Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting

Deadname, gender, pronouns

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.

---

Many have brought it up, but while we know the shooter was a trans man named Aiden Hale, the article uses a lot of gender neutral pronouns (better than she/her) rather than he/him while also deadnaming him. I get he's a murderer, but think of the people who are reading the news articles about this shooting that will see the fact someone's deadnamed and treated like their identity doesn't matter. Aiden won't see the deadnaming because he's dead, but those attacks against his identity will affect others reading about him. All I ask is if new information is presented, make sure to use he/him pronouns and his actual name. Thank you once more for at least eliminating the she/her pronouns and please put in his actual name. Thank you Isiah9903 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should continue to avoid the identity of the shooter entirely until the media figures it out. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the name which is unavoidable, we should use Aiden per MOS:GENDERID I think. But are there any sources that say this? They all seem to say Audrey. If we put Aiden on the article we need at least one or two. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it's WP:SYNTH, but a tweet from the police department of the guns used has the name "Aiden" on one. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be synth, but I don't see Aiden here. I see Audrey. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Look at the handle of the gun in the second image, on the right hand side. It's written on the gun, not something stated by police. (Hence my uncertainty about SYNTH.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not synth, but not a reliable source either. We need something much stronger to override the official police statement and the entire press. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The perpetrator used the name "Audrey (Aiden)" in the text to her friend/cousin, Paige Averianna Patton, on the date she killed/died. 216.106.235.57 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

And now Rreagan007 is repeatedly inserting "transgender woman" without a citation. Nosferattus (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me how you "know" the shooter was a "trans man"?? The sources only say she identified as transgender, and have consistently only used she/her pronouns in reference to her. Show me a reliable source, or preferably multiple, referring to her as a trans man or using pronouns other than she/her.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Local newspaper The Tennessean: "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns."

New York Times: "Officials used “she” and “her” to refer to the shooter, but, according to a social media post and a LinkedIn profile, the shooter appeared to identify as male in recent months."

NPR: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns."

WPLN, the local Nashville NPR affiliate in question: "MNPD says Hale is a transgender man."

Let me know if you'd like more. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Given these sources, and the fact that Washington Post is now also reporting an official update from a police spokesman, Don Aaron: "Audrey Hale is a biological woman who, on a social media profile, used male pronouns", which NPR also seems to be reporting on in their statement: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns", I am fine adding this information to the article. Whether this means we should actually use he/him is, I think, still up for debate. The police spokesman said the perp "on social media, used male pronouns", so is this alone enough to presume that the perp was using those pronouns at the time of death? Or should we wait. I'm good either way.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would personally lean towards the local news sources' (The Tennessean and WPLN) unambiguous statements that the shooter was a trans man—along with the clear statement of "used he/him pronouns" from NPR and other sources—and make the potentially WP:BOLD edit of changing all pronouns to he/him. I think it's fair to assume, at least for now, that the most recent public presence of the shooter reflects the pronouns they chose to use at time of death. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is enough sources to use he/him per MOS:GENDERID. However, it’s unnecessary to edit the article to add them in now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to use the pronouns and name that is primarily used in reliable sources. Right now the NYT and WaPo have chosen to use Audrey Hale and are just avoiding pronouns; I think that's what we should do at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should switch to he/him pronouns, as The Tennessean is doing. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean towards this now, since it does seem that the shooter was a transgender man, not a woman, as was first reported. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. A transgender man (male gender) is a woman (female sex), as far as I understand. And a transgender woman (female gender) is a man (male sex). Surely Wikipedia's style guide hasn't gone so far as to actually require authors to work with anything else as a premise. I really hope not. I know there are plenty of people that argue otherwise, but my understanding is that a transgender woman actually being a woman is very much a minority view, and very much debated. Maybe I'm wrong here in terms of the general acceptability but I've been quite taken aback by the editing of this Wikipedia article. Using Audrey's legal name seems only reasonable here. I mean, if she was known as "Smiley McSmiley Face" rather than "Aiden" I can't imagine that being used here (sure, I'm arguing from an extreme example there). And this "deadname" idea, while fine in general discourse, doesn't seem relevant in a legal situation like this. Audrey is her legal name, as far as I understand. tobych (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. Legal status is irrelevant; using a trans person's chosen name is a matter of respect. Funcrunch (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And we want to respect a mass murderer and child killer because ... ? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Respect doesn't even have to factor into it, because consensus and the preponderance of reliable sources say the shooter's pronouns are he/him, so that's what we use. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

we want to respect trans people reading this article so they don't feel like their right to self identify is up for debate depending on what they do. Aiden Hale is dead, it doesn't matter if we do or don't respect him personally, but you can't set a precedent that trans people are only who they say they are as long as they earn it. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"They/them" are not misgendering. Every human being on the face of the planet is "they/them" in addition to whatever else they identify as, because "they/them" are neutral with respect to gender, which is different from the use-case of neuter gender. By English language convention "they/them" is always valid to refer to a person, regardless of whether or not their gender is known, and in the absence of rigid clarity and consensus among cited sources, should probably be the preferred use here. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Singular they is not universally accepted in English and can often sound unnatural. Gendered pronouns should generally be used in articles unless a person has expressly stated a preference for they/them pronouns. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't and use he/him instead, per MOS:GENDERID. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Did she ever actually legally change her name? Without a formal name change, it might as well be a nickname. 162.118.117.210 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hale was a "he", and a legal name change is not required to respect the name and pronouns of trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

what are you talking about?? What respect is due?? 83.223.224.34 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place to be the harbringer of due justice to those who are evil. We care more about accuracy than morality. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The most objective truth is that the attacker was a female. Another undisputed fact is that that female identified as a man. These two facts ought to be included in the article. Whether the gender self-identification of the Audrey Elizabeth Hale (CNN) should permeate the entire article by the editors using "he" I think is a step too far. While editorially I think it is generally better to stick with objective sex instead of subjective gender self-identification of the subject, I think the best compromise at this time is to avoid using pronouns. Several sources including the CNN have taken that route. They refer to Audrey Elizabeth Hale as "the attacker" "the shooter", etc. Al83tito (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hale was a trans man who went by he/him pronouns. A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. That is the objective truth. Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2023 (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.

Deadname

Can we use the correct name for the perp? 72.89.27.178 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

See several of the recent discussions above — we're trying to find a reliable source that notes the correct name. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that it is the "correct" name, the perp's social media profile was shown to employ the name Audrey Hale alongside "(He/Him)".— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but (while it's not yet evidence in the "reliable source" sense) I can't imagine why the shooter would write "Aiden" on the gun if it wasn't the name he was going by. Agree that there's not yet justification to include it, though. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but even if "Aiden" is later confirmed as the first name Hale was using, there's the challenging question of whether MOS:GENDERID precludes us from including the birthname. The letter of the MOS states (my bold): "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page". Hale is not living, and, due to the widespread reporting of the name "Audrey Hale", is technically notable under that name, just like how we use "Ellen Page" on the Elliot Page article because Page was notable under the former name.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that raises the question of whether a deadname's notability due to mis- or incomplete reporting is considered notability for the purposes of GENDERID. Can notability be conferred for that purpose by the initial statements of police, even if later proven false? Curious if a situation like that has ever come up before. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is part of MOS:BLP, which includes the recently deceased. --Pokelova (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crumpled Fire fwiw, WP:BLP applies to the recently dead so I think GENDERID would too. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

In evaluating administrative action on this article and talk page, I ended up with not enforcing the BLP policy as it generally does not apply to people confirmed dead by reliable sources, and applying it to dead people in this case would be an editorial rather than administrative decision (see the wording of WP:BDP). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BDP states: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." (bolding mine)

Given that this appears to be up to editorial consensus, what are people's thoughts as to whether the subject's name should be considered contentious material with implications for his living relatives and friends? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This reasoning in this move discussion from last year might be pertinent, in which consensus was to change the subject's name away from her deadname, despite her being deceased and the majority of sources only using her deadname. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that move is a useful comparison. This is a complicated case and I don't think stuff like Page is particularly useful as a comparison. While shooters are sometimes notable from their shootings, it seems too early to conclude that here, they may not be notable point blank therefore it's impossible for them to me notable under a previous name.

Also if the are notable and for that matter in so much as we need to cover them in this article, the reason we have to cover them arose from them being a shooter i.e. from just before they died. I'm fairly sure Hale didn't yell a completely new name at the police or victims of the shooting, so whatever name they had was from before whatever it is that requires coverage or which makes them notable. (In other words, they were already using whatever name it is, possibly Aiden, at the time of the shooting.)

The fact that in a late breaking news situation sources may have originally used a name (and pronouns) which may not have been their latest preferred name doesn't mean they were ever notable under this name IMO.

However given how widespread the name was in early sources and I expect it is likely to be in a fair amount of continuing coverage and maybe even from the police, while we might be able to respect DEADNAME in terms of which name we choose to make the main name we use, I'm not sure we can actually exclude the name completely like we are supposed to when the subject wasn't notable under that name.

