Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting

Request for Comment: How should the perpetrator be named in the article?

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

In this discussion, the community considers how to name the perpetrator in our article about yet another US murder spree. In this case the murderer was FTM transgender, and the US sources widely reported the case using his previous, feminine name. The community is not of one mind about this, and good points were made on both sides, but I would say that there's a rough consensus to say "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" once in the lede, and in one or two other carefully-selected places.

My assessment of Wikipedia's rules about this is that we're required to follow the sources for facts. We are not required to follow the sources' presentation of those facts; we're supposed to compose an article in our own words, not crib the wording from the sources. In other words, as long as our articles mean exactly what the sources mean, they don't have to say exactly what the sources say. In closing this RfC, I have therefore given somewhat greater weight to arguments based on MOS:GENDERID, even though that is not a policy, and somewhat lesser weight to arguments based on the strict form of words that the sources use. Nevertheless, the consensus is what prevails here and I would say that there's a consensus to use the deadname a limited number of times.

I do hope this helps. Any questions, criticism or comments about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

---

How should the perpetrator be named in the article?
A. "Aiden Hale" only
B. Use both "Aiden Hale" and "Audrey Elizabeth Hale"

If B, how often should "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" be mentioned?
C. Once (please specify where)
D. More than once (please specify where)

Background: The article is (at the time of this RfC) under full protection, and mentions "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" once, in the perpetrator section. Other mentions of the perpetrator (in the lead and infobox) say "Aiden Hale".

Discussions that lead to this RfC: § Full protection? • § Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale • § Deadname.
––FormalDude (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A comment about the phrasing of the questions here: this wasn't neutrally formulated because no "Audrey Elizabeth Hale only" option was offered. It's important to recognise that this may have a distorting effect on the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.222.97 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• B and D - Reliable sources already refer to the shooter’s original identity, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, and was initially identified as their original identity by the police before the discovery that they identified as a trans man and went by the name of Aiden Hale. This is notable enough to warrant the inclusion of the shooter’s original name where relevant, and to say that it’s not worthy of being included goes against maintaining a neutral point of view.

Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, our reliable sources use both names seemingly interchangeably. Google results show significantly more coverage for the birth name than for the masculine name which aligns with the previous statement. D, it should be mentioned in the lead, the "Perpetrator" section (see WP:RASTONISH and Audrey Elizabeth Hale), and possibly the infobox (which typically summarizes key points of the article). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• A, for question 1. By a strict reading of MOS:GENDERID, A is the only option that is acceptable. This is to do with how we measure the notability of a subject and person. With respect to names, GENDERID tells us to us include the deadname of the subject only if they were notable, as defined in WP:GNG or a relevant WP:SNG (note, the text of GENDERID wikilinks to GNG in its notability guidance), prior to transitioning. Why is this relevant? Hale had already transitioned at the time he started shooting, and it was Hale's actions on 27 March 2023 that made him notable, as we define it on Wikipedia. Regardless of the facts that the initial reporting described Hale as a woman, and used Hale's deadname, I don't think any can dispute that per the information released on 28 March and later, Hale was a trans man and according to CNN's reporting had been in the process of transitioning for about a year. To me, that makes option A, the use of Aiden Hale only, the only version that is WP:PAG compliant (note, GENDERID is part of the MOS and so a guideline). However I also recognise that this is a rather complex case, and that my strict interpretation of GENDERID is not the only one. So with that in mind.
  C, for question 2. Once in the article lead. If there is a consensus to include Hale's deadname, then once in the lead is in line with the standard practice application of GENDERID across almost every trans and non-binary biographical article that I've edited or read. While I'm sure there are going to be articles that differ on this, in my experience those tend to be in the minority, and are either the case due to transient vandalism, as sadly name and pronoun vandalism is very common across trans and non-binary biographical articles, or due to a good faith consensus respecting the unique circumstances of each article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Expanding on my C rationale. MOS:SURNAME tells us that after the initial mention of a person's name in an article, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. So if there is a consensus to include Hale's deadname, then once in the article lead would be the only option that's compliant with MOS:SURNAME. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hale did refer to themselves using both names in one of their last communications. 2600:8801:9D15:3F00:CEC:9FB1:FF18:2D3 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• A per MOS:GENDERID Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, sort of While we've read that Audrey Hale may have wanted to be called "Aiden" in life, "Aiden Hale" is far less apparent. We should mostly follow the reliable sources and mostly use the birth name. When introduced in the lead and body, a parenthetical or "nickname" style makes sense. Such as, Audrey Hale (who also went by Aiden) or Audrey Elizabeth "Aiden" Hale. Nowhere should it suggest police/authorities changed their minds on the name or pronouns, as it does now with "initially" and "but". That's a delusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D. The perp's birth name is published in numerous reliable sources. It is the name under which he first attained notoriety. Should appear in lead, infobox and perp section. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D - The name should be Aiden Hale primarily, but multiple WP:RS have already called him Audrey so it should be also mentioned in the article. I think mentioning it once in lede and once later on in the article (whe the perpetrator is first discussed) is appropriate. MOS:GENDERID applies, as others have mentioned. Soni (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  While 100% of these nine sources do mention Aiden once (sometimes "like this"), 0% call Audrey Hale "Aiden Hale". If we make that the primary name, it'd be original research, I think. I'm willing to see nine sources that mention "Aiden Hale" at all or as the primary name. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and C. Include birth name in the lead only, with explanation that Hale's transgender status was discovered after the shooting. Funcrunch (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  As someone more knowledgeable of the LGBT(Q+) scene than I, are you sure we didn't actually discover a questioning status? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and D - Hale is primarily identified by reliable sources by his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale. It's fine to include the birth name because Hale was initially identified by authorities exclusively by the birth name. Therefore, it's fine under MOS:DEADNAME because they were notable under the deadname first. That answers the first question. Now I also think that it is appropriate to lead with the name Audrey Elizabeth Hale and explain that he also went by Aiden. That means in the lead it should be Local resident and former student of the school Audrey Elizabeth Hale... and the infobox should follow suit. For the these two placements I would add a note saying he went by Aiden. Then in the perpetrator section we can explain in more detail the situation and place both names. Now this is practically IARing DEADNAME for this article, which is something I'm comfortable doing due to the overwhelming identification of Hale as Audrey. This is the way reliable sources have chosen it to be and it is not my place as a Wikipedian to change that. Of course, this could change if RS begin to primary call him Aiden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(further discussion on this comment moved to Discussion) Soni (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• B;D - ibox, lead & Perpetrator section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, D. GENDERID is a bit unclear on this (at least to me) because Hale died while seemingly preferring "Aiden", but RSs mostly referred to him as "Audrey". This would seem to indicate that he was "notable under a former name" ("Audrey"), even though his "most recent expressed gender self-identification" would seem to be male (with "Aiden"). Using "Aiden" through the article seems to make the most sense, as it follows Hale's self-identification, but "Audrey" should be mentioned (probably with EFNs or a short inline note) in the lead & infobox and explained in § Perpetrator given its prevalence in RSs. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• A / B and C. I want to split my vote into two distinct questions, because I see both being argued here.

