bean frappes and [Chick-fil-A]] but disliked wearing dresses, etc. The reason there are sources for this material is because they feature in human-interest stories designed to tug at your heart strings and make you grieve for the tragic loss of life. There's nothing wrong with that, but that is simply not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to inform you, not to make you cry by telling you emotionally touching (but encyclopedically irrelevant) stories; it would be absurd to read this stuff in an encyclopedia. Endwise (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed - such info is too trivial for a biography of a famous person, let alone for non-notable people who were randomly shot by a stranger. It's unencyclopedic & intrusive to the victims' families. No WP policy/guideline/consensus says that such info should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about the stuff below? Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude, primarily per Endwise. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude No, as this will not improve the article.MraClean (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude: Mentioning their names seems to be enough, a biography is not needed. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude extended information: Sorry, but WP:NOTWHOSWHO applies here. We have information on the shooter because it helps explain to readers possible causes for his actions. I'm not seeing similarly significant justification for including information like the victims' aspirations. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: Coolperson177, I am not sure that applies, unless I am missing something. WP:NOTWHOSWHO says: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)" That seems more against creating an article for each victim, which no one is advocating here, and now that would be a correct objection of WP:MEMORIAL rather than the ones I have read. If reliable sources have given significant prominent to the victims, irrespective of making our own OR about why we should not follow them, including full articles about them like The New York Times did, we are knowingly and willingly violating WP:NPOV, which is one of our three pillar guidelines and is not negotiable; ignoring the reverted attempt version, which many seem to imply is the inevitable and sole possibility for inclusion, keeping it shorter than the "Perpetrator" section would be WP:DUE and perfectly in line with the part of NOTWHOSWHO I bolded. If RS significantly report on them, victims are certainly important, just like the perpetrator for obvious reasons; without them, the event would not be as notable and there would not have been the whole "Reactions" section and all the other stuff. I would rather some source analysis on how much weight RS gave to victims rather than point to WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which do not apply—now that may change my mind. Davide King (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I thought I made it clear that I had no issues with including the victims, just excessive detail that would turn this article into a coatrack. I don't take any issue with the reports of what the victims did in the shooting because those help to describe the subject of this article, but including mini-biographies of the victims, even if there's significant coverage of them, is unhelpful. I can't imagine a way we could include substantial information about all 21 and keep it briefer than the Perpetrator section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, what is excessive detail? It seems many users took biography stuff way too literally and the since reverted attempt as the be-all and end-all; what I support is not necessarily a proper biography, which would result in a separate article, but contextualize the victims as we do with the perpetrator without reducing them to random data, and that may include stuff deemed worthy enough to be relevant to the shooting, some of which you may found to be fine and other bits to be "excessive detail", though you didn't clarify exactly what it would be. As was already written here by Dumuzid, I do share their concern about several users !ignoring RS. So even if "there's significant coverage of them", as you say, which is what WP:NOTWHOSWHO also supports, we should willingly violate WP:NPOV because? To quote Dymuzid again, "I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree here." As for concerns about length, they need not to be in the same section, they can be fleshed out throughout the body where necessary and relevant, with summary style. Davide King (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude per Neutrality above, whose thinking (and proposed solution) mirrors my own perfectly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 21:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude. Names and ages? Yeah. Photos? Probably. Biographies? No. SWinxy (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Modified proposal: Material pertaining directly to the massacre

Should the section also exclude information pertaining more directly to the massacre itself, such as:

• Things like the first victim identified, the last victim identified, the youngest victim, the fact that one child was shot as she attempted to dial 911, etc.
• Details pertaining to the effects/aftermath of the masscare, such as the fact that the husband of one of the two teachers died of a heart attack two days after the massacre.
• Grouping the two sets of cousins together. Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose this isn't r/MorbidCuriousity, this holds little to no encyclopedic value and is ultimately intrusive. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@PRAXIDICAE: How is this intrustive? All of this is covered in reliable sources, and some of it pertains to events that occurred during the massacre. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED ("being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content), and is there a policy behind little to no encyclopedic value that gives that more meaning than simply leaving me with the impression it's a veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Or to put it another way, is there a reason we should deviate so much from our sources that isn't down to personal/subjective reasoning? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only part of that which may be important enough to include is the attempted phone call, because that's a relevant action. If that's included, don't say who tried to phone, because we don't want to unwittingly encourage anyone to harass the victim's family for details. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. No idea what this proposal means. Are we voting to exclude material which is not in the article? Strange. WWGB (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I was asking if the material could be included for its relevance to the massacre. Is the fact that one of the children was trying to dial 911 when she was killed not relevant? Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That can be reported in the timeline, where the 911 calls are already listed. Likewise, the death of Garcia’s husband is already in the article. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

