Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
::{{u|Fæ}} It also does not mean keeping materially relevant verifiable facts off Wikipedia because it would have a tendency to stigmatise a group of people. If multiple [[WP:RS]] have mentioned it, it WP is inclined to assume that fact to be relevant per this [[Talk:2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings/Archive_2#Pregnancy_of_suicide_bomber|consensus]].--[[User:Eng.M.Bandara|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:DarkBlue; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Eng. M.Bandara</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Eng.M.Bandara|'''<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk</em>''']]</small> 01:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
::{{u|Fæ}} It also does not mean keeping materially relevant verifiable facts off Wikipedia because it would have a tendency to stigmatise a group of people. If multiple [[WP:RS]] have mentioned it, it WP is inclined to assume that fact to be relevant per this [[Talk:2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings/Archive_2#Pregnancy_of_suicide_bomber|consensus]].--[[User:Eng.M.Bandara|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:DarkBlue; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Eng. M.Bandara</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Eng.M.Bandara|'''<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk</em>''']]</small> 01:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: LLcentury was flagging a concern, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were not advocating censorship and they certainly were not publishing "propaganda". It should remain the norm to respond to serious concerns with civility, not rush to make hostile accusations. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
::: LLcentury was flagging a concern, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were not advocating censorship and they certainly were not publishing "propaganda". It should remain the norm to respond to serious concerns with civility, not rush to make hostile accusations. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
This has no place in the article. Our general policy is that we don't include speculations about a person's sexual preference, or even public accusations. We call a person gay if they self-identify as gay. Not otherwise. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 02:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== I need more editing == |
== I need more editing == |
Revision as of 02:30, 13 May 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perpetrator
It could be possible that the shooter is the one who made that edit on the school's Wikipedia page on 29 April? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.47.253 (talk • contribs)
- Perhaps, but let's not add speculation that isn't in the news. If anything it'll bring bad publicity to Wikipedia (I would rather not be accused of "making shooters", I doubt Wikipedia would either). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why would Wikipedia be blamed for "making shooters" just because of someone writing "we shall see" next to the anti-suicide program? Unihoof (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Eh, maybe an extreme hypothetical. The point I was trying to make is that we should not just add wanton speculation into articles, since it is a current event. I've also seen the slightest things be used to tarnish reputations, so we should be careful about things like this. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- You mean special:diff/894656544? Who noticed this first? I have to wonder of any of those belong since sources are not given for any of them. Unihoof (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- well it could not be the attacker. Most vandalism to school pages does come from former or current students. It could just be a coincidence. This wouldn't be obvious unless the reporter is familiar with WP trends. Doublethink1954 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is now in the news [1] [2] [3], so I have added it. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Despite the notability of this, it appears GW has removed it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=STEM_School_Highlands_Ranch which may possibly impede a police investigation. Unihoof (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - would your action changing the visibility of that edit ^ impede a police investigation?
FOX31 has told officials about our findings.
- which is that edit. starship.paint (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)- Not any more than hiding any other edit. Law enforcement knows how to contact the WMF if they need to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - would your action changing the visibility of that edit ^ impede a police investigation?
