ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting/Archive 1. (BOT) |
Liverpoolpics (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WPUS50}} |
{{WPUS50}} |
||
{{image requested}} |
{{image requested|in=Colorado}} |
||
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting|bot=ClueBot III|age=7 |units=days}} |
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting|bot=ClueBot III|age=7 |units=days}} |
||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=168|archiveprefix=Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting/Archive|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=4|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}} |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=168|archiveprefix=Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting/Archive|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=4|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}} |
Revision as of 14:32, 6 July 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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)
- No longer an issue, Erickson introduced earlier in that section. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Suspect's Parents
On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Eric_Harris the page lists information about the family the suspects came from. One of the suspects in this case, McKinney, has a father who engaged in DV, and was an illegal immigrant. https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-mexican-father-of-alleged-colorado-school-shooter-alec-mckinney-16-was Why should this not be included in the write-up for this section?
- Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold is a biographical article, STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting is not. What may apply to one article has no carriage to the other. In McKinney's case, his father's history has not been shown to have any relevance to the shooting, and so it has no place in this article. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- We should be guided by reliable sources. Doing a search on the news tab of Google, I see very little coverage of this suspect's father, and none from mainstream sources. (Canada Free Press
has been described as "an online conservative tabloid."
and has an axe to grind.) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)- Per WP:BLP -
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article
. On present indications the claims about McKinney's father fail all three of those criteria. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP -
Mentioning suspects' names
Although both suspects' names have been reported in reliable sources, do we think it is appropriate to name them? There are two things to consider:
1. Some sources have chosen not to report the younger suspect's name because he is a juvenile. Should we follow suit?
NPR (1): Two students are under arrest — one has been identified as 18-year-old Devon Erickson and the other is a juvenile.
NPR (2):
Two suspects are currently in custody. Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock said one suspect is an adult male and the other is a juvenile male. Both are students at the STEM School, and were not previously known to local law enforcement. / The adult suspect was identified as Devon Erickson, 18.
NBC News: Erickson, 18, and a juvenile, who police identify as a girl but who prefers male pronouns, are accused of entering the K-12 school with handguns Tuesday.
2. We also need to consider WP:BLPCRIME, which was brought up above. To me, it indicates that we should "seriously consider" removing both suspects' names:
This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
WanderingWanda (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- The names of both suspects have been published around the world by multiple reliable sources, so they now satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN. There does not appear to be any judicial order to suppress the name of McKinney. Even then, Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment. LilySophie (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely. While I am sympathetic to the "don't make the shooters famous" position, we have a duty to include sourced, reliable information in the article. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe for the 18 year old, considering most countries class them as an adult, but there is no obvious encyclopaedic urgency to name the 16 year old. The context is allegations about the role, motivation, and even past social media posts of a 16 year old. Different states and countries have very different legislation about how to publish statements about the prosecution and even conviction of 16 year old teenagers. If the prosecution concludes with a conviction of both suspects, then Wikipedia will have far firmer grounds to repeat the details of the proven case. For all we know there may be a successful defense or mitigation based on controlled coercion, mental instability, or similar. Wikipedia is not a place where we encourage a free for all on the personal data of a 16 year old, simply because they are in the process of being prosecuted for a serious crime. Though "not censored" is being repeated constantly, the real question should be whether this personal data is critical for the Wikipedia article to make sense and to be encyclopaedic. Just because juicy data is available in tabloids and websites obsessed with filling space in the 24 hour newscycle war, does not mean that the encyclopedia article stops being written for the long term.
- As MrClog succinctly put it in the 3O above, "This article is after all not on the suspects, but the shooting, and thus should only contain information directly related to the shooting." --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. We don't get to make value judgments as to the information that reliable sources report. While you may not like it, who the shooters are is a HUGE part of "the shooting", and as such, if reliable sources include their names, the article should include their names. This isn't even a hard call. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually the events of the shooting, the impact and the criminal case, pretty much everything encyclopaedic about the incident, can be perfectly well conveyed without publishing the name, birth date or image of the 16 year old suspect. The long term value to the encyclopedia article is what counts on this project, not what tabloids think sells more papers. If there is sufficient uncertainty here as to whether the child suspected of a major crime but not convicted of anything, should be treated with exactly the same respect as is extended to any BLP of a child, we could always run a RFC. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is not current policy regarding including reliably sourced information in an article. If you want it to be policy, you should advocate for that change at the appropriate venue. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- BLP & BLPCRIME & BLPNAME. At the very top of the policy, BLP spells this out "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Including the names of perpetrators is not "sensational" or "tabloid" in any way. It is reliably-sourced information that you simply don't think should be included. And wrapping the fact that you don't like it in a complete misapplication of BLPNAME and BLPCRIME doesn't change the fact that the core of your argument is that you don't like it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll point to this portion of the quoted passage:
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment
. We are supposed to consider whether what we publish might cause harm, and I think its fair to say, publishing the name of an underage suspect who has not yet been found guilty of a crime may cause harm. Giving notoriety to mass shooting suspects may also cause harm. Note also that it says we're supposed to exercise "editorial judgement", contradicting your claim thatWe don't get to make value judgments as to the information that reliable sources report.
WanderingWanda (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)- McKinney has now been charged as an adult, so there is no argument to suppress his name. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll point to this portion of the quoted passage:
- BLP & BLPCRIME & BLPNAME. At the very top of the policy, BLP spells this out "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is not current policy regarding including reliably sourced information in an article. If you want it to be policy, you should advocate for that change at the appropriate venue. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually the events of the shooting, the impact and the criminal case, pretty much everything encyclopaedic about the incident, can be perfectly well conveyed without publishing the name, birth date or image of the 16 year old suspect. The long term value to the encyclopedia article is what counts on this project, not what tabloids think sells more papers. If there is sufficient uncertainty here as to whether the child suspected of a major crime but not convicted of anything, should be treated with exactly the same respect as is extended to any BLP of a child, we could always run a RFC. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. We don't get to make value judgments as to the information that reliable sources report. While you may not like it, who the shooters are is a HUGE part of "the shooting", and as such, if reliable sources include their names, the article should include their names. This isn't even a hard call. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think a number of editors who seek to include content in cases like this on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not censored" haven't really understood the purpose of that policy. It primarily regards posting content that some might find offensive, such as nudity and profanity. It doesn't mean that we can or are obligated to report every fact or opinion stated about living people, even if found in reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Organization
Would it be better to combine the shooting/victims/suspects sections into one chronological timeline? I see, for example, that the shooting is described twice in two different sections (and the descriptions contradict each other slightly):
From the Shooting section: According to a student, Devon Erickson allegedly pulled out a gun and yelled, "nobody move". Kendrick Ray Castillo jumped on him and was fatally shot in the chest.[16] Erickson was then subdued and disarmed by two other students.
From the Victims section: At least three students, 18-year-old seniors Kendrick Castillo, Joshua Jones, and Brendan Bialy lunged at an attacker, later identified as Erickson. The three students jumped from their desks and slammed the gunman against the wall. The shooter fired off several shots as they struggled with him. Castillo was killed in the process, the only student killed during the shooting.