*Exclude This will in no way improve the article. This is not a memorial service. MraClean (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@MraClean: How does indicating which victim was the first or last victim identified, or the fact that one of them was in the process of dialing 911 when she was killed indicative of a memorial? Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I voted in the wrong section. Ignore it MraClean (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude.As per WP:NOTMEMORIAL comments aboveWritethisway (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude. While the desire to elevate the kids beyond mere statistics is understandable, I agree that this seems iffy w.r.t. the families' privacy (even if all details were ones gleaned from interviews the families willingly conducted with the media). If this were to be done, it should definitely be in a separate Victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting or Robb Elementary School shooting victims article linked to from this one, except for any details somehow directly relevant to the shooting itself. --Dan Harkless (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose including the so-called minibios of those shot as well as even more inconsequential detail like the order in which they were identified. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not assembling material (reliable though it may be) for a detailed book on the subject. The referencing and external links are the jump-off points for that. Davidships (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davidships and Dan Harkless: We're not talking about the mini-bios any more. What part of "modified" proposal are you not getting. Did you even read the proposal at the top of this. Section.

Among in the information in question is stuff like the fact that one of the children died while trying to call 911. How is that prohibited by WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Have you even read that guideline?

Also, there is an entire section called Aftermath. How is the fact that the husband of the one of the two teachers died of a heart attack after the massacare not a valid part of the Aftermath? Can you at least explain how these things do are not legitimate parts of the sections in question. You cite NOTMEMORIAL, but you don't articualte how this information constitutes a "memorial". Can you elaborate on this bit, as opposed to restricting yourselves to mere dogmatic declarations? Nightscream (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Please be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. I had to trawl through the history to even figure out who was making the above personal attacks against me. As there was nothing in the banner or elsewhere indicating that the original version of the proposal had been closed with a consensus opinion, my comment was intended to respond to both versions of the proposal.

Again, I voted that mini-bios should be excluded (out to a separate article, if anywhere), "except for any details somehow directly relevant to the shooting itself". ("Did you even read" that?) To restate, I don't think "information pertaining more directly to the massacre itself" like "one child was shot as she attempted to dial 911", or the age of the youngest victim, should be excluded, but I don't think the children such details apply to should be named, unless it's unreasonably awkward to not do so. Adults like the teacher and her husband can be named. --Dan Harkless (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Harkless: Sorry I forgot to sign my post; I don't know how that happened, given how ingrained the habit is.

However, I did not "attack" you. My comments were partially of a critical nature, but not an attack.

Please read Davidships' comments about the mini-bios. My reference to that in my message above was in response to what he said, not you.

Why not refer to the children in question by name? They're dead. Privacy issues and BLP-related matters don't apply to them. Nightscream (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you did attack me, with «What part of "modified" proposal are you not getting. Did you even read the proposal at the top of this. Section.» [sic], and «as opposed to restricting yourselves to mere dogmatic declarations». Please see Wikipedia:Civility.

As for your last paragraph, yes, I'm well aware that BLP doesn't apply to non-living persons. You display major insensitivity once again when you say «They're dead. Privacy issues … don't apply to them.». If you don't get how this could be perceived as intrusive by families that have already been through hell, I'm afraid I can't be the one to teach you.

I will note, though, that if the kids are left anonymous in the article, families won't have to feel like they need to constantly police the text around their personally identified kids, to watch for counterfactual and/or abusive stuff being put in by trolls, vandals, or crazy people. Please don't ask me to explain further. I've placed my vote, and it's not appropriate to continue hounding me for more justification and unwanted debate. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The blanket statement with regard BLP is incorrect. The policy applies to both living and in specific cases to recently deceased individuals. See WP:BDP. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Nice to know that your unjustified aggressive challenging of reading ability was directed only to me. If you read my contribution again, you will see that I referred to the first of your listed exclusions. Furthermore, since you chose "Modified proposal" rather than "additional", I took it to refer to the whole caboodle.Davidships (talk) 08:18, 9 June 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.