Their death also means it's likely we'll only have social media posts, perhaps some stuff from their 'manifesto', and whatever they told family and friends; to guide us. (Although most of this isn't particularly unique, I can think of at least two recent cases were it arises.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This I think is a case of WP:RS and MOS:GENDERID being in conflict. In this case, I would suggest WP:RS takes precedence. I think the best idea is to wait until this resolves itself as more sources start using the correct name. Theheezy (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/us/nashville-school-shooting-tennessee Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we not consider this to be a reliable source? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Whenever RS and GENDERID are in conflict, which happens sadly but not unsurprisingly often with regards to trans and non-binary people, it is always best practice to follow the subject's most recently expressed name and identity, even when this conflicts with the most commonly used name or terminology used in reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I understand why RS is important and that it isn't good to set a precedent to have something outweigh that, but I don't think that's what we would be doing. NYT reported that he publicly asked to be called Aiden, a name that we know he chose for himself as part of his transition. we have already agreed to mention his transition in the article and use he/him pronouns- there's no evidence he would be going by his birth name after choosing a new name aside from the fact that people we know were not accepting of his transition refer to him by his birthname (in conjunction with she/her pronouns, which we know he also didn't use), that he included his birth name along with his preferred name in a message to someone who he hadn't spoken to since changing his name (very common during a name change), and that RS are using his birth name because that's what the police, who are not a RS, used to refer to him prior to the reporting about his transition. trans people's identities have always been and will always be contentious and subject to erasure, and a RS like NYT using someone's birth name when referring to police reports but explicitly saying he used a different name along with all of the other evidence of his transition is certainly enough for us to use his new name with a mention that his birth name is still being used to refer to him because all of the information being reported on is based on police reports using his old name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The story goes that a former teacher said she saw a Facebook post sometime after 2017 wherein Audrey asked to be called Aiden. Not all posts are public and we don't know who was asked or why. We do know we often ask for things we don't get, or get called things we didn't ask to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

He asked to be called Aiden and be referred to with he/him pronouns, he changed all of his social media to the name Aiden, and it's been reported that he was trans. what exactly don't we know? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/she-checked-her-instagram-she-didnt-expect-a-message-from-the-covenant-school-shooter is this not the most recent expression of Audrey? She signed it with her birth name, with her trans-identified name in parenthesis. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And what did her best friend in the whole wide world (and maybe beyond) immediately reply? "Audrey!" Audrey didn't seem to mind being "deadnamed" a bit, so it likely wasn't as big a deal at the time, in the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

his best friend? as we've already addressed, this person was a middleschool basketball teammate who he did not speak to often. https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-contacted-authorities-after-speaking-nashville-shooter-audrey/story?id=98182991 You can also see in the newschannel5 story that he messaged this person through an account under the name Aiden, which is an additional reason he would include his birthname at the bottom despite going by Aiden.

If I knew someone had enough information to stop me from committing a crime I was immenantly about to commit, especially one that ends in my death, I would not continue the conversation to tell them about the importance of respecting a trans person's identity. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to the multiple discussions on this talk page regarding the suspect's name and gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the shooter's full name was Audrey Elizabeth Hale (CNN, CNN). The fact that she used other names, like Aiden (CNN) I think is another piece of information about the profile of the shooter that could be included as a fact in the article.

Whether the nickname or legal name is the one used repeatedly throughout the wiki article when referring to her, I guess that is something that could be determined on how most reliable sources go about it. Generally, I don't believe that a person's nicknames and preferred way of being called should have much weight in how an encyclopedic article talks about them, even more so for shooters. There are many historical figures that had preferred names other than their legal name. For example John F. Kennedy went by Jack with his friends and family. The Wikipedia article on him makes a brief mention of it but mostly sticks with his formal/legal name. Al83tito (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

He was transitioning to using the name Aiden, it was not a nickname and if he had not died would most likely have been his legal name at some point. Your opinion on chosen names has no bearing on Wikipedia's conventions, and Wikipedia conventions (and respect for the trans community) don't change based on what the person was notable for. JFK going by Jack in some circles is not the same as a trans person changing their name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Given how much RS have reported "Audrey", if we fail to do so, we may confuse readers, and this is a disservice to readers. Also, since the subject is dead, there is no harm to the subject in using the old name. starship.paint (exalt) 06:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Setting aside the topic of harm — I wouldn't advocate for excluding the deadname entirely, as it has indeed been reported enough to where its inclusion is inevitable, but I do think there's a strong argument for changing the primary name used in the article to Aiden.

  "Aiden Elizabeth Hale, who also went by the name Audrey" instead of the other way around as it is now. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  How do you know it's "Aiden Elizabeth Hale" and not "Aiden Hale"? starship.paint (exalt) 07:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point; I was assuming Elizabeth was the middle name and that it wouldn't change, but it would be safer to just say "Aiden Hale, who also..." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is there anything out there suggesting it wasn't going to just be "Aiden" (like Shakira or Virgil or Poppy)? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  (Well, I've been hearing a lot about this "Occam" guy lately...) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  You can't be too rational if you want to empathize with someone who shoots strangers in a school or church to death, it's been said. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

From the reliable sources that have already been cited in this article, here's a non-exhaustive (rather, chosen to avoid overlap) list of references to the shooter actively using and stating a preference for the name "Aiden".

Sources that quote people the shooter had known or the shooter himself:

CNN, sourced to former instructor: "Over the last year, Hale posted on Facebook about the death of a girl with whom Hale apparently played basketball and a request to be referred to by the name Aiden and male pronouns, according to Maria Colomy, a teacher who taught Hale for two semesters in 2017."

AP, ditto: "Hale had “been very publicly grieving” on Facebook, Colomy said. “It was during that grief (Hale) said, ’In this person’s honor, I am going to be the person who I want to be, and I want to be called Aiden.’”"

CNN, sourced to former classmate #1: "In a social media post last year, Hale wanted to go by the name Aiden, Cody said."

NBC News, sourced to former classmate #2: "She added that Hale began using a different name on social media “in the last year or two maybe.”"

NBC News, sourced to screenshots provided by former teammate: "In the first message sent to Patton, Hale signed it as "Audrey (Aiden).""

Sources that reference the shooter's social media accounts and such:

WZTV Nashville: "One of the weapons, an assault rifle as described by police, has the word "Aiden" written on the stock of the rifle. The name is also part of a social media profile used by Hale. On the profile, which has been since removed, Hale listed social links which included links to "creative.aiden" and "Aiden Creates" under Hale's 'About' section."

AP: "Social media accounts and other sources indicate that the shooter identified as a man and might have recently begun using the first name Aiden."

The Tennessean: "Hale, who at this point used male pronouns and the name "Aiden" on his Instagram profile, told Patton that a post he had made on March 13 was really a suicide note."

NBC News: "Hale’s website, which has since been taken down, linked to an Instagram account where Hale used the name Aiden."

If all of this isn't enough to change the primary name to Aiden (while still keeping a "who also went by Audrey" in the article) per GENDERID, RS, precedent, and established best practices — I'd like to hear the rationale for why not. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the reliable sources that note it was what the killer seems to have wanted call him Audrey. Some call Audrey "her". But I've yet to see a source only or primarily call Audrey Aiden. Audrey will always be this dead person's common name, it's mathematically assured. This "Aiden" request is worth a mention. But more than who we think we are, we are the way we're remembered by others, and this is not any different for a cis or peaceful person. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

In the very last message Audrey sent to her friend, she signed it with her birth name in addition to her trans-identified name. This has been widely covered by RS. We can't ask her if that's what she preferred and it simply illustrates how conflicted this young woman was. RS uses her birth name prolifically and we can explain the context quite well given the amount of coverage this event has. The policies re: WP:DEADNAME don't apply here because she's dead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hulk brings up an interesting point above. We know this person named themselves as “Aiden”, but did they ever name themselves as “Aiden Hale”? We shouldn’t assume. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

weapon type should be removed

Listing the specific weapons should be removed. They do not need to be named/ made known. "Gun violence" is enough to describe the shooting. No need to give details that may create interest in these weapons. 2406:E003:18DE:1C01:86B7:16AC:532C:6E7A (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your NOTCENSORED, and raise you a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Touché. I had the infoboxes for Columbine, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, etc in mind; but definitely worth removing for now if unsourced. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed them as they were unsourced, they also are not mentioned in such detail in the article body, and infobox values typically need to exist in the body as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Once reliable sources discuss the details of the weapons extensively, those details should be added back to the article. Hint: None was a lever action 30-06 Winchester hunting rifle like the one I owned as a teenager over 50 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

JBW95 continues to add them without adding sources, I've removed them again. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a source that gives the types of all three: KelTec SUB2000 (as CNN says), a Grunt .300 Blackout, and a S&W M&P9 Shield EZ. Shall it be included? Etnguyen03 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek is generally not considered a reliable source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Etnguyen03: Could you link the CNN article? Per WP:CNN it's a reliable source A09 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a few sources I found while I'm at it: CNN (Kel-Tec), Euronews (Grunt), and Guardian (S&W). Etnguyen03 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Dude you took issue with the name of the gun, but forget the external video is showing the perperator armed and walking in the school💀. Illchy (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(In fairness, while I disagree with the person's stance, I will note that the external video was not added to the article at the time they had posted that comment.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Firearms

Again the media and the reporters go for sensationalism instead of fact. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault style pistol or assault weapon. Those phrases are used to make an ordinary tool seem scary.