First, what name and pronouns should we principally use?: MOS:CHANGEDNAME says: A person ... [who is] not the subject [of an article] should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. And the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID says that gendered words should "reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." (I suspect given names are gendered words for purposes of that passage, but, even if not, CHANGEDNAME applies). Neither of these guidelines rely on numerosity, and one explicitly rejects it. In other words, it does not, in isolation, matter that there are a "mountain" of sources referring to the subject as "Audrey" or "she", as the sources do not say that the subject identified "Audrey" at the time of the shooting or that the subject's "most recent expressed gender self-identification" was female. In fact, the New York Times story that Iamreallygoodatcheckers provided admits to not knowing what the shooter's expressed identity was. The sources that do identify the subject's most recent expressed gender self-identification indicate that identity was male, and they indicate that the subject went by Aiden. (A few editors have claimed that it's NPOV if we don't follow a majority of sources on the naming issue, since relatively few sources use "Aiden", but note, again, that MOS:GENDERID disclaims reliance on common usage. If using "Aiden" is a WP:NPOV issue, how is using "he/him" not an NPOV issue? And, if it is, that's a full rejection of MOS:GENDERID—a radical position, to be sure.)

Second, should the birth name should be mentioned?: People have debated whether the second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID applies to this case, since the subject is deceased (see debate above). If those portions do apply, then we have to consider whether the shooter was "notable under a former name (a deadname)". I think the answer has to be no: That phrase should be interpreted as only applying to persons who were notable before they transitioned. Under that reading, the fact that a person's deadname was widely reported would not confer notability unless, at the time of that reporting, the person identified as that deadname. Otherwise, the policy, to me, seems to get flipped on its head, allowing a widely reported deadname to be used if the person was not previously notable under their most recent self-expressed identity. If those portions do not apply, then there are still portions of GENDERID to consider—most importantly, "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent." Still, I think the possibility of reader confusion has to weigh on the debate. "Audrey" is still the more commonly reported name, and readers searching for that name might be thrown by its absence. But I have yet to see any argument explaining why a single reference to the shooter's birth name would not sufficiently abate reader confusion.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• • This is a wrong reading of MOS:GENDERID because it confuses gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) with “deadname”. It’s fine to call the subject he/him but this doesn’t refer to the deadname. starship.paint (exalt) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    Gendered names are obviously gendered words. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    The guideline did not state that despite providing three examples. In fact the guideline goes on to discuss former/deadnames in the next two paragraphs, but only in reference to living people. starship.paint (exalt) 15:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    Examples are, by definition, not comprehensive. And yes, it discusses living people's deadnames separately, but that is not an argument for assuming it can't tell us anything about dead people's deadnames. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    The fact that the two paragraphs about deadname specifically mention living people (not mentioning living would make it apply to dead people) while the paragraph about gendered words does not mention names is evidence enough. starship.paint (exalt) 15:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    @Starship.paint: To be honest, I think this point is a bit moot—as even many users who opted for "B,D" have acknowledged, there's essentially a consensus that we should principally use "Aiden Hale" to refer to the shooter. As a side note, I'm also not sure I agree with your interpretation method here: The fact that the two paragraphs about deadname specifically mention living people (not mentioning living would make it apply to dead people) while the paragraph about gendered words does not mention names is evidence enough. That's not at all necessarily true. As I (and, I assume, @Maddy from Celeste: and the majority of users on this page) read the policy, the first paragraph addresses all gendered words, including names, and the second paragraph pertains to a specific subcategory of those words—deadnames—and whether to include them at all. But again, that's really a secondary point—unless the consensus shifts, it's not worth litigating it. I'd also point out that this portion of MOS:GENDERID is not restricted to living subjects: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• A If necessary C in the Perpetrator section once. As noted by Sideswipe9th above, GENDERID only relies on RS coverage of a name if it applies to the person's notability prior to transitioning. In this case, Hale had already been in the process of transitioning, so there is no way for them to have been notable for events prior to that. Hence, per the MOS, Aiden is the name that should be used throughout the article. I am sympathetic to the desire to have a single usage of Audrey in the Perpetrator section as a descriptor of them being trans, but I see absolutely no reason for that name to be in the lede or infobox. Silverseren^C 23:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D, the birth name and gender of the person is widely used and a point of contention, and I think it would be useful to theh average user to have this mentioned.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C - but only because early reports were under Aiden Hale's deadname. Had reports not mentioned the deadname, it would've been A. The mention of the deadname should be in the second sentence: Local resident and former student of the school Aiden Hale (formerly Audrey Elizabeth Hale) killed three children and three adults. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C. "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" should be mentioned only once in the lede section per WP:GENDERID, as is was initially reported by reliable sources. We must avoid overemphasis of what reliable sources now show is clearly a deadname. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Either A, or B and C per Jerome, Silverseren and Liliana, purely due to the risk of reader confusion. I think there's a legitimate argument about whether to put "Audrey" in the lead, or in the Perpetrator section, but I'd put it in the lead (using LilianaUwu's specific proposed wording, which I support), because it would allow us to remove Later it was confirmed that Hale was a trans man. from the lead, as unnecessary and redundant. DFlhb (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D The shooter's birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, is widely reported, used, and disseminated by reliable sources, making it a notable birth name and WP:DUE. The name should at least be mentioned in the Perpetrator section, and I would support adding it to the lead and infobox. Some1 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Either A per Sideswipe9th, or B and C per LilianaUwU. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• D in the perpetrator section as context, and in a footnote to be inserted as necessary, but ideally only for first mention of the perp and in the infobox. I would be supportive of a footnote that simply directs readers to the relevant section if that is more amenable to people. — HTGS (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• B, D. Mainly for reasons outlined by Inediblehulk (inc below) and others. We need to be free to reflect RS coverage with a degree of natural-ness though there is no reason why the article would use the fore-name most of the time, it is our practice to use surname anyway. It isn't wholly clear whether the person's gender ID is relevant to the event occurring - in terms of state of mind, or whatever other reason - and nor is it wholly clear how widely used or clearly expressed the preference for the 'trans-name' was - which is part of the background confusion here. Name needs to be handled with care, but I don't favour a rigid interpretation of P & G in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• B;D. The circumstances around Hales death is a tragedy, for everyone. Not only for the victims but for Hales immediate friends and family. It has not passed without notice that they continue using their daughters assigned sex and name from birth. Does BLP suddenly not extend considerations for those in the immediate vicinity of a subject covered on Wikipedia, or does MOS:GENDERID simply override it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, D - police identified the subject under deadname, deadname became internationally famous, is how this is relevant to the article and shouldn’t be erased. Next, MOS:GENDERID with regard to deadname doesn’t apply here because the subject is dead. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname) […] In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name… Other reasons based on sourcing favours deadname, I endorse views of Iamreallygoodatcheckers, InedibleHulk, Some1, and Pincrete. starship.paint (exalt) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I’d like to add on that based on my analysis here, 25 top mainstream news sources do not actually even use the term “Aiden Hale” as of 24 April 2023. The only mentions are false positives. starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• A; if it's necessary to include it once for clarity, then C. This article clearly falls under WP:BDP (see above) which means MOS:GENDERID applies. And GENDERID is crystal-clear; we must reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Therefore, the arguments above citing the number of sources using their birth name are moot. Likewise, policy says that 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 (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Note the tense; a wave of coverage that mentions their pre-transition name does not retroactively mean that they were notable under their former name. People who wish to argue for inclusion must present sources demonstrating notability prior to the transition, which they haven't done - sources that mention their deadname post-transition are meaningless. If those had the significance that some people above imply, MOS:DEADNAME wouldn't be meaningful in the first place. Obviously we would always omit deadnames when the sources do; the entire purpose of DEADNAME is that we also omit or minimize the use of deadnames even when coverage of them is overwhelming, provided the preference of the subject is clear. Finally, some people have argued that we must mention their pre-transition name (sometimes repeatedly) in order to reflect the weight of sources; this is functionally trying to re-litigate all of MOS:GENDERID, which unambiguously instructs us to (under certain circumstances) ignore the weight of the sources in this specific area. --Aquillion (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D -- I agree with and endorse all the other "B and D" !votes. It is overwhelmingly reliably sourced, verifiable, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, C as per LilianaUwU. Multiple RS have referred to the perp as using his deadname so it needs to be stated (once, in the perpetrator section) to avoid confusion to readers. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, D with she/her pronouns. Aubrey was initially identified as a woman, is consistently referred to as such in reliable sources, and there's no evidence she ever actually identified as "Aiden"--and even if she did, that doesn't change that she reached her apex of notability as Aubrey. Red Slash 05:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's actually "Audrey", not "Aubrey".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oof. Though to be fair, I was operating off my memory, since I can't find any examples of the name she became infamous under here in the article. Red Slash 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Huh! I believe the article currently notes the shooter's birth name in bold text in the Perpetrator section and in a footnote in the template.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, D - If anything, Audrey should be the primary name, as it's the most commonly used name in reliable sources. (This could of course be revisited in the future, if/when the nature of the coverage changes, e.g. if/when the shooter's manifesto is finally released...) At the very least, the birth name should be included in the lede, infobox, and perp sections. -2003:CA:8708:3F10:A06:7FE8:46B0:8C69 (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C. We clearly need to include his birth name, because most sources have reported using that name, but it is only appropriate in the first mention in the perpetrator section. I do not think it belongs in the lead because this article as a whole isn't about the shooter, it's about the shooting. Tekrmn (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  The opening says Aiden Hale. The article simply says Hale throughout. Cwater1 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that's what you prefer? Because I just want to point out that, as it stands, that's not a correct depiction of the article. The perpetrator section currently features both Aiden Hale and Audrey Elizabeth Hale in bold text. The note attached to Aiden Hale in the perpetrator portion of the template also notes his birth name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was stating an existing fact. I agree with it. Cwater1 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  ... My entire point is that's not an existing fact. The article does not "simply say[] Hale throughout" after the opening.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the person being identified as Aiden Hale. This is a little confusing and with Wikipedia you got to make sure you are saying the right thing or else, edit bans may happen. Cwater1 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• A - Simply put, we should not platform an honest mistake by sources in the first day or so of reporting. B clearly is in opposition to MOS:GENDERID. Yes, most of the sources do use the deadname, however it is clear that this occurred due to (i): an honest mistake due to lack of clarity in the first few days, (ii): a desire to maintain continuity between reporting on the actual name and the previous mistake. We as editors can decide what is due and undue weight, and I think reporting on the mistake as fact in wikivoice is undue weight. This is the same reason we have a page called Aluminium even though Aluminum has more ghits and is more widely used in reliable sources. Sheer numbers don't make for due weight. Theheezy (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding this note, "Sheer numbers don't make for due weight", Theheezy, then what would you say does make something WP:DUE? It seems that this definition from the MOS implies that taking the name most widely used in reliable sources is absolutely giving Hale's birth name due weight: "Mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Penguino35 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• B The deadname absolutely has to be mentioned given its widespread usage in multiple sources. I don't care if it's once or multiple times (though I'd prefer D for multiple times, if only once put it in the lede, yes I'm fine mentioning that the shooter was trans in the lede), but the point of Wikipedia is to report accurate, notable, and verified information, and choosing to ignore this to satisfy an agenda is frankly absurd. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and C. WP policy is pretty clear that in the case of personal identification on gender, the living or recently deceased person's personal preference carries all of the weight. So Aiden's LinkedIn profile takes the cake there: "Aiden Hale, he/him".