note

Ive opened a discussion on the wider topic of including lists of victims here. nableezy - 21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Uvalde DA blocking

No time to edit now, here’s a source - https://www.fox7austin.com/news/uvalde-mass-shooting-da-blocks-video-release starship.paint (exalt) 15:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hallway video released

[12] starship.paint (exalt) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

EVENTS suggestions

To the ALLEGED TIMELINE OF EVENTS add words to the effect: that by 11:35 or 11:36AM about XX of the 37 shooting victims had been shot once. *****Later in TIMELINE add something about the officer who wanted to intervene but was restrained.******* Maybe add a comment about when one responding officer used hand sanitizer. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Please supply and/or identify citations of reliable sources that support the changes you have suggested. In particular, the use of hand sanitizer by a responding officer is not discussed anywhere in the article and seems a very trivial detail not at all appropriate for inclusion in the timeline, whatever you think it may imply. General Ization ^Talk 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The article itself says in the 5th paragraph of the EVENTS section "Most of the shooting occurred inside the building within the first few minutes". This seems correct and its a significant detail that should be added to the timeline of events. With time more shooting details certainly will be added to the timeline.

This short video shows the "hand sanitizer" triviality which illustrates an odd mindset: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJCvucmP26Q

In this short video start watching at 2:45, note the officers retreat after less than a minute: www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4e3Bch4Wxg

This video is long but might be helpful as a long term timeline: www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3poHE3nOb

BTW, I think this is an extremely good article, high quality dedicated writers, I don't know where they get the energy. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Texas House Committee report

[13] - look for associated reporting. starship.paint (exalt) 15:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeating tenth grade

I removed a sentence that stated Ramos was repeating tenth grade because the citation did not specifically say that nor mentioned tenth grade at all. It does mention "when he was 17 years old, he had only completed ninth grade". The way this is phrased he could have repeated ninth grade and then graduated in June 2021 and it seems all the reports I can find use the same phrasing. Am I doing the math right? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"By 2021, when he was 17 years old, he had only completed ninth grade" and "Uvalde High School officials involuntarily withdrew him on October 28", then he did not have enough time to complete tenth grade. WWGB (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Uvalde City Hall meeting on June 2 with Steven McCraw

From The New York Times: Document Shows Uvalde Officials Sought Favorable Account of Police Action -- July 15, 2022 by J. David Goodman

Days after the massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, the leaders of the grieving city fumed during a closed-door meeting with Steven McCraw, the state’s top police official.

They objected to Mr. McCraw’s public criticism of the response by city police officers to the May 24 massacre that killed 19 children and two teachers and, in a one-page document, laid out their own version of events, one that praised the officers for initially rushing to the gunfire and saving hundreds of other children in the school.

The document prepared by Uvalde officials and labeled “narrative” was obtained by The New York Times after a public information request. Its account of events differed in significant aspects from the one described by Mr. McCraw’s agency, the Department of Public Safety, which is leading the police investigation into the shooting and the law enforcement response.

The Uvalde officials pushed the document across the table to Mr. McCraw, asking him to publicly endorse it, according to a state police official who requested anonymity to describe the meeting on June 2. Mr. McCraw refused.

The heated encounter at Uvalde City Hall, which has not been previously reported, was among the earliest indications of a simmering feud between state and local officials that has since exploded into public view over who should be blamed for the 77 minutes it took heavily armed officers to kill the gunman after he first entered Robb Elementary School.

The competing accounts have obscured the actions of the police and angered the victims’ families, who have pleaded for reliable information. The clearest picture yet is expected to come on Sunday when a Texas House committee is set to report the results of its investigation, one of several overlapping inquiries into what took place.

First few relevant paragraphs from the story. Where to put this in the Wikipedia article? A new "attempted coverup" section or something? Not sure what language to use exactly, since that framing isn't in the source. But it seems to have been a misguided PR campaign attempt for sure. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got around to writing something about this. Check it out here:

City Hall meeting with Steven McCraw on June 2

Please look for any typos and feel free to include any other additional sources! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

More info about the shooter

There might be enough info for Ramos to have his own page https://house.texas.gov/_media/pdf/committees/reports/87interim/Robb-Elementary-Investigative-Committee-Report.pdf The official report on the shooter has many pages on info and if we expand the section about him with this info it might be too much and he could have his own page Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