I mean firstly they don't need to list the weapons at all, just say firearms were involved and be done. Its like when columbine happened they listed the guns used and soon after, Several of the guns they used went from 50 to 100 dollar firearma no one really bought to costing 400 dollars with some manufacturers even making clones briefly in the early to mid 2000s. So don't mention what types to prevent copycats and sickos.

Secondly they shouldn't mention the types because it is irrelevant. The ownership of guns didn't cause this person to shoot up a school, it was something else whether it be mental illness, twisted sense of morality, even a twisted sense of religion but its never the guns fault. Loneviking (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well a nuclear bomb or double trailer truck doesn't make someone into a terrorist but I doubt you will convince people you should just say explosive or vehicle if a terrorist uses one to kill people. Actually why say firearm at all? Just say weapon. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a soapbox to express your opinions on gun control. Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources are highlighting the guns used. Couruu (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly understood terms and/or have legally-defined meanings. I am less certain of "assault style pistol". It appears News Week addressed this issue previously and concluded:

"While the term assault pistol has been cited by the government and may have been used in the past to name certain models of semi-automatic pistol-type weapons (including at least one model that bears remarkable similarity to the firearm used in Monterey Park), it's not a well known or understood descriptor." Source: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-assault-pistol-real-type-gun-1776538

I would think "semi-automatic pistol" or "handgun" would be the more appropriate descriptor, and these terms seems to be the ones employed by many news reports. However, I would defer to more experienced editors. I don't think the current terminology is technically incorrect, but the uncommon usage of a term may lead to more confusion for readers than a more commonly used term. ProbitasVeritas (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would contest that the terms assault weapon, "assault rifle", and "assault-style gun" are all legally vague terms specific to the United States. Within the United States they are not even consistently defined across jurisdictions; this may also be a conflict with MOS:COMMONALITY.

Putting that aside, the reason why the term "assault-style pistol" is important to the article is that the gun in question has been explicitly included in other "assault weapon" bans. The efficacy of such laws are not in question here, but the fact is that these weapons were purchased legally, and Tennessee has no such laws on the books. EatTrainCode (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the term "assault style" has no consistent definition (and to note, has no definition at all in Tennessee) and is inherently politically charged, I don't believe it has any business being used in that context on Wikipedia. It could be used when explaining ban proposals or whatever, but not in simply describing the weapon. I've just left it as "two rifles". Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Victim ages

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.

---

I just wanted to specify something I saw on TV regarding the ages of the victims. They said two of the children were 9, while the third one was 8, almost 9. I tried digging for a source to confirm this, but all news reports are currently stating that all three were 9. I assume this detail will be specified in the near future, but I wanted to mention it here for accuracy. Rowing007 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Any reliable source backing up your claims? A09 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I know what a reliable source is; you'll notice I'm not an inexperienced editor, so there's no need to link WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. Like I said, it's not "my claim"; it's something I saw on the news, live. Refer to my message below for more details. Thanks. Rowing007 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No need to be pointy/whatever you prefer to call. Thanks for bottom responses. A09 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Vague and unproductive reply. Your initial reply to me did not assume good faith, as you immediately linked to policies without even considering that I might just know what I'm doing and that I understand what it means to prove something with a reliable source. I chose to post here because I did not yet find the source, but I did not want the truth (or at the very least, a conflicting source of information) to become lost. Being mindful of context and your tone is important. Rowing007 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Many editors will be reading article talk pages and not all of them will be as familiar with relevant policies and guidelines as you say you are. Even if you find no value in those links, they are a kindness to others and should be encouraged. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Facile and reductive argument, with yet more incessant doubting. It seems nothing can be evaluated at face value without ascribing some ulterior motive or meaning to it. Bottom line is, the user's reply was to me, so the blind linking to policies is patronizing and shows a lack of proper investigation. If I had somehow gone into a conversation wherein I demonstrated a lack of understanding for WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, then linking them would be well merited, but linking them from the get-go fails to assume good faith. The majority of my edits constitute fixing references and properly sourcing statements, and this is readily apparent from even a cursory glance at my recent contributions. Rowing007 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What station was that? Some of them upload their news segments to YouTube and others will include them in an article on their website. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It was on CTV News Channel, this morning (March 28, 2023). I casually had it on when I heard the ages as noted above. More than half-an-hour later (my TV can only rewind up to 30 minutes on live programming; I tried backtracking to find the snippet, but no luck), I looked at this Wikipedia article (and a subsequent search of any source I could find), and I was only met with the statement that all three were 9, hence my confusion and my posting about it here. I would not be surprised if there are additional details that emerge in the coming days which explain the exact ages. Everything is still so fresh and information still so limited that I assume initial reports have merely simplified the ages. Or the report I heard on TV this morning could be completely wrong. Who knows? We'll see as more details emerge. Rowing007 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard it, too. It came from a short man (the mayor, if I recall) who spoke briefly and generally about the dead to start the first press conference, after saying he'd let the chief identify them. And then the chief did, presumably more knowingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. CTV News didn't upload that to their YouTube channel as far as I can see, but I was able to find the news conference posted by CBS News on Monday with the mentioned line. I will note that both CBS News and CTV News have reported their ages as nine on Tuesday afternoon. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That video of the police chief stating the ages is solid proof. I managed to find a few sources mentioning age 8, likely referencing that very press briefing statement by the police chief: [1] [2]. The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of sources state that all three were age 9. We also don't know yet exactly which of the children was 8. Rowing007 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk's undone edit: Yes, yes, yes. 3:04 in the YouTube video posted above quite clearly says "Two of them were age 9, one was 8, about to be 9". I am quite capable of identifying the police chief and differentiating him from the mayor. Thanks for correcting yourself, but perhaps do so before posting a reply, next time. Rowing007 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, of course, we all could do better on some things. Mild thrashing accepted. Good luck, brother, the truth is out there! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rowing007: Whoops, also forgot to subscribe to this. (I actually thought this got archived.) In any case, I wouldn't call the video solid proof as the press conference uses both. The Police Chief says one is eight while the Public Affairs Director says all are nine. It seems that most sources went with the information provided by the Director. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the fact he said it at all is enough to raise doubt. Basic logic would dictate that there must be a reason he said it, and it would be most unusual for him to have made it up or misheard it, as others are suggesting below. Rowing007 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

At the same press conference, the mayor followed the police chief, named all three children, and said they were all aged 9. This is consistent with all printed sources. I am not aware of any other source that reports one child aged 8. The chief's comment is included in a footnote of our article, but it must not be reported as an infallible truth. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Police get stuff wrong all the time, we must take their statements with a grain of salt. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What a ridiculous stance. Just think for one second. Why in the world would the police chief explicitly state that Two of them were age 9, one was 8, about to be 9 if he didn't have the precise information to back that up? They knew the names of the victims, and were able to verify the exact dates of birth before giving the press briefing, hence the police chief's statement. The facile shortcut here is to state that they were all 9. Indeed, it's much quicker and easier to state "all three were age 9", but that would simply not be correct. From there, it has snowballed with all the news sources latching on to that one misrepresentation of reality. For comparison, Betty White and Prince Philip died a few weeks/months before their 100th birthday. No one claims they were 100. This should be no different. Facts are facts. Rowing007 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We can't just assume the police have the facts 100% right, so it must be attributed. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, Occam's razor; truly, logic has left the chat. Secondly, if you insist on attributing it instead of accepting it as the ground truth, there is no reason why it should not be attributed in the body, with the reference making note of the conflicting body of sources which state that all three were 9. Rowing007 (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Because 99% of sources say all were 9. We don't need to bore readers by publishing one contradictory source in the body of the article. An exception in a footnote is sufficient. If indeed one child was 8, that will eventually come out when the funerals are held. WWGB (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The "99% of sources" argument is extremely poor. What's been happening here has been like a massive game of telephone, wherein something gets misheard and perpetuated down the line, or like a rumour that gets spread around and repeated so much that the ground truth is disbelieved. Per my above comments, basic logic dictates that it is perfectly reasonable to accept as fact that one of of them was, in fact, aged 8, per the police chief's purposefully specific statement. The truth will out. Rowing007 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We aren't the determiners of truth. As editors we care about what is verifiable to reliable sources. In this instance, the police chief said one thing, and all of the secondary sources said another. Per WP:WEIGHT, we must follow what the majority of sources say which in this instance means we state that all three were aged 9, and if there is a consensus for inclusion of the chief's alternate age then as a minority viewpoint it must be attributed to him.