This seems WP:ROUTINE to me per List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I also want to point out that this is the 10th school shooting this year. We have the information over at: List of school shootings in the United States. Person does the shootings, people offer their condolences, its pretty much the same thing. In my opinion Wikipedia should not be blowing up these stories without any indication of lasting effects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- This shooting was widely covered by the media, with one person killed and many others injured. While I agree that some of the shootings listed there are not notable enough for articles, this shooting definitely deserves one. – XYZt (talk | contribs) – 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah so? All shootings are widely covered in the media and it doesn't mean that they aren't included at all on Wikipedia, this is why we have lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- This was meant to be a mass shooting. The other 2019 ones that don't have articles weren't. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- How many mass shootings have there been in the United States this year? There isn't anything in the article that cant be summed up on a list, people died and there were condolences. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Don't shift the goalposts. It's not just a mass shooting, but a school mass shooting. The article has barely started, and you're already making judgments that it can be summed up? Are we going to sum up every single school mass shooting? People died and there were condolences. starship.paint (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- How many mass shootings have there been in the United States this year? There isn't anything in the article that cant be summed up on a list, people died and there were condolences. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- This was meant to be a mass shooting. The other 2019 ones that don't have articles weren't. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah so? All shootings are widely covered in the media and it doesn't mean that they aren't included at all on Wikipedia, this is why we have lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- This shooting was widely covered by the media, with one person killed and many others injured. While I agree that some of the shootings listed there are not notable enough for articles, this shooting definitely deserves one. – XYZt (talk | contribs) – 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed the notability template. Clearly, this article does have reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Discuss about merging it if you want, but WP:GNG is easily passed. starship.paint (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A mass shooting at a school is routine?! Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- With 10 such shootings in 100 days, yes it is! (At least in the United States). WWGB (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- @WWGB:. You cited a list of school shootings. The majority of those 10 in 2019 are not school mass shootings. Only 2 others were, the one with a BB or pellet gun has no article. starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- How about 33 then in one academic year? [4] Is there a reason why all of them have to be mass shootings? What makes this one event stand out among the rest that receive the same coverage for a few days? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I want to add that if you do the math, this is roughly 2 school shootings that happen every month. Its covered in the media, they get suspect details, and people mourn. This by now has become routine coverage (drama aside). I am not trying to sound unfeeling, but at the same time we are not a WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- @WWGB:. You cited a list of school shootings. The majority of those 10 in 2019 are not school mass shootings. Only 2 others were, the one with a BB or pellet gun has no article. starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Discrepancy
There seems to be a discrepancy in the news reports. Some are saying 7 injured but others say 8. Which should we include? :
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/colorado-school-shooting.html
- https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/us/colorado-denver-area-school-shooting/index.htmlDoublethink1954 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- NYT article has been updated to 8 injured. – XYZt (talk | contribs) – 04:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/us/colorado-denver-area-school-shooting/index.htmlDoublethink1954 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This article should be merged
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While this event seems to have some notability, i don't feel like it's worthy of having it's own Wikipedia article, unless it had more fatalities. This event should instead be mentioned on the schools Wikipedia page, other schools that have had shootings have their events mentioned on the schools page rather than their own, examples are Rosemary Anderson High School & Palo Duro High School. I have never merged an article before, so someone else should do that, the steps Wikipedia gave weren't that helpful in my opinion. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)YatesTucker00090
- I second this... per WP:ROUTINE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well then someone should put up a notification. Doublethink1954 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the reason was that there isn't many fatalities doesn't convince me. The topic has got a lot of media coverage which is why it should not be merged--SharabSalam (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- per WP:DELAY - "Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." The alternative isn't deletion here, it is a merger until long term notability is established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Jeez, can't we wait even 24 hours before trying to merge? Also, Knowledgekid87, you've made your preference known multiple times above so please let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wikipedia is not made of paper, and this is clearly a notable event that satisfies our requirement for encyclopedic content. I'm not sure why there's such a rush to delete and merge here, but it feels untoward and ghoulish (Not enough people killed? Seriously?!), at least to me. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, come on. No. No merge. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm considering closing this discussion, I think the 3 people who wrote their thoughts made some valid points on why this article should stay. I realize my comment on not enough deaths was controversial and that I waited too soon to determine the fate of this article. I only did it because their was a brief template box saying, the topic of this article may meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and thought it would be better off to have this information on the schools Wikipedia page than have it's own. 9 people shot at a school is definitely not a typical news story and with 1 fatality and two teenage gunman does add to the story, not to mention the student who died sacrificed his life to save others, much like that other kid in the University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting. Not every shooting with numerous shot is going to have it's own wikipedia article, but because a school is such a dramatic target and the fact that it was a Kindergarten through 12th grade school makes this event notable enough for it to have it's own separate page. Let me know what your thoughts are on all this. Thank You. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)YatesTucker00090
- You are right, the event is "dramatic" and is also the 33rd school shooting this academic year. [5]. The event has its splash in the news, and is then forgotten about in about a week. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- You need to stop. Step back from the keyboard, and end your participation in the discussion. This kind of rhetoric is unhealthy and possibly triggering to those of us who have experienced one of these mass shootings. We all understand that you don't like these articles, and that you think they shouldn't exist. You've made that clear multiple times in this space and others. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please WP:AGF here, this has nothing to do with not liking articles. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and have articles that have had long term effects such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Columbine High School massacre, and Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. There is a reason why we don't include everything and I have been citing appropriate policy and guidelines to back up what I post. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
In light of the above responses, I've taken the liberty of removing the merge tag — but discussion about it can, of course, continue. El_C 05:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- El C, Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose merge per above, 100%. Jeez. Not a typical news event - it's encyclopedic and notable. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose merge, the event is receiving sustained major national and international coverage, and is impacting the gun control debate in the U.S. in the run-up to the 2020 elections. Certainly satisfies WP:EVENT. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think the overall rise in school shootings is actually impacting the gun control debate in the U.S. for the 2020 elections, and not this single event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
second alleged perpetrator (minor)
This article indicates some confusion as to the gender of the minor alleged perpetrator. --134.153.13.39 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The article (under #4 'Suspects') currently reads: "the other suspect, a juvenile male"...but The Denver Post now says the other suspect is in fact "a female juvenile" (https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/08/stem-school-highlands-ranch-colorado-shooting/). Since I cannot correct this myself (article is currently semi-protected), I just make this note here, and hope someone else will... Steroge (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I fixed it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Right now the names of the 2nd suspect in the infobox and in the 'suspects' section are different. 2001:569:7859:2300:80B3:8682:DAE9:FF62 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
All updated. Body: The other suspect is a 16-year old female juvenile, Maya Elizabeth McKinney, who prefers to be referred to as “Alec”, with male pronouns
. Infobox: Maya Elizabeth “Alec” McKinney
. All okay? starship.paint (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not OK with me. We should honor the suspect's gender identity, which includes their chosen name and pronouns, per MOS:GENDERID, which applies here as the suspect was not notable under his previous name. As Alec is a minor he cannot even legally change his name or gender without a parent's permission. Being a suspect in a murder investigation, of course newspapers will want to dig into his past and publish his deadname and pronouns, but Wikipedia has no obligation to follow suit. Funcrunch (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed with Funcrunch. We need to go with "him" and "Alec" if we choose to name him in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - if he cannot legally change his gender, then he is simply still legally female. We cannot report him as of male sex. So, according to the two sources cited,
The other suspect is a 16-year juvenile of female sex, who self-identifies as Alec McKinney and prefers to be referred to with male pronouns
. If you want to use "him", go ahead. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)- My point in saying that Alec could not legally change his sex is that as a minor he is even more vulnerable than other living trans (and cis) people that we are writing about. Regardless of his legal status, we are under no obligation to specify that he is "of female sex" or that he "self-identifies". I would just write that he is a trans male, as I did in an earlier edit, but the current sources do not state that explicitly. Funcrunch (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are going against sources, Funcrunch. Reuters [6]
Sheriff Tony Spurlock declined to answer a reporter's question about whether the younger suspect was transgender. "Right now we are identifying the individual as a female, because that's where we're at," he said. "We originally thought the juvenile was a male by appearance."