He shouldn't have a page per WP:BLP1E EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why do Adam Lanza, Stephen Paddock, Seung-Hui Cho and Jeff Weise all have their own page then? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Because some editors disregard guildelines like BLP1E. In most cases, there are no articles on the personality as they are not independently notable of the event. Such as is the case with Brenton Harrison Tarrant, Nikolas Cruz and Ramos – note those links are redirects to the article on the event. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You should also note that not all of the links you provided go to an article about the person. Adam Lanza does not have their own article, for example. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

why is Ramos middle name removed

I just added Ramos middle name and it was removed, why? A^dresguy69 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you added it, but it's currently present in two infoboxes and the first sentence of the perpetrator section. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not been removed, the middle name that you added at 10:11 on 13 August 2022‎ is still in the article. I do have a question though - what is the source, where is the reference for this middle name? None of the several references I've checked so far in the Perpetrator section states his middle name. If there is no clear reference for this stated middle name then the middle name should be removed. Shearonink (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Full name is published in many sources, for example, [14]. WWGB (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, behind the Wash Post paywall...was finally able to get at a copy and yes the full-name is stated in the Post article. The full name should be specifically referenced so I added that ref at the infobox name and at the first instance in the Perpetrator section. Shearonink (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New York Times article today

This article in today's NYTimes seems to suggest that Texas DPS has been misinforming or perhaps even dis-informing, based on analysis of footage indicating "gaps and contradictions in the DPS findings." BusterD (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Something I've always had an issue with

I keep coming back here to see if anyone else has noticed this, but I don't think they have (or they did notice it but any edits they made got reverted in pretty quick fashion). To wit, in the "Law enforcement failures and controversies" section, we are 'informed' that "Police arrested and handcuffed one mother who drove to the school after hearing about the shooting, which prevented her from trying to save her children". From the sources used and the overall context, this appears to be referring to Angeli Gomez, which means that there are a few issues with this claim since:

1. Ms. Gomez was handcuffed by federal marshals rather than local police. Indeed...
2. ...Ms. Gomez was then able to convince local police officers into persuading the marshals to release her, meaning she wasn't detained for the whole period between her arrival and the shooting's conclusion.
3. Ms. Gomez subsequently jumped the school fencing, entered the school building, and was able to retrieve her two children - the very opposite of the claim that she was "prevented [...] from trying to save her children".

And the three things I've mentioned? They've been taken directly from the sources used for the claim I've described above, to say nothing of those used when Gomez is mentioned by name in the later "Responses" section.

The claim that "Police arrested and handcuffed one mother [...] which prevented her from trying to save her children" is also at odds with the more accurate rendition of Ms. Gomez' story when the article is discussing the actual course of the shooting, with said rendition reading "A mother of two students at the school was placed in handcuffs by officers for attempting to enter the school. When released from the handcuffs, she jumped the fence and retrieved her children, exiting before police entered." One of the sources used in that instance is the same one used for the claim made in the "Law enforcement failures and controversies" section!

How to correct all this, one wonders? - Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

this appears to be referring to Angeli Gomez As this all appears to be stemming from an assumption on your part, I don't believe there is anything to correct at this time. The rest appears to be your WP:SYNTH of the sources, unless there's one specific source that says all these things and is presently used in the article? If all the things you claim are true, and there's one source that lays out the timeline as you present, the way to "correct" it is to add "initially" between "which" and "prevented". —Locke Cole • t • c 02:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Delay in medical assistance

I'm unsure of where to stick this - either with the event, added to the controversy/law enforcement failings, or some other section. But there has been an up tick in articles about the failure of the law enforcement/medics in triaging and getting victims where they needed to be. Below are some of the articles that have come out.

• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/uvalde-victims-shooting-medical-response
• https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/too-few-ambulances-blocked-roads-delayed-emergency-care-for-victims-of-uvalde-school-shooting/3154640/
• https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2022-12-20/uvalde-learns-auditor-breached-school-analysis-shows-delays-in-medical-response-to-shooting

Leaky.Solar (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Statements of Perpetrators Parents

Suggestion to delete the parents statements because they're single sentences put out of context and seem to be aimed to create a picture of the familys condition only based on these sentences. i.d.: hinting at that the father would have done something to the perpetrator which should make the father guilty in any account ( because he says he should have killed him, so as if he kind of did something to him justifying only the murder of the father but not of the kids ) what i want to say is that in this case no information gives a clearer picture than the one offered in that segment. Krrbz567 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events/Robb Elementary School shooting task force Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The shooter's ex girlfriend...