If in a week, or a month, or longer it turns out that the chief was correct and the sources we're currently relying on were mistaken, then we can look at updating the article at that time. However we should not try to guess the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Once more, that's an instance of illogical reasoning. My arguments are present above, and once again, the truth will out. Rowing007 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's reasoning founded on the common interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines at hand. In this case, The WP:WEIGHT subsection of WP:NPOV says that we cannot do what you want us to do. If we are to include the age from the police chief, it must be attributed to him, as he is a minority viewpoint that diverges from the mainstream accepted viewpoint. Only if the sources later correct themselves, should they have made a mistake, can we then look at saying that two of them were age 9, and one was 8. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

False. The police chief made the statement the day of the incident. This massive game of telephone that has occurred since then is nothing more than a snowball effect based on a simplification made by someone at some point (perhaps the mayor in that same briefing, at the origin). Regardless, this is a classic case where the policies do a disservice to the truth and ignore basic logic. For the third time, the truth will out. Rowing007 (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For the third time, the truth will out. And until that happens, we must follow what is verifiable now. And that means that we state that all three were aged 9, and if we mention the chief's deviation at all it must be attributed to him. Anything else is not policy compliant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As stated multiple times, the police chief's statement is verifiable and reliable. The "deviation" is the litany of news reports that have come out since the police chief's statement, parroting the line that all three were 9. This, along with the precision of his statement, is basic logic pointing to its accuracy, but go ahead, cling to the policy. Rowing007 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I know it's hard, brother. But that's Wikipedia. I can't even begin to tell you how many inaccuracies I've seen in my years of mass shooting corrections. About half are still there, especially where those Amaq News Agency parrots still outnumber the free thinkers. If knowing a dead kid was almost nine and not nine is important to you, all you can really do is believe you know better than Wikipedia. And there's no smugness in that. Wikipedia is more an average of human knowledge than a sum, so about half of our articles are going to naturally be of below average information (credibilitywise). Can't fix them all. Thanks for trying! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment of solidarity, but please do not refer to me with colloquial terms such as "brother". I fully understand the nature of the policy; I am contending that it is being misapplied in this instance. The child in question was either 8, as the police chief made a point of explicitly specifying (Gee, I wonder why he would do that? Maybe it's because he had access to their information and was reporting on it?), or the child was 9. If basic logic bows to policy in a scenario such as this, there is either something wrong with the policy, or it is being misapplied. Rowing007 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's less a personal remark and more a consequence of adopting some of my online gimmick from Hulk Hogan. I do feel your pain, but I'll remember to watch my words with you. Sorry. Even with police, there's strength in numbers. Do police press releases representing the department as a whole's thoughts on the ages suggest THEY agree with HIM? If so, there you go. If not, there you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in government, much of the time the simplest route is taken when drafting hasty documents, sometimes at the expense of accuracy. Whomever wrote that press release must not have looked very much into it, or they were fed the ages to fill in a blank, and whomever fed them the ages must have just relied on the already-snowballed version that they were all 9. Which begs the question (Occam's razor): why would the police chief even mention that one of them was 8 in the first place if it's not true? The amount of hoops one would have to jump through to explain that is more than is necessary to explain the opposite (namely, that the police chief was correct, and that everything else is a snowballed simplification). Rowing007 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a logical thought experiment for you. Picture a guy making a mistake, then correcting it later, like I did when I thought the mayor was wrong and the chief was right instead of the complete opposite. Pretty fucking stupid, eh? It happens. The press release is from later and even brief time can bring great wisdom. He thought he remembered hearing the kid who was nine was almost nine instead, I say. You can trust me on that or you can appreciate why I don't respond to any further attempts to convince me there was some snowball of unknown origin that couldn't have been corrected in this, the digital age. Good day, Rowing007! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For him to have heard it means someone would have said it. For someone to have said such a specific caveat on tbe ages without basing it off of observed facts (i.e., records) is rather outlandish. Occam's razor. We shall see how things unfold. Rowing007 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you stop bludgeoning the conversation please? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say he heard it, I said I think he thought he did. Like how you possibly read something I didn't write because some part of you thought it seemed close enough. I'll concede he also may have thought he read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's even more of a stretch. Do not try to gaslight me by suggesting I am cherrypicking your words. I am drawing out your proposed logic to its conclusion. What you're suggesting now is that the police chief completely fabricated such a precise detail. Absolutely the most far-fetched notion proposed so far. Rowing007 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gaslighting anyone, to err is human. That's why it's an old saying. Fabrication is far beyond what I'm telling you happened, that implies intent, not an accident. I honestly think that's what it was. If you need the story from the man himself, contact his department, long distance is basically free now, just takes time. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What an incredibly patronizing and direspectful message and edit summary. Fabrication was the first word that came to mind; I did not imply intent. Let me say it differently: it is incredibly far-fetched to propose that he somehow hallucinated it. Your arguments have now devolved into derogatory personal attacks against me; please refrain from further WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. The bottom line is that basic logic dictates that it is not unreasonable to assume his statement was founded on ground truth information obtained from personal records. Rowing007 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So now what I proposed was an honest mistake has become more than mere fabrication, you've got me accusing him of hallucinating on the job. Great. Have fun with that imagination, I'm just glad John Drake and his lawyer(s) can read. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous and misrepresentative argument. You can't seem to form or respond to cogent arguments. Enough is enough already. Rowing007 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying Occam's razor, but I'm not sure why you think "the police chief said the right ages, after which every single member of the news media, every family member of the deceased, and the police department itself proceeded to state one of the ages incorrectly" is a simpler explanation than "the police chief misheard one of the ages and stated it incorrectly, after which the police department corrected it and news media reported the corrected press release."

Why not apply Occam's razor to the question of why none of the three families—despite each of them having made a public statement since—disputed the ages as all being 9? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's very clear to reason that it is much simpler to say "they were all 9" than to go through the extra work of saying "two of them were age 9, one was 8, almost 9". There has not been a major correction yet because it is such a minute detail that bears no mentioning for media people more concerned about pumping a story out and not spending the time on going back and correcting it. The families are likely too grief-stricken to want to go through the trouble of detracting from the memory of their child to say "um, actually, they were 8, not 9". At this point, it's abundantly clear tbat the only way there will be a clarification on this is if someone mentions it during a funeral/memorial, or the exact dates of birth are made public, becauae the simple logic of recognizing that such a specific statement be made by the police chief in the first place clear isn't enough right now for most. Rowing007 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is verifiable that the police chief said it. It is not verifiable that the police chief was correct when he said it. Maybe the chief was right, and maybe he was wrong. We don't know, and we aren't the people who are here to determine that truth. We only care about what the mainstream viewpoint is in reliable sources, and that is for now that the kids were all aged 9. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is no less verifiable than what the mountain of news sources are saying. Once again I will refer to Occam's razor. Who do you think is more likely to have had access to the truth (i.e., the personal records which displayed the dates of birth), the police chief, or the media? The media report on what sources such as the police chief say (and, unfortunately, the mayor's contradictory statement). This means the police chief is a secondary source, and the media is a tertiary source. Once again, to ignore the fact that the police chief spoke with such precision would be an egregious flouting of logic. Rowing007 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2023 (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.

Requested move 28 March 2023

2023 Covenant School shooting → Covenant School shooting – I think that WP:NOYEAR and WP:NCE has a much stronger case here than in other recent shootings. Since the title is much more precise in its location (naming a specific school), and given that history has usually not seen a major notable shooting happen in the same precise location as opposed to maybe a city (for example, there are numerous shootings in Pittsburgh but only one at Sandy Hook Elementary). The precision of the location in the title is too specific to justify more, and I believe WP:CRYSTALBALL could potentially be implied (albeit weakly) if we keep a year in here, potentially suggesting that there are more shootings, notable or unnotable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per the proposal. The proposed title is reasonable, makes sense per WP:NOYEAR, and there's precedent in relation to other article titles of similar events. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Striking vote. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Support as the standard, concise title format for this type of article. It includes a specific location, so there's no need for the year. Move to Nashville school shooting because the national & international media is using Nashville far more often in its article titles than Covenant, so it's the best title. Due to being highly-publicised & the only notable school shooting in Nashville, it fulfils WP:NOYEAR. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The "standard, concise title format" is prescribed at WP:NCE. It would be utterly amazing if you accepted that. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please tone down the comments...they're starting to seem uncivil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What a time to be alive, equating requesting consensus be respected to being incivil. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments like "What a time to be alive" and "It would be utterly amazing if you accepted that." seem to ride the line of incivility. Could you please tone down your wording? Maybe just say "please respect consensus" instead of what you said earlier. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Jim as with all of the past move discussions we've both been involved in on this, the standard community consensus naming convention is spelled out at WP:NCE. That means that until this event has a common name, which it won't for at least a year, the When, where, what standard naming format should be used. In this case, this means that the article should be named 2023 Covenant School shooting or ideally 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:NCE, the title format for events is When, Where and What happened. WP:NOYEAR suggests the year can be omitted for titles where the event is so recognizable that the year is irrelevant, but that also requires historic perspective, and for something that happened less than 24 hours ago it's far too soon to be claiming this is the WP:COMMONNAME. If anything, I'd support moving the page to 2023 Nashville shooting which is what the vast majority of our sources refer to this event as. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I never understood the historic perspective argument given that the same argument can be tossed back in the courts of the argument's proponents. Yes, we have a day of precedent, but that means that there's no argument to support inserting the year either, especially considering that in practically every "year or no year" dispute, the subject event is the only kind. People also frequently mention WP:NCE, but there's a reason why at the top of the wider page, it states that [this wider guideline] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I also strongly oppose moving this article to 2023 Nashville Shooting, which violates WP:DESCRIPTOR by being needlessly vague and broad. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The historic perspective argument is one that requires a significant amount of time to have passed from the event to be accurately assessed. One day is nowhere near enough time, and as such Locke Cole is correct that the primary convention on When, where, what of WP:NCE should apply. Additionally all of the examples listed at NOYEAR largely follow the common name for those events from the sources that discuss them.