He is not a male juvenile. He is a juvenile that who goes by male pronouns. starship.paint (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)- Calling out the pronouns in that unusual way reads like a thinly-veiled attempt to question the suspect's gender identity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - I'm astonished that you would write that Alec
is male
. Perhaps you missed the above quote that authorities identified Alec as female?Sheriff Tony Spurlock declined to answer a reporter's question about whether the younger suspect was transgender. "Right now we are identifying the individual as a female
. starship.paint (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)- Refresh, I already added a source supporting that he is a trans man. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - you did that after when you should have done it with your previous edit. Your initial edit went against the source already in the article. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Heard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- McKinney should be referred to using female pronouns. Regardless of her desire to be called Alec and be referred to as male, per legal court documents, McKinney is a female.JohnTopShelf (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- McKinney is a trans male named Alec, and per MOS:GENDERID we need to honor his chosen name and pronouns. I also object to McKinney's deadname being reinserted into this article. I am going to alert WT:LGBT to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- McKinney should be referred to using female pronouns. Regardless of her desire to be called Alec and be referred to as male, per legal court documents, McKinney is a female.JohnTopShelf (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Heard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - you did that after when you should have done it with your previous edit. Your initial edit went against the source already in the article. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Refresh, I already added a source supporting that he is a trans man. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - I'm astonished that you would write that Alec
- Calling out the pronouns in that unusual way reads like a thinly-veiled attempt to question the suspect's gender identity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are going against sources, Funcrunch. Reuters [6]
- My point in saying that Alec could not legally change his sex is that as a minor he is even more vulnerable than other living trans (and cis) people that we are writing about. Regardless of his legal status, we are under no obligation to specify that he is "of female sex" or that he "self-identifies". I would just write that he is a trans male, as I did in an earlier edit, but the current sources do not state that explicitly. Funcrunch (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare - if he cannot legally change his gender, then he is simply still legally female. We cannot report him as of male sex. So, according to the two sources cited,
I have alerted the LGBT and BLP noticeboards to this discussion, per recommendation in the trans male template. Funcrunch (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:GENDERID does, in fact, say we should refer to McKinney as male, if that is what he prefers. It does not say that legal court documents govern. It also says "MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." Since this is the sole incident making McKinney notable, and he is currently being referred to as both Alex and Maya Elizabeth in reliable sources discussing this incident, we should mention both (all three, depending on how you count!) names once. After which, we should refer to him as "McKinney", since that is generally the way we refer to people in our articles, by last name after first mention. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, we should not refer to McKinney with female pronouns or a female name in Wikipedia's own voice, per MOS:GENDERID. The way it's written now seems more-or-less OK to me:
The other suspect is a 16-year-old transgender boy listed on the court docket as Maya Elizabeth McKinney,[25] who uses the first name Alec;[26][2][27] McKinney is being held in juvenile custody.
(Well, it's OK apart from the fact that, in general, it causes harm to publicize suspected or convicted mass shooters' names and faces. Per the principle that we should be avoiding harm, it may be worth considering just not publishing the suspects' names at all. Though something tells me that might just be a controversial position...) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)- You might be right, but not for the reason you think you're right. WP:BLP applies to people you don't like, and WP:BLPCRIME allows for consideration omitting a subject's name, especially if it is not significantly covered in reliable sources. But if there are multiple significant suspects, naming them is beneficial and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. wumbolo ^^^ 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the current version is fine. Avoid the pronouns, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, avoid confusing the readers. The perpetrator's name and status are widely-reported now, Wikipedia avoiding this coverage runs counter to WP:WEIGHT. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- GRuban's comment and rationale sounds reasonable to me, and, despite the deadnaming, I am satisfied with how McKinney is referred to in the current revision of this article. Funcrunch (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with these sentiments. With regard to whether the article "needs" to name both suspects, it is possible that the consensus view will shift, once more evidence is published. Were this a vote, I would have opted to avoid naming a 16 year old suspect in advance of the outcome of a potential prosecution, even if their name has been widely published elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, we should not refer to McKinney with female pronouns or a female name in Wikipedia's own voice, per MOS:GENDERID. The way it's written now seems more-or-less OK to me:
Devon Erickson's alleged homosexuality