... had apparently known about the shooting in advance and wanted to participate. She has been accused of making threats.

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uvalde-school-shooters-alleged-ex-accused-making-threats-community-rcna127437

https://abc13.com/uvalde-school-shooter-girlfriend-victoria-rodriguez-morales-robb-elementary-shooting-interstate-threats/14124301/

https://www.ksat.com/news/ksat-investigates/2023/11/30/girlfriend-of-robb-mass-shooter-jailed-in-puerto-rico-accused-of-repeated-threats-to-uvalde-community/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/uvalde-gunmans-self-described-girlfriend-victoria-rodriguez-morales-arrested-over-alleged-threats

https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/11/30/uvalde-school-shooter-ex-girlfriend-arrested/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to wonder how much truth there is in the woman's claims here. There seems to be little evidence backing up a specific link to Ramos and the school shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox criminal for Ramos

Re this edit: I'm not going to go round in circles removing infobox criminal for Ramos. As I've said in the edit summaries, the use of this infobox is repetitive and not needed when the article is about a mass shooting, not a person. This is the normal consensus at mass shooting articles. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If a separate article about the person is created then the infobox can go in that article. Cwater1 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 03:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Robb Elementary School shooting → Uvalde school shooting – The common name used when referring to the shooting is the “Uvalde school shooting”, “Uvalde school massacre” “Uvalde elementary school shooting” or something along those lines as opposed to the “Robb Elementary School shooting”. For example, if you search for the shooting on Google, more results show up referring to it as “Uvalde school shooting”, even if you type in “Robb Elementary School shooting”. An example of this being done before is the Parkland high school shooting being moved to its current name from “Stoneman Douglas High School shooting”. MountainDew20 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Ordinarily I'd be advocating for WP:NCEVENTS/WP:NCWWW for this type of article, as even a year later it can be difficult to assess whether the WP:NOYEAR exception is met. However over the last day there have been a flurry of sources published after the JoD report was published (BBC, Sky News UK, The Guardian, NBC News, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, AP News), all of which call it either the Uvalde shooting or Uvalde school shooting. As precision and natural disambiguation are important in article titles, Uvalde school shooting seems like the most logical title at this time as it inherently makes this article distinct from any other notable shootings that may have or may in the future have taken place in Uvalde. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. When I saw this on my watchlist right now under the name "Robb Elementary School", I forgot which school shooting it was I had watchlisted. When I saw "Uvalde", it all came to me at once. There is no other Uvalde school shooting to disambiguate from. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support entirely per WP:COMMONNAME. I have looked over reports in the past couple of months and it's commonly referred to as the Uvalde school shooting and per Sideswipe9th's references. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. School shootings typically include the school name in the title. [15] WWGB (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I have stated, the article for the Parkland high school shooting was renamed to that from “Stoneman Douglas High School shooting” because more people referred to it as the “Parkland shooting” or “Parkland high school shooting” than “Stoneman Douglas High School shooting” or “Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting”. The same applies for this shooting as more people refer to it as simply the “Uvalde school shooting” or “Uvalde elementary school shooting” as opposed to the “Robb Elementary School shooting”. MountainDew20 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support commonname is Uvalde there is virtually no usage of the school name in sources to describe the event. 13:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of WP titles for other similar articles (sad isn't it... that there are so many other similar subjects), readers/editors/people at large will simply not come to Wikipedia looking for "Robb Elementary School shooting"... Per WP:CRITERIA's Recognizability & WP:COMMONNAME the town name is absolutely the commonname for this article. Shearonink (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. If I were to refer to this event I would say "Uvalde", not "Robb Elementary School". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Uvalde is so common a way to refer to this that the city's name virtually needs to be disambiguated. When I hear Uvalde, I think school shooting, not a town in Texas. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support – WP:COMMONNAME Garnet Moss (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2024 (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.

Sloppy Use of References

Shouldn't the references cited, support the questionable claims of the article content? Why do so many references on Wikipedia either contradict or fail to corroborate the artcle content? This is particularly noticeable in this article. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, how about some specific referencing contradictions/failure to corroborate + those questionable claims - generalities aren't all that helpful on an article where just the size of the referencing is over 500kB... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)