The boilerplate is a generally accepted standard text is something that is on all Wikipedia guidelines, and comes from the {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} template. It's not specific to that guideline and no extra meaning should be read into it by its presence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - this is a specific location, at that point, there really is no point to disambiguate further. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

this is a specific location Does WP:NCE say it applies to non-specific locations only? Regardless, there are many schools with the name "Covenant" in their name, so omitting the year makes it ambiguous, especially as it's very likely this will not be the only "Covenant" school to have a mass shooting at some point. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both titles - Both are too vague, as a simple google of "covenant school" will show that this is not even the only covenant school out there, as results show there are also ones in Virginia and Texas. Also complying with WP:NCE, I think we should have the title as "2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting" or "Nashville Covenant School shooting". - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, but a point has to be raised in that this is the only Covenant school that has been subject to a shooting. I am neutral on the latter Nashville Covenant School shooting suggestion of yours. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair point of yours also, and I understand where you're coming from. I'll keep your comment in mind in this RM and future ones. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about this when it’s not a standalone title, but generally the title formatting for "Covenant School"s is Covenant School (State), which if following this format within this title would be: Covenant School (Nashville) shooting BhamBoi (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment – If the consensus of this debate ends up being to exclude the year from the title, I recommend changing the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting, 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting, & 2021 Oxford High School shooting articles back to their original titles, without the year included. Silent-Rains (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the year should be removed from those titles as well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and concur with Jim and Silent on all of these. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No. The year should only be removed from those article titles if there is a common name in reliable sources for those events, and that removing the natural disambiguation of the year would not cause article ambiguity. A quick Google search for each of those shootings did not turn up a common name that lacked a year, as every source I skimmed, except those local to Santa Fe, specified a year in their ongoing coverage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The year in the title is unnecessary disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per NCE's "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." First thing that came to my mind with the included year was, "there was more than one shooting? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I also support adding Nashville to the title because that's more useful than the year. People will more likely search for Nashville school shooting than use covenant as a search term. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NCE is absolutely clear here that in the absence of a common name from reliable sources, the article title should follow the When, Where, What pattern. A shooting that happened a day ago is far too early to have a common name from sources, and the lack of a When would make Covenant School shooting non-descriptive. That being said, 2023 Covenant School shooting is also a pretty bad title for the Where part of NCE, as there are multiple Covenant Schools in the US and elsewhere. A more descriptive title would be something like 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting, Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCE. The inclusion of the year adds a time context to the event. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Distinctive enough, three words long and more consistent with how reliable sources and the people who know them actually write and talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCE and precedent of this format being used for school shootings as outlined below. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as per emerged convention (see "Precedent" below). Dan100 (Talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I do want to mention that this discussion mirroring past discussions. For whatever reason, there appears to be a conflict between articles in the sub-categories of Category:School shootings in the United States and the recent sub-categories of Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year, specifically 2021 to 2023. Sub-category Category:Elementary school shootings in the United States has fifteen article with twelve not using the year. Sub-category Category:2023 mass shootings in the United States has all articles with a year, with one exception. I do think that there needs to be some consistency with these types of articles, but I believe that would require an RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe the year should always be in the title. Helps people sort through which was which. The precedent section below makes a good case. Dream Focus 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCE and the mountain of precedent below. We should remain consistent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCE Esb5415 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCE and precedent cited below. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Precedent"

Above, both Nythar and (struck since Nythar struck their !vote) Jim Michael 2 claim there is precedent for naming school shootings without the year. Let's test that theory. I went through the list of school shootings in {{School shootings in the United States}} that have articles, and (surprise, surprise) the vast majority of them in fact do include the year in the title. The outliers are typically the ones you'd expect, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, etc. But here's the rest:

• 2023 Michigan State University shooting
• 2022 University of Virginia shooting
• 2022 Central Visual and Performing Arts High School shooting
• 2022 East High School shooting
• 2022 Oakland school shooting
• 2021 Oxford High School shooting
• 2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting
• 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting
• 2018 Noblesville West Middle School shooting
• 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting
• 2018 Marshall County High School shooting
• 2017 Aztec High School shooting
• 2017 North Park Elementary School shooting
• 2016 Townville Elementary School shooting
• 2016 UCLA shooting
• 2015 Northern Arizona University shooting
• 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting
• 2013 Sparks Middle School shooting
• 2013 Santa Monica shootings
• 2008 University of Central Arkansas shooting

I stopped there. I could go on though, but I think the point is made: most articles on "school shootings" utilize the naming convention put forward by the community in WP:NCE. For an event that just happened yesterday, there's little reason to deviate from that. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. But, well, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting isn't even the common name. That would be "Parkland high school shooting", the most common name found in reliable sources. But I suppose that's beside the point. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be "Parkland high school shooting" And I'd support that move, because we're dealing with the historic perspective that WP:NCE (and WP:NOYEAR specifically) calls out as prerequisites to deviating from the when/where/what naming convention. Let's go discuss moving that page, if we're gonna move anything... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Striking my support !vote above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

When the location is in the title (rather than merely the settlement/area) it's not even the majority of titles that include the year, let alone the vast majority. Those without the year are far from being outliers; they greatly outnumber those with the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think that a Where, what naming convention pattern is sufficient disambiguation for the majority of these sort of events, then I would suggest that you seek a consensus to change the text of WP:NCE, which currently clearly states that the majority of articles should use the When, where, what pattern. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there could be a case for TITLECON here. BhamBoi (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the claim that most articles on "school shootings" utilize the naming convention put forward by the community in WP:NCE appears to be incorrect. Looking at the primary sub-categories of Category:School shootings in the United States, you have the University and college sub-category where 20 of the 32 do not use the year, the High School sub-category with 36 out of 46 that do not use the year, the with 11 out of 15 that do not use the year, and the sub-category this article belongs to with 12 out of 15 that do not use the year. That makes a total of 79 out of 98 that do not use the year and 21 that do. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

For your University and college sub-category, it appears there's a combination of counting redirects (which are irrelevant), and miscategorization (as there are articles not about school shootings categorized in that list). This is why I went with the navbox, because as a rule they don't include redirects (makes the navbox less functional) and it's easy to pick out articles not directly about school shootings. It's the same thing for the High School sub-category you linked to. All of those italic titles listed are redirects. Redirect naming is much more lax than article naming. Working from the navbox list, 70% of article titles included the year, while < 30% did not. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

When only those whose specific location is included (such as Thurston High School shooting) rather than only the settlement (such as 2022 Oakland school shooting), the clear majority don't include the year. Although this shooting is very recent, it's very widely publicised, so it clearly fits the no year criteria. As far more media sources are using Nashville in their headlines than are using Covenant, there's a good case for including Nashville in the heading. Nashville shooting is a dab page, so Nashville school shooting would be a better title. 2023 Nashville shooting & Nashville Covenant School shooting are also better than the current title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. (I apparently didn't remember to subscribe to discussions.) I did understand that redirects are in italics, but Category:University and college shootings in the United States had very few redirects so I didn't account for them separately. However, I did check again and see that some sub-categories had a more significant number of redirects. I am a bit confused about the what is miscategorized, but I will concede the point. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Biden ice cream criticism

It's been added and removed a couple of times now. A consensus for inclusion needs to be established on this, so starting this discussion. Per WP:ONUS, could editors in favour of including it please state your reasoning for inclusion. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see in any sort of world where that addition would be DUE and not just a random POV WP:COATRACK violation. Silverseren^C 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

These rationales against a "blue side" are expected. I do strive to overcome public misconception of bias regarding Wiki. with everything I do on here, but with politics.. WP:WEIGHT, selectively, continuously skews one way.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Especially "his supporters claimed that his jokes were taken out of context" — numerous reliable sources that neither support nor oppose Biden have stated that it was taken out of context, because it objectively was. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. Some sources don't mention it as I didn't hear or read about it on National Desk news or ABC news. CNN has no mention of that. This is my first-time hearing about that part. A source here does. https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-bidens-gaffe-about-ice-cream-and-nashville/a-65159845 Cwater1 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable Silent-Rains (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep in article - I am in favor of keeping this controversy within the article. Every time a major mass shooting in the United States happens, the president usually reacts in the same way, & that same reaction is added to the articles on the shootings every time. Here are some examples since Biden has been president:

• 2021 Oxford High School shooting: "President Joe Biden and U.S. Representative Elissa Slotkin, whose district includes Oxford High School, expressed their condolences over the shooting."
• 2022 Sacramento shooting: "President Joe Biden called on the United States Congress to work on new gun control measures."
• 2022 Buffalo shooting: "President Joe Biden offered his prayers for the victims and their families."
• Robb Elementary School shooting: "Biden highlighted that other countries have "mental health problems", "domestic disputes", and "people who are lost, but these kinds of mass shootings never happen with the kind of frequency they happen in America. Why? Why are we willing to live with this carnage?" Biden said that he was "sick and tired" of mass shootings, declaring "we have to act", and calling for "common sense" gun laws."
• Highland Park parade shooting: "President Joe Biden stated that he was shocked by the "senseless" gun violence and has offered the "full support of the Federal government" to the affected communities. He also called for gun control measures."
• 2022 Raleigh shooting: " U.S. President Joe Biden said he and his wife Jill were grieving with the victims' families."
• 2022 Central Visual and Performing Arts High School shooting: "President Joe Biden posted on Twitter, writing "Jill and I are thinking of everyone impacted by the senseless shooting in St. Louis – especially those killed and injured, their families, and the first responders. As we mourn with Central Visual and Performing Arts, we must take action – starting by banning assault weapons."
• 2022 University of Virginia shooting: "US President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden issued a joint statement about the shooting, which offered their condolences to the families of the victims, thanked first responders for their swift response, and condemned gun violence."
• 2022 Chesapeake shooting: "President Joe Biden shared his condolences and called for gun reform in the U.S."
• 2023 Monterey Park shooting: "He later offered condolences and ordered flags at the White House to be flown at half-staff."
• 2023 Michigan State University shooting: " Joe Biden expressed condolences, and called for gun control."