But I don't care what gender the shooter is! (WP:NPOV). I care that we give due weight WP:DUE to the circumstances on the day of the shooting and to the victims of the shooting.

Switching back and forth between pronouns and names muddies the waters for readers and puts more attention on the gender of the perpetrator than is due for this article, which is about a shooting, not a biography on the shooter.

Due to the abundance of reliable sources stating "female Audrey Elizabeth Hale", it must be included in the article. WP:GENDERID should not apply in completely sponging out the perpetrator's birth name, as the perp's birth name is what first became notable. (For additional reasons, refer to this contribution by Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk .)

Put Aiden's birth name and gender in the lead with few words and then don't go back to it, because every time we address it again, we give undue weight to the gender of the criminal WP:CONSISTENCY. In sections where it may be increasingly confusing, opt for removing pronouns entirely and replacing them with "Hale", as suggested by Sideswipe9th here.

Below is my full edit suggestion:

LEAD:

On March 27, 2023, a mass school shooting occurred at The Covenant School, a Presbyterian Church in America parochial elementary school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. Aiden Hale, a transgender man and former student of the school who was originally identified by police and news outlets as female Audrey Elizabeth Hale,[4][5][6] killed three nine‑year‑old children and three adults before being shot and killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) officers.

Perpetrator

Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. Hale, a Nashville resident with no criminal record,[29] was a former student of the school,[30] having attended the pre-kindergarten-to-sixth-grade institution when he was at around 10 years of age.[31] MNPD Police Chief John Drake said Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.[1]

Police initially misgendered the 28-year-old as a woman and used his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale. Later on the day of the shooting, MNPD Chief John Drake said that authorities "feel that [Hale] identifies as trans, but we're still in the initial investigation into all of that".[32] Media sources subsequently reported Hale as a trans man.[33][34] His former art teacher and a former classmate recalled him coming out as transgender on Facebook in 2022.[35][36]

Hale was an illustrator and graphic designer who graduated from the Nossi College of Art & Design in 2022.[12] A neighbor said Hale lived with his parents.[37] An ex-classmate said that Hale had a difficult time dealing with the August 2022 death of a woman who was possibly a romantic partner or close friend.[6][38] Penguino35 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Penguino35: I think this way of writing the lede is perfect. It still goes by Wikipedia policy of first identifying the shooter's chosen name at the time of death, but actually mentions the shooter's name in most other sources in the lede to make it immediately obvious that this isn't talking about a different person. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Penguino35: - you assert that Hale’s LinkedIn says “Aiden Hale he/him” but from what I’ve seen, it’s actually “Audrey Hale he/him”. What’s your source, or were you mistaken? starship.paint (exalt) 11:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Since when did LinkedIn become a RS? It’s incredibly easy to modify source and screen shot, and it’s unclear to me if Hale’s profile was ever archived prior to the school shooting. I don’t know if LI should have any weight in this issue considering the the issues of reliability, and the overwhelming number of RS that report the perpetrators name as either Audrey or Hale is hard to dismiss. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I couldn't agree more, which is why the beginning of my previous comment was layered with exasperation, but I've seen too many editors get banned for not treading this topic carefully. And gender identity seems to be the loophole for kissing Reliable Sources goodbye.

  @Starship.paint, it seems either I was mistaken or friends and family have changed Aiden/Audrey's name post-mortally. Regardless, it's just too easy to manipulate social media, and to echo @Kcmastrpc, we just can't rely on it for verification. We can, however, look to Reliable Sources claiming Audrey Hale, he/him, of which there are a few, even though those sources couch Hale's gender identity with the comment "on social media" when explaining Hale's pronouns...sooo...insert eye roll. This editor is wondering if we have lost Common Sense.