Please, be cautious about speculating on his sexual orientation. It may tend to stigmatize gay teens across America in High Schools. Just a thought for editors. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- @LLcentury: Wikipedia is not a platform for your propaganda to promote/prevent stigmatisation of gay teens. Wikipedia observes a neutral point of view and is not censored. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with both editors here. We should be "cautious" and avoid "speculation". We also should keep in mind that Wikipedia is "neutral" and "not censored". :) WanderingWanda (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Please, I never tried to promote any agenda, I just tried to contribute to the local communities in America, just to "save" (perhaps a strong word) gay teens from further bashing. No agenda intended. I understand Wikipedia neutrality. My apologies. --LLcentury (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing to apologise for, this is a serious subject and the article must avoid speculation. Newspapers make all sorts of personal claims, it is not encyclopaedic to quote potentially damaging claims about living people that are not backed up by firm evidence. Wikipedia not being "censored" does not mean Wikipedia must reprint sensational or tangential juicy claims of the day for the sake of it. I suggest ignoring the response about your comment being propaganda, it was not. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Fæ It also does not mean keeping materially relevant verifiable facts off Wikipedia because it would have a tendency to stigmatise a group of people. If multiple WP:RS have mentioned it, it WP is inclined to assume that fact to be relevant per this consensus.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- LLcentury was flagging a concern, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were not advocating censorship and they certainly were not publishing "propaganda". It should remain the norm to respond to serious concerns with civility, not rush to make hostile accusations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Fæ It also does not mean keeping materially relevant verifiable facts off Wikipedia because it would have a tendency to stigmatise a group of people. If multiple WP:RS have mentioned it, it WP is inclined to assume that fact to be relevant per this consensus.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This has no place in the article. Our general policy is that we don't include speculations about a person's sexual preference, or even public accusations. We call a person gay if they self-identify as gay. Not otherwise. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I need more editing
Since I heard about this, I was going do more editing about the student who was trying to protect his classmates before he was shot dead by the gunman. CarsonKnight02 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Erickson's social media posts about Christianity
For his 'perveiced hatred' Christians 'do have' toward hoomosexuals. He also experessed to be 'not a fan of President Trump'. Should that be included?. Thanks.
Source: 1 Colorado school-shooting suspect hated Christians, Trump - WND. --LLcentury (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Since this may be a motivation for the shootings, it is relevant, but I am concerned about the source. Is there a better cite than WND?JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Cool, New York Post? Devon Erickson, Colorado school shooting suspect, shared anti-Trump post on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLcentury (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have an issue with WanderingWanda reverting LLcentury's edit, which included Erickson's hatred toward Christians who hate gays. Since hatred of some sort is no doubt a motivation for the shootings, this certainly appears to be relevant. And it was reported by a number of sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- What sites? The NYPost is a conservative tabloid and WND is a fringe conspiracy site. Was it reported in any mainstream publications (like the The Washington Post, The New York Times, or the BBC)? And if so, do any mainstream sources specifically interpret the posts as "hatred" of Christians or as "anti-Christian"? Do any draw a direct link between the shootings and the posts? WanderingWanda (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll add: If the Post's quotation of the suspect's social media feed is accurate: to me, the idea that the suspect expressed some sort of militant anti-Christian hatred is a humongous stretch. All I see is a middle-of-the-road statement about Christians who selectively quote the Bible to justify homophobia. It seems like the kind of thing my mom would say. Note, for example, that the post begins with
You know what I hate?
NOT You know who I hate? Don't take the (click)bait. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? Daily Mail article on the case which covers Christianity issue. --LLcentury (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's not considered reliable:
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.
WanderingWanda (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Perfectly understood, thank you, still searching for reliable sources, Washington Times, is it this reliable?, I am sorry I just want to help expand the article. Washington Times?. THanks again. - --LLcentury (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Seeing the article I think not, it has been accused of racism and conspiracy theories. I just want to help. --LLcentury (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your good faith effort to improve the article LLcentury, I just don't think the suspect's views on Christianity are relevant to the article right now. That might change as the story continues to develop. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Name used before context is given
The last sentence of the "Shooting" section currently begins "Officers also went to Erickson's home..." but who Erickson and what their connection to the event is is not mentioned until two sections further down the article. I guess most people will assume from context that they are a (suspected) perpetrator but that sort of assumption shouldn't be required - they could easily be a victim (not named until the following section), an associate, or someone else entirely. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)