As you can see, all of Joe Biden's reactions to shootings consist of him feeling sorry for the victims & advocating for gun control. This differs from the norm, so I believe it is notable & should be included. Many media outlets, such as Snopes, USA Today, Politico, & others have mentioned this. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That's some nice original research. Let us know when a reliable source says the same thing. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to say that my reply is original research? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The lack of reliable sources in your reply implies that it's original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your reply sounds like original research to me unless you have a reliable source to support that claim. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not trying to put in a Wikipedia article that Silent-Rains is guilty of original research, so we don't need an RS. We can use our brains and Wikipedia's definition of original research. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You must have copied the statement from the articles. If you add the sources, then it is legit. These are tips, see Wikipedia:No original research for more. Cwater1 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silent-Rains: Please see WP:BURDEN. A09 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources for statements: Oxford, Sacramento, Buffalo, Uvalde (there's something wacky with that source), Highland Park, Raleigh, Missouri high school, Virginia, Chesapeake, Monterey Park, & Michigan. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

@Silent-Rains: None of those suggest that Biden's reaction to this event differs from the norm, as you originally claimed. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to say that none of those sources suggest that Biden's reaction to this event differs from the norm, as I originally claimed? Silent-Rains (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don't need one, because I'm not trying to put that into a Wikipedia article. Sources are open to interpretation, but you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a source verifies something it explicitly doesn't say, as anyone can read the sources for themselves and see that. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source says you don't need a source unless you want to put it into a Wikipedia article? What reliable source backs up anything you say?

If you need to violate a policy (being unable to provide a reliable source) to explain the policy & how it applies, you are likely using the policy incorrectly. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit anymore you could just voluntarily stop editing rather than being silly in an effort to get banned. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding that didn't get cleared up and spiraled out of control a bit. Hopefully the sources below that FormalDude was asking for get this back on track. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Honestly, your comment was a bit confusing to me, so it makes sense why the sources you got were not the ones you wanted. Here is sources for Snopes, USA Today, and Politico. Not 100% sure if these were the exact articles that User:Silent-Rains was mentioning, but I am somewhat confident. Hopefully this somehow helps someone. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I'm not sure what's confusing, but I'll try to make it simpler. Silent-Rains is saying Joe Biden's ice cream comment needs to be included because it "differs from the norm" and they provided previous quotes from Joe Biden responding to mass shootings as 'proof'. The sources they provided, in addition to the sources you provided, do not verify that. We know Joe Biden said it, but that's besides the point because nobody is arguing that he didn't say it. The argument is that it is not relevant to this article. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What was confusing to me was what sources you were asking for. (I actually went and pulled up the sources for the Uvalde comments thinking that you wanted them for some reason rather than looking at the linked articles for them.) And I think that was what derailed this whole discussion as Silent-Rains took it that you wanted the sources for the statements that were mentioned rather that the sources for what was said on Monday. (As for the last three sentences, gotcha. I don't see the point in including it, but at least we seem to be back on track.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. The "ice cream-gate" is no more than a conservative beatup to attempt to smear Biden. He was speaking at a business forum, where he made a light-hearted comment to the audience. He addressed the shooting with appropriate commentary and demeanour. It has been demonstrated that his ice cream comments were taken out of context.[3] WWGB (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  A similar statement made by a right leaning politician, and used by the left to smear that politician, would be featured on that person's Wikipedia article without question. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I removed a leftist smearjob from Andy Ogles' on-topic reaction the other day. It was questioned. But it's still gone, for now (and didn't even appear in his own article). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

While I do have my suspicions of bias (in that I think that there would be significantly more support for including it if say DeSantis or Trump did the same), I don't this this should be included per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 04:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. The ice cream comment and reactions to it have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The political affiliation of Biden is (or should be) irrelevant to whether or not to include this pointless trivia. Funcrunch (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• INCLUDE - Biden's icecream jokes and blaming Republicans for the shooting made international news so it does reach the newsworthy threshold for Wikipedia. Now whether it'll be permitted to get past gatekeepers here, that's another story. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest you relax a little with the accusatory tone. Nobody else over here is really sympathetic to what you're saying. (I mean that not as a critique of your views but instead just to inform you) No point getting agitated because viewers will just think you're flailing around. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Include If there are RS and sufficient coverage there should be no debate regardless how editors feel the media is spinning this story. This is an encyclopedia right, or are we editorializing now? Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't include random trivia not related to the subject of the article. That is exactly what WP:COATRACK is about. Silverseren^C 12:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not trivia or WP:COATRACK, Biden was panned widely in RS in relation to the subject of the article. To not include could be considered white washing. WP:REDACTION applies here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning exclude - I disagree that this would be COATRACK; the president's "poor" joke before speaking about this shooting would be relevant enough for a mention here if sufficient sourcing covered the comments. However, I don't believe it to be established enough in mainstream coverage to warrant a mention, per WP:DUE. All I've really found is Snopes, USA Today, CBS 21. Not enough really. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Political gaffs might be due in an article about the politician but they don't pass the 10 year test for an encyclopedia article about the event. Springee (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Include See my comments below.Derpytoucan (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude This is the place for criticism or praise of the Covenant School shooting, not Joe Biden. He has his own article for that. Besides, the last version removed didn't even say who "criticized" him, and the sketchy source only claimed he "was mocked". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude. Ice cream comment wasn't about the shooting, and he had been just introduced to speak at the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Summit. starship.paint (exalt) 06:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude While I agree that if someone like Trump had said this it would've been most likely included without any debate, the comment itself does absolutely nothing to improve the article or inform the reader about the reactions to the shooting. Saying "I came down because I heard there was chocolate chip ice cream" isn't a reaction and isn't relevant to the subject matter. Rabawar (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Other coatrack concerns

• This portion removed by Kieronoldham is clearly much more balanced than the deep-dive on Biden's reaction. It mentions both liberal and conservative takes. I'm personally not sure if we should include it or not, but it certainly shouldn't be removed based on Kieronoldham's reasoning. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • They self-reverted, but we should still consider whether this is relevant or not. The last sentence in particular seems to hold little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Don't waste time. Work aside from political aspects and adherences to conform to sterile impartiality. Public perception of Wikipedia can be improved without selectivity re: political affiliations.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what this means. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
        • Not trying to speak for Kieronoldham, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they mean that the political aspects ie "hot takes" shouldn't be prioritized or given more weight than the more objective and factual components. Otherwise we may see editors and ip coming out of the woodwork to POVpush and distract from getting consensus on less subjective details, IMO. Not a bad idea, but it could be easier said than done for admins. Is there any kind of protocol for these types of articles yet? This happens so frequently there really should be, otherwise it must be exhausting. DN (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    As any fyi as I am unsure if this has been settled or not but wanted to mention that the entire part has been removed again by @InedibleHulk along with comments by Rep Tim Burchett and the comments by the Highland Park parade shooting survivor. The comment left was that it was "Beyond their jurisdictions" If this was discussed and settled in the Tucker Carlson section below, I might have missed it. Leaky.Solar (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    That works for me. Mentioning every politician's reaction would definitely get us into COATRACK territory. Limiting the reactions to only those who are related to or involved with the event (e.g. those who have jurisdiction over the area where it occurred) seems like a good way to prevent that. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

remove the shooter's name from the lede

FOLKS, the very thing these scumbags crave when they commit such depraved actions are fame. the b*stard had a manifesto. let's remove the name from the lede so as to not give that publicity. it'll obviously have to be included somewhere in the article, so the remaining body should suffice Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, the desire to deny recognition to those who do bad things should not affect how articles are written. Virtually all other articles on here about mass shootings feature the shooter's name in the lede. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

guess that should change then. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh? if you want to change that, try your hand at the Village Pump. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 10:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do end up going to the Village Pump, you should review and keep in mind the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy. This has been discussed in the past on other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting censoring anything though. it would just be a relatively minor change as the name would have to be mentioned later on anyway, but removing it from the lede could have the positive effect of Wikipedia not participating as an active fame-giver for the shooters. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I should have been a bit more clear. If you look at the Aurora discussion, you will see that there was a discussion called "Inclusion of the name of the suspect" that I linked to. The discussion was about potentially removing the name of the suspect. Some of the participants cited WP:CENSOR, which is the policy mentioned above, in support of keeping the name in that article. While this is just about removing it from the lede, I would believe that it would incur a similar response. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

oh figures then. thanks for the heads up Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather see the names of the victims removed. These people simply had the bad luck to be in the path of a bullet. Their names add nothing to our understanding of events. It seems horrific and ghoulish to post their names here as a constant reminder to their families. And, no, it doesn't matter that "reliable sources" are so sensationalist to include them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an absurdly bad take lol what. The point of their names being included is remembrance. You can’t just forget the innocent victims of horrific actions. Nearly ever single article on a horrific crime like this commemorates the victims, although sadly, the scumbag perps often get a lot of the attention😒 86.99.168.243 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't intended to be a memorial, though, it's an encyclopedia. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia’s existence dictates that it records the names of those with significance to the event of record. This isn’t hard, stop making it so hard for yourself. People like you really lose all critical thinking under the guise of ‘hurr durr it’s an encyclopedia‘. You think you’re doing something by stating that when all you actually do is point yourself out as someone with a lack of conviction who doesn’t even have a real point.