  At the end of the day, I just want this article to be a due weight representation of the shooting, paying homage to the victims, and giving pertinent facts. I think that can be done whether we use he/him or she/her pronouns, but the more we focus on Hale's gender identity as a source of clarification, the further we get from the topic of the article. And since RS name Hale as both Audrey and Aiden, we also need to include both names in the lead. Penguino35 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• C per two previous discussions from 2019 and 2022 and related policies mentioned. Personally, I would say that A is required over B, but this has been a complicated discussion and thus, I am going to focus on the second question which only matters if B is approved. To start, I will focus on the 2022 discussion. The 2022 discussion was to move an article about a person who had passed away twenty year prior and the article had been previously moved in the past. After seven days of discussion, the article was moved in support of her identity rather than her former birth name with the reasoning that MOS:GENDERID applied even after death and that historically, GENDERID has had precedence over COMMONNAME. While COMMONNAME has not been mentioned here (to my knowledge) for the fact that this is not an article about a person, there has been discussion about what is the name that is commonly used in sources. GENDERID not only says to use the pronouns of how they identified regardless of common usage, Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources[,] but it also mentions that it is WP:UNDUE to overemphasis that a person changed what they identify as, Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. For this, I believe that we should only mention the shooter's former name only once if it is to be included at all. I should mention though that the closure of the move discussion was sent to move review by one of the opposed and was only given a 'No consensus to overturn' so I will move forward with the other discussion. The 2019 discussion will sadly look a lot more familiar to editors here because it also involved a school shooting. In that discussion, there was an article about the school shooting involving two shooters and one of the victims died. The discussion initially starts with some confusion about the second shooter, which is made clearer 12 hours later when there is a comment that the shooter identified as male. The discussion then shifts into how policy applies to the article. In the end, it was agreed upon at the time to use male pronouns as the shooter identified as and mention both the preferred and birth names. With time, this shifted slightly and the second shooter is referred to consistently in the article with their preferred name and pronouns with only a brief mention in the Perpetrators section about their transition and without their former birthname. Thus, because of this discussion and the policies mentioned, specifically MOS:GENDERID and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, I again believe that we should only mention the shooter's former name only once if it is to be included at all. If it is included, then it should just be mentioned in the Perpetrator section with the footnote removed. For the text in the Perpetrator section, it should follow MOS:GENDERID and not overemphasis the transition, which I believe should apply regardless of which proposal(s) succeed in this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The shooter went by Aiden Hale at the time of shooting. Later on during investigation, they found it someone transgender. Cwater1 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  So we are in agreement? I don't understand your reply to me nor why you replied to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was trying to express my thoughts. It was late night for me when I replied. What I was saying was the shooter went by the name, Aiden Hale. When the shooting first happened, it was unknown who it was then later on the shooter was identified as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" then found that the person was transgender and went by Aiden Hale. The perpetrator should be named as Aiden Hale in the article. Cwater1 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I somewhat understand now and agree with the last sentence. (Should I take it that this means it isn't clear from what I wrote?) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  You were clear. Cwater1 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  What I did wrong was I click on the reply button instead of using the edit button. Cwater1 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Amended: To clarify my position on the name, source have suggested that the shooter changed his first name. No source to date has said that the shooter changed their last name nor has any source to date said that the shooter wanted their name to be mononymous. For this reason, along with my reasoning above, I would support the name "Aiden Hale" being used, but not "Aiden" by itself. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and D, Maybe go by Audrey Elizbeth Hale in the opening and in the Investigation section then go by Aiden Hale for the other parts of article since that is what the person went by at the time of the shooting.Cwater1 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C (once in the lead). per @Sideswipe9th who makes very cogent arguments. I think given the notability of this person's identity and DEADNAME controversy etc, it merits mentioning (once) but to repeatedly do so would clearly and unequivocally flaunt MOS:GENDERID and I see no reason why this situation merits that level of style guide violation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D, in the lead and again in the "Perpetrator" section. The fact that police initially identified the shooter as a woman is an important part of the story. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note for closers - The previous RFC was now closed with an explicit consensus to apply WP:BDP on this article. Many comments and !votes on this section were made before that close. Soni (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, so I closed that, but I’m not sure how many comments or votes would be affected here. WP:BLP states that Contentious material about … (in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced … should be removed - and here we do not have poor sources (e.g. [1] Reuters is still using the birth name even after the new name emerged). Next, WP:BLPNAME states that When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. - here the name has been widely disseminated, has not been intentionally concealed, and does provide context that the shooter was transgender, as well as context that the police used that name, before [2] and after [3][4] they thought Hale was transgender. starship.paint (exalt) 06:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• B,D We should reflect RS coverage naturally, considering the relevance of gender identity and the individual's preference for their name, while handling it with care. A rigid interpretation of P & G is not preferred. Rockyscreen (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• @InedibleHulk Iamreallygoodatcheckers This section might be better suited for longer discussions, since we're starting to have paragraphs of text across multiple !votes in the survey section. Once people reply with their policy explanations and similar, this RFC might become equally unreadable as the rest of this talk page. I would ask both of you to switch your discussions here. Soni (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Going forward, OK, but what's there is there. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Jerome Frank Disciple, I agree with your first step. As for your second step, this is where I admitted that "GENDERID is a bit unclear on this"; your interpretation also makes sense, though. I read "notable under a former name" as 'gaining notable RS coverage under that name', but I could also see the argument that Hale only became notable after he had begun using "Aiden", even though RS coverage was mostly "Audrey". I still disagree strongly with option A, though, for a few reasons (particularly given the prevalence of "Audrey" in RSes):