so what if it’s an Encyclopaedia? You realise being a quasi-memorial for victims of tragic events isn’t mutually incompatible with being an encyclopaedia right? Matter of fact, your ‘argument’ is ever more flawed because you seem to think an encyclopaedia is some fugazi objective standard (never has existed and never will as we’re constantly trying to improve Wikipedia for the better). You don’t understand how historiography works and it shows. 2001:8F8:173D:64D:9C16:C04D:3E9B:3A23 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"Remembrance"? Of people you NEVER met. Leave the memorials for the family, friends, and community affected. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns...

IMO, the beginning of the article, as currently written, is rather confusing...In the first paragraph, it identifies the shooter as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" - a very female sounding name - but then shortly, thereafter, we read that "Hale sent a message...that he planned to die today." (emphasis mine)

Up to this point though, there was no discussion of the fact that Hale was a female to male trans-person (this doesn't come until a ways later in the article), so I think that's rather confusing....Yes, there is a note "b" by the pronoun, but IMO there should be more clarity from the plain text of the article, without someone having to click on a note.

It seems to me that there are two possible solutions to this issue (to maintain clarity while avoiding misgendering):

1)Discuss the shooter's gender identity earlier in the article.

2)Avoid using pronouns for him at all, until the fact that he was F->M trans is mentioned. So, in that sentence for example, it would read that "Hale sent a message...that Hale planned to die today."

Personally, I prefer the first option, but either could work. -2003:CA:8708:3F11:AE24:B40F:B794:1F57 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We should just use an explanatory note about the pronoun usage at the first pronoun just like we do in the Bella Ramsey article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's a comparable situation...."Bella" and "Isabella May" (the names listed at the beginning of that article) are both female, and then the article proceeds to use female pronouns for her. So not a lot of confusion is likely in that case. The note in that article is more than sufficient. But this article is quite different, as it identifies the shooter with a female name, and them proceeds to use male pronouns, thus causing confusion. Like I said, I think the plain text of the article should be much clearer, without readers having to click on a note. Of course if the primary name Hale is identified as is switched to "Aiden," as some have suggested, this would no long be an issue. But so long as Hale is indentified primarily as "Audrey" then it remains confusing. -2003:CA:8708:3F11:AE24:B40F:B794:1F57 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone added an explanatory note to explain the he/him pronouns. I just tweaked it to change "male" to "he/him" to describe said pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The way I had it referred to Hale as "I". The fuller quote was "basically a suicide note. I'm planning to die today." I still think that's the clearest way, and something like "Hale, who used he/him pronouns,..." would work better than an interrupting note people have to click. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There are other uses of he/him pronouns in that section though, before Hale's trans identity is mentioned later in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the very first word is "Hale". This could easily be Hale, who used he/him pronouns, sent a message... I won't do it while we're still discussing this, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The full name "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" is currently in the lead, hence the desire to avoid confusion. (Though I suppose the explanatory note could be moved up to the lead, that might make things more confusing rather than less.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We could add his gender identification there, beside the police's, and save the pronoun preference for the beginning of the Shooting section. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've "gone ahead" with the first bit. I'll defer to anyone on whether trans adults prefer to be called men/women or males/females. I'll also accept pure reversion, but won't be as happy about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I would have "purely reverted" but did not as I knew you edited in good faith. I'm still not entirely comfortable with calling attention to his trans status in the lead in this way; I think an explanatory note might be better. But I'm open to other input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to avoid confusion, being upfront is the way to go. More than nine times out of ten, someone identified as "Audrey Elizabeth" is a woman and calling her "him" does jar the unaware. Your parenthetical change is fine, but I feel like it still slightly appears as though it's "trying to hide" or "distance itself" from the main identification line. I'll suggest "and trans man" after "former student", but that's my final offer. Take it or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If the subject were, say, a cis woman named Michael, I'd agree with you about being upfront to avoid confusion. But given the state of "dialogue" around trans people in the U.S., the wording in this article should be considered extra-carefully. I'm hoping for more input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You brought up "the desire to avoid confusion", I was trying to agree with you. I don't know what "dialogue" you're talking about now, I'm a Canadian. I think we write for a global audience, so don't have to tiptoe around anything the way a mainstream corporate paper might, but if there's something potentially harmful you're trying not to say, yes, be as careful as you need to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I think "preferred" beats "used". From the message I saw, he didn't refer to himself in the third person. Pending evidence to the contrary, I also doubt he used the words to mean other women. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to say "went by [x/y/z] pronouns" but most editors don't agree with me on that. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the issue had been fixed, but then someone went and removed the information again, so we're once again back at square one. I haven't gone yet and looked through the edit history, but I did see that someone above commented about "the state of dialogue." I would note though that Wikipedia is not censored. Our job is simply to present accurate and relevant information in a clear manner, not to omit things because it doesn't fit with a desired narrative. -2003:CA:8708:3FB4:1366:9663:457D:FCF6 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@StarryNightSky11: You two might want to settle this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Baptist News Global article

Here’s an article that delves into the relationship between the school (and its affiliated denomination) with LGBT issues. [4]

I’m not sure whether it’d be considered a reliable source or not (BNG is a Christian publication, albeit one that tends to be far more progressive on social issues than the aforementioned organizations are; it has more of a mainline Protestant perspective). But I think it’d represent a unique perspective, mostly because secular news organizations tend to shy away from writing too directly about explicitly religious/theological issues, while this site shows no such reluctance.

The article also points out that there was sexual abuse of students taking place at the school at the time the shooter attended. It’s a topic that has to be handled with extreme delicacy (so that readers don’t get the impression that the article is blaming the victim or empathizing/sympathizing with the shooter in any way), but I think the article I linked to did a good job of this.

In fact, according to the article, it seems that what happened at Covenant in the 2000s ended up being the catalyst for the Southern Baptist Convention′s recent, widely-publicized reckoning with sexual abuse in its own institutions. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the content about sexual abuse for now. Unless we can say how it is related to the shooting, it probably doesn't belong here. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never edited a wikipedia article (although I read a lot of them), and so I'm not sure all the details for determining what constitutes a Reliable Source per Wikipedia protocols. (I'm a Wikipedia layman, so to speak). My understanding is that the context of the source is to be considered when assessing its reliabiity, and that while the presence of bias doesn't necessarily preclude a source's inclusion it is to be considered when assessing its reliability. I'm sure that's harder to do in matters of religious news, which generally don't receive a lot of attention from non-biased sources. Most who write on those issues have a dog in the fight so to speak. As a Christian pastor (neither Southern Baptist nor Cooperative Baptist nor Presbyterian), who reads a lot of religious news and church history, including quite a bit of Baptist News Global, I do think it's relevant to the discussion that the linked-to article in question comes from a source that is far from unbiased on the matter, and seems to be using the issue to prosecute broader fights within Baptist denominational politics that goes back decades. The linked-to article is also labelled "Analysis" on the top of the page, (Baptist News Global separates its articles between "News" "Analysis" and "Opinion").

The article source, Baptist News Global, was formed by the merger of two Baptist news agencies, one of which, the Associated Baptist Press, was founded after the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (a more theologically liberal Baptist Fellowship split from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1990 in part over whether women should be ordained.) For those not familiar with Baptist history/controversy, those within the Southern Baptist Convention holding more theologically conservative positions on a variety of religious and political issues managed to organize themselves and gain control of Southern Baptist denominational structures and institutions in the 1980s and 1990s and began purging those they deemed overly theologically liberal from denominational positions within the SBC, leading some of those more theologically liberal (in terms of the SBC) churches at the time to split and form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, in part with the express goal of ordaining women which the theological conservatives who gained control of the organization opposed. There's still a lot of bad blood because of how that went down in Baptist circles, both within the SBC itself, but especially between the CBF churches that felt pushed out of the SBC over these matters. Baptist News Global which was formed in the aftermath of that split, and which is an official partner of the CBF (the churches that left), frequently focuses much of their opinion/news analysis on criticizing the SBC. Often this is over serious and legitimate issues of power abuse the SBC including the sex abuse crisis, but it's also on other related theological issues which were related to the original split, especially issues of gender and LGBTQ topics.