  • The principle of least astonishment would support mentioning it at least somewhere.
  • The MoS section on gender identity refers only to "living transgender or non-binary [people]".
  • There's a valid argument that this should be extended to recently-deceased people, similar to BLP. However, the BLP section on recently deceased people says that extending BLP policies in this manner "only appl[ies] to contentious or questionable material"; Hale's former name is very widely reported and well sourced.
  • There's a presumption of privacy, especially with regard to names, but Hale's former name is so widely reported (most coverage that uses "Aiden" still mentions "Audrey") that there's not much to keep private; also, the BLP section on recently deceased people applies in the same manner (it's not contentious or questionable).
  Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that this response was written as a reply to this former revision of Jerome Frank Disciple's comment, so some of my response has already been addressed and/or is no longer relevant to the comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Tol:—Sorry about that! I had originally missed the section on this talk page suggesting that GenderID's portions on living subjects wouldn't apply to the recently deceased—when I first wrote my reply I assumed that it would apply (I guess I'm too used to other BLP issues!). Once I noticed that debate, I decided that my already too-long comment would be more constructive if I assumed that those portions of GenderID would not apply, so I tried to change that second paragraph up as quickly as I could—but I see you saw it before I finished up the rewrite. I think you've perfectly summed up my previous paragraph-long argument in a single sentence, and, assuming GenderID does not apply, I'd agree with you as to your remaining points, particularly the least astonishment point. I do think that a single reference would satisfy that concern, so I would stand by C. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  No problem, @Jerome Frank Disciple! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why are we even having a RfC? WP:BLP applies to recently deceased subjects, and Aiden Hale is, in fact, a recently deceased subject. Are we supposed to ignore all rules just because the subject is transgender? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem (as some see it) is that the rule against using (what some consider) a deadname doesn't apply to the dead, recently or otherwise. I think we all agree we should be careful about the sort of material BDP mentions. To give a dead transgender (as some see) person special privacy rights every other kind of dead person doesn't have would be unfair, in my opinion. Anyway, the discussion to remove the "living" qualifier is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It's not short, maybe bring a lunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see now you've already voted. A fine choice, though not yet in effect. Maybe later! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  And if I may reply to your strongly worded vote here rather than there, there's nothing respectable nor decent about this dead trans person, regardless of whether she was transitioning, had transitioned or had given the idea some thought. She had certainly given a lot of thought to her planning of a school shooting and manifesto of excuses and justification. And her actions in those rooms and hallways spoke louder than her words online. Way louder. Even had she survived her own truly justifiable homicide, do you think we'd be calling her a made-up name at her trial, just because she wanted to? Dead people and transgender people are not some homogenous hive to be treated one way or the other. Case-by-case, brother. In this case, it's more a matter of acknowledging that 100% of sources call the mass shooter Audrey Hale than feeling that by any name or pronoun, Audrey Hale was a person known primarily for doing six very bad things (and several pretty bad things, like assaulting a police officer and maliciously destroying property), not for wishing to be thought of one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're being blinded by your animosity for this particular person. To say that transitioning is just adopting a "made-up name" is preposterous. It's not merely "disrespectful" to use the wrong gender pronouns to describe a person (as you repeatedly do), it's just wrong. Do you refer to Osama bin Laden as "she" in order to avoid showing respect to him? My guess is no, meaning your policy of "we should respect gender identities only on a case-by-case basis" is really a policy that only targets trans people. And, for the record, there's absolutely many courts that do respect trans defendants (or even convicted trans persons).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's no more "animosity" than I have against the last four dozen high-profile mass shooters. "Made-up" might be a bit dickish, but self-chosen. I'm not blinded by anything here. In Patton's interviews, Hale's a she. In police statements, same deal. Visually, looks traditionally feminine, in hair and gait. If I'd heard Osama wanted to be Fatima instead, I'd still call him a male terrorist I don't respect, based on the long beard and height, especially if he signed his last message "Osama". Again, this case has nothing to do with trans people or their rights in general, at least to me; I think she was a Q (among many more pertinent labels). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Except, it does have to do with trans people, because, again, your "we should respect gender identities on a case by case basis" policy would only apply to trans people. Your Osama comment concedes this: Under your system, cis people get their identities respected no matter what they do—Osama gets called a he; but if Osama were trans, you'd say that his identity doesn't deserve respect.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone looks like a shitty person if you misquote them. I didn't mean I'd only disrespect a trans bin Laden, but would still disrespect him (for his murders). And I never said anything like this bullshit "policy" you've ascribed to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your exact words were "case-by-case, brother." And my point is that you'd only "direspect" bin Laden's gender identity if bin Laden were trans; for you, cis people get to have their gender identity respected regardless of their actions.