Some of that history I think explains why an issue involving a shooting and past sexual abuse issues involving a non-SBC Presbyterian church is throughout the article being tied to other issues of contention between the CBF and the SBC, including LGBTQ issues (the article references the Nashville Declaration and highlights shared theological positions on those disputed issues between the SBC and the Presbyterian Church of America (the Covenant Church and School's theologically conservative Presbyterian denomination).

Again, that's not to say the article may not contain accurate information, and I've read the linked articles/blog posts in the article regarding past issues in the Covenant Church, around the sexual abuse issues. When the manifesto is released that may prove to be the issue, but until there is a tighter connection demonstrated, I think inclusion of this source and the speculation in the source is probably jumping the gun from a source with a pretty strong axe to grind. 69.77.212.43 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR: You could include such allegations in article about the school, but as far as media reports go, no connection between the two exist. A09 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

High Functioning Autistic Triggered by August 2022 Death of Idol?

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.

---

I don't think I've seen it claimed elsewhere but a source close to the Hale family apparently claimed Audrey was autistic “but high-functioning". Relevant if confirmed elsewhere? She had been suicidal prior to her attack so when friend Averianna Patton received her message she contacted the Suicide Prevention Help Line and Nashville Davidson County Sheriff's Office but it was already too late. The trans identity was also quite new: https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-covenant-school-transgender-killer-and-her-6-victims.html?page=7

Hale was heartbroken over the August 2022 death of a former basketball teammate with whom she was allegedly infatuated with. Accounts differ as to whether any romantic relationship existed. According to police she only started identifying as male in February: https://nypost.com/2023/03/29/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-was-heartbroken-over-death-of-crush/#

Given the concerns over her mental\emotional state, is it fair to call Hale trans given the short duration, or should it be seen more as a fad? Yes police etc initially said she's trans, but we're talking a duration of less than 2 months at this stage based on the evidence. If it is the latter then talking about a trans killer and linking this to such categories isn't fair. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:5890:1A4F:E6E6:D17E (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Autism does not cause criminal behaviour. Hale's alleged diagnosis is unrelated to the attack and should not be included in the article. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources per RSP.

An autism diagnosis is not relevant, and originates from an anonymous allegation in The Daily Beast, which is not a reliable source.

We do not adjudicate on whether someone's status as trans is "a fad". The shooter uses he/him pronouns. Please avoid veering into transphobic territory. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The shooter doesn't deserve to have their pronouns respected. It also states for living people not dead people 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:A527:7987:B6EF:D489 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will add that you have been repeatedly denying the shooter's identity and questioning whether trans people even exist for the past day, and have been warned about this behavior. It is not welcome on Wikipedia. Do not continue it. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

please don't pretend to speak for "Wikipedia." There are a diversity of opinions here, and all should be welcome. Basic questions about the shooter's identity seem very pertinent and it would be foolish to pretend anyone has all the answers. That goes for you as much as anyone.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:849:B18F:23BC:9DAA (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Derogatory references to groups such as trans people are considered incivility. Expressing hateful points of view towards trans people is disruptive editing. Tendentious editing with an agenda is a sign that someone may not be here to build an encyclopedia.

This goes for you as well; you've already received a warning about saying that a subject's "pretend identity *doesn't* matter". Things like that are decidedly not "basic question[s] about the shooter's identity". 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

More to the point: no reliable sources are questioning the validity of the shooter's identity. (Let alone enough reliable sources to theoretically merit consideration.) No original research or synthesis is allowed here, so there is no reason to even entertain the notion. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it even reliably sourced that Hale was autistic? If not, it can't be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think neither of them are reliable. WP:BLP applies. A09 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2023 (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.

Background of child abuse in Covenant Church

It appears that the church associated with the school has dealt with a child abuse scandal at the right time for Hale's attendance of the school. Could this be relevant to mention in the background section, or do we have to wait for current media coverage to mention this? 83.141.209.216 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

We would need to at least have reliable sources make such a connection between these two events, especially since these are two separate events that might not actually be connected. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait until media reports it and makes connection. Making connections ourselves might count as WP:OR. A09 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why but I've only assume for my possible motive:

Emotional disorder according to the media.

retaliation against members of the covenant school for unknown reason. Dyaz04102003 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 (4)

Here are the important updates"Nashville School Shooter sent me messages before the attack" Santoshsendha (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This appears to be an unreliable sources (WP:IRS) because it has no stated editorial oversight and the article is attributed to the NEP Team instead of a named author. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The pertinent facts are already in the article, more or less, just without names or much insight. She's the "old friend" at the beginning of the Shooting section, and the cited sources have more detail on the messages themselves. Is there something in particular you think is missing and educational? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that North Eastern Post is either committing plagiarism or is just badly summarizing other news organizations.

Long comparison table made with the help of H:COLS

BBC	North Eastern Post
(Friend) is thought to be one of the last people the Nashville school shooter messaged before the attack.	(Friend) is believed to be one of the last persons messaged by the Nashville school gunman before the assault.
On Monday morning, Ms (Friend) received a message on Instagram from her former classmate, who sounded depressed and desperate.	Ms. (Friend) got an Instagram post from a former student on Monday morning, who sounded despondent and frantic.
"She said that I would see her on the news later on… and something tragic was about to happen," Ms (Friend) told BBC News.	“She said I’d see her on the news later… and that something tragic was about to happen,” Ms. (Friend) told BBC News.
She immediately called the local sheriff's office.	She dialed the local sheriff’s office right away.
"I don't know what she was battling... but I knew it was a mental thing, you know?" Ms (Friend) said.	“I don’t know what she was going through… but I knew it was a mental thing,” Ms. (Friend) explained.
"Just something in my spirit, when she reached out, I just jumped into the mode of trying to call around make sure that I'm doing everything that I could."	“It was just something in my spirit, and when she reached out, I just went into the mode of trying to call around and make sure I was doing everything I could.”
But within minutes, (Hale) attacked the Covenant School, killing three nine-year-old pupils and three staff members.	However, (Hale) attacked the Covenant School within minutes, killing three nine-year-old students and three staff members.
Brackets in the next row are directly from both of the original articles.
"I later found out that this was not a game, this was not a joke, it was [Hale] who did this," she said. "It's just been very, very heavy."	“I later discovered that this was not a game or a joke; it was [Hale] who did this,” she explained. “It’s just been extremely heavy.”
Ms (Friend) said that police came to her home that afternoon to review the messages from Hale.	Ms. (Friend) stated that officers arrived at her house that afternoon to examine Hale’s communications.
There are eight more lines in both articles, but I think the point has been made.

Multiple times, we have quotes that have been modified. Even the third line has the quote modified in the NEP article, despite going on to mention that this was what she had told the BBC. If we do need to include information, we should use the original BBC version rather than the copied version modified by the NEP. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the article make it clear this isn’t the main Presbyterian church?

It’s the second largest denomination and anti LGBT+ which is an important part of the context. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The Baptist News Global article I linked to above goes into some detail about this, and the school/denomination’s policies toward sexuality in general. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've unpiped it in the lead, if that's what you meant by making it clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Biden's remarks about ice cream

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.

---

It was talked about by various news sources and seems significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Should it not be included? Derpytoucan (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, and as FormalDude pointed out, there's disagreement about it being included. That being said, it hasn't been RfC'd either, so if there are RS that talk about it (what you used would probably not pass as a reliable source), I am in favor of its inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

We've had thorough discussion here. Feel free to add your thoughts. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2023 (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.

Where is the previous discussion?

The talk page is missing earlier discussion topics. Where are they? 62.212.144.248 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

They've likely been archived at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting/Archive 1. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

For: "The shooter, identified as 28-year-old former student Audrey Elizabeth Hale, was killed by responding police officers."

There should be a comma between "student" and the name like this:

"The shooter, identified as 28-year-old former student, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, was killed by responding police officers." Arston22 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's fine as is. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If there was an "a" in there, you'd be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

makes sense. Arston22 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Elronin72 Gaming (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well i want to add a link to PoliceActivity via youtube cus they have some footage of The Shooting from Via nashville

Not a reliable source. Also, CCTV footage released by Nashville police is already embedded in the article. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Please add The Covenant School XC07.jpg to the article--Trade (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. File:The Covenant School XC07.jpg is from 2007 so it seems irrelevant at best and potentially misleading. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And it is apparently about The Covenant School (Virginia), while the shooting occurred at The Covenant School in Tennessee. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake Trade (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Capital Protests

Should there be mentions of the recent capital protests in Tennessee, as the are related to the shooting? Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added to the reactions section. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget the differences between a capital city and its state capitol building. Well, forget most of them, if you must. But not the way they're spelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Arizona press secretary tweet

Yesterday I saw that the controversial tweet of the now former press secretary of Arizona was included in the article; as of the posting of this thread it's not. I think that this controversy should be included in the article in some capacity. It's been reported in several RS, connected to this shooting, and resulted in her resignation. CNN, WaPo, The Hill, Axios, AP, and CBS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)