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, those are my actual words. There, they meant every dead and every trans person has a unique set of circumstances and should be treated as individuals. I believe the same about living and cis people. Or Spanish and old people. Or x and y people. Whether or not the leader of al Qaeda even had a gender, I'd still disrespect that person for the deeds. You seem intent on painting me however you want, regardless of what I say, so I don't want to talk with you anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's a painfully obvious deflection. But hey, easy way to prove me wrong: Feel free to let me know of a single cis person whose gender identity you refuse to acknowledge.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I believe there is a difference between acknowledgement and encyclopedic documentation. We can wax philosophy on the policies that govern wikipedia all day (which is what we're doing here), but do you genuinely believe that we should disregard what a significant majority of sources reported on in the first 24 hours of this event because of how strongly editors feel with regards to identity politics? I don't dispute that Adrian/Aiden quite likely felt that he was a male, but that doesn't change the fact this tragedy happened and the controversy that erupted due to that reality. We can only go on what a significant number of reliable sources have reported and I don't see how there is any injustice in documenting what has transpired. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, as I indicated in my above vote—I don't think we have to wax philosophy on Wikipedia policy to figure out how the shooter should principally be addressed. On that subject, WP:GENDERID is pretty clear—and it explicitly says "what is most common[ly]" reported does not matter. The only question is whether his deadname should be mentioned at all—on that point, I do think GENDERID is a bit ambiguous (for the reasons I noted above), but, if the portion that applies to living people doesn't apply, I would favor a single mention as to address potential reader confusion. I haven't really seen any argument that multiple references to "Audrey" are needed to avoid reader confusion. I have to admit there are portions of your comment I don't really understand. "I don't dispute that Adrian/Aiden quite likely felt that he was a male, but that doesn't change the fact this tragedy happened"—no one is saying it didn't?—"and the controversy that erupted due to that reality"—once "Audrey" is identified in the lede, I'm not actually sure why that controversy requires mentioning "Audrey" to be explained.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The made up name thing especially irks me. I didn't make up my name... people at Wizards of the Coast did when they created Liliana Vess. (Oh, and the fact InedibleHulk constantly misgendered Aiden Hale through the whole message, that's revolting.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't consider it misgendering, I honestly believe she was a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly believe you're not here to build an encyclopedia. So much for making peace when you say shit like that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Because I choose to believe police, the killer's friends, her last signature and my own eyes? That makes me a liar and invalidates over 100,000 edits to you? Whatever, at least my "shit" is verifiable, unlike this "Aiden Hale" cobblejob of "Aiden" and "Audrey Hale". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Should we not also consider their grave marker? https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/251424988/audrey-elizabeth-hale Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity: Is that what the grave says, or is that just the name selected by a random "FindAGrave" page owner? There's no photographs of the grave. (Also: no, I don't think much weight goes to grave markers.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk: Police have said that Hale was transgender, yet you choose to refer to that as "made-up". Reliable sources say Hale identified as male and used he/him pronouns, yet you choose to ignore that and misgender them. Not a good look at all, especially in a contentious topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Drake said she identified as transgender. I said "Aiden" was made-up, should have said self-chosen. Despite all that, police continue to use the same pronouns and name they always have, as did these four who knew her. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  How cops choose to address a person has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you seriously gonna believe cops' words as fact? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not in every case, of course. But when what they say lines up with what I see and what her closest friends remember, yeah. Especially when the only thing even approaching a valid counterclaim is from an emotionally disturbed loner with a history of lying and premeditating murder. Don't tell me you're going to make her, of all people, the poster child for police shooting "victims" now on top of inexplicably casting any slight on her as a slight on normal and uninvolved trans people. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  There's also her mother's opinion to consider, who told ABC News: "I think I lost my daughter today.” InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The opinions of Hale's parents on their son's gender identity are highly suspect, given that both of them refused to respect his name, pronouns, and even choice of clothing. This is also not an unusual thing for trans or non-binary people of any age to experience, and many LGBT rights organisations and charities have produced support guides and documentation for handling unsupportive family members. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've mentioned this accusation against living relatives of a BDP subject at your Arbitration Enforcement Request against me, consider yourself notified. Also, an anonymous source speaking to The Daily Mail is highly suspect by Wikipedia standards. See WP:DAILYMAIL. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Which RS say Audrey is a deadname? I tried Googling. Found Tik-Tok, Twitter or worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Literally all the sources that say Hale was a trans man who went by "Aiden". That makes "Audrey Elizabeth" a deadname by definition. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange how no reliable sources say so, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Lol, the sky is blue, but here's one. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"Hale’s LinkedIn profile was still listed under their dead name." That's so contradictory. Is HITC even reliable? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking for a source that specifically calls it a deadname, or are you just looking for a source to see if the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID applies? Since this page is for discussion of the Wikiepedia article and not general debate about the subject, I assume the latter:

• The Tennessean source in the article is pretty squarely on point for the latter (says she identified as a man a used male pronouns, which settles the question of whether male or female pronouns should be used per the first paragraph of GENDERID);
• Further supporting that, as you've noted, the police have said the shooter identified as transgender (and of course GENDERID concerns itself with "self-identification".
• This Dallas Express article, in addition to the also supporting the aforementioned, notes she preferred the name Aiden
• This CNN article, relying on a teacher source, said that, within the last year, the shooter publicly made a request on FB to be referred to as Aiden and use male pronouns.
• And of course there are the other sources that documented Hale's use of male pronouns on LinkedIn and Facebook.

Hope that helps. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Preferring one name or set of pronouns isn't the same as not using or tolerating the other. Does any source say she stopped using "Audrey"? Because plenty say she used both the last time anyone heard from her. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that she still used female pronouns? If so, by all means share! Otherwise, it would seem to be speculation that contradicts declarative statements like "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns." (Tennessean)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

When I said she used "both", I meant both names, so no. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, so we're on the same page in the sense that we both agree that GENDERID requires use of "he/him" pronouns when referring to the shooter. Glad we're making progress!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already used them in the article about fifty times before it was locked. Enough about pronouns. I was trying to verify whether RS identified "Audrey" as a deadname, by that word or otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(moved from Iamreallygoodatcheckers's !vote above)

• Despite this locked article's claim, Hale's still identified by authorities exclusively by the birth name. And birth gender. Not saying that makes them transphobic or relatively well-informed, just another fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  In case there is doubt I'm going to show the mountain of RS that say Audrey Elizabeth Hale. These don't even mention Aiden: CNN, AP, NPR, CNN, NBC, NY Times, WaPo. These primarily identify as Audrey then mention Aiden:Independent, CNN. I did a search for Aiden Hale and found nothing exclusively referring to him as Aiden, but found these that use both where it's hard to see what's being primarily used: Medium, HOLR Magazine. As you can see, this is not even a close call when it comes to weight of reliable sourcing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Reminder that the New York Times posted an article called "In Defense Of J.K. Rowling" after Brianna Ghey was murdered. Are we really gonna use them as an example? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The New York Times is a greenlit source; it's also not the only source being cited. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  What matters is that RS have identified "Audrey" as a deadname, meaning we must follow our policy on WP:DEADNAMEs. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Our "policy" (a guideline, actually) on deadnames explicitly says it applies to "living transgender" people. Want to take another run at that? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Only the second paragraph, correct? I mean, in terms of how we principally refer to the shooter, it seems to me that the first paragraph applies squarely.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Only the first paragraph appears to apply to living and dead transgender individuals. The remainder explicitly calls out "living" repeatedly, and a discussion on the talk page there is leaning, charitably, towards no consensus to change that to include living or dead. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Locke Cole: See your RfC above which is clearly leaning towards an exception for the recently deceased. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That RFC is asking about WP:BDP, we're talking about MOS:GENDERID here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  If BDP applies, WP:BLP applies, and so those parts of MOS:GENDERID apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That connection is not obvious to me. And the current discussion at the talk page for MOS:GENDERID does not support expanding it to include the dead as you proposed. Other than GENDERID mentioning BLP as a way of indicating how important something should be, there is no backwards connection from BLP to GENDERID. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @FormalDude:, typically we would follow DEADNAME, but this is an unusual case. When it comes to transgender/nonbinary people, RS almost always will use the new name throughout and not mention the deadname or like mention it once. However, this is not what RS is doing for Hale; RS is primarily using the deadname. I don't really know why RS has chosen to use the deadname, but I'm not in the position to question or contest that. DEADNAME can be somewhat IARed in this case because we should be more concerned with conforming to reliable sources.

  In response to the whole BLP, BDP, GENDERID, and whatever debacle that' going on this discussion and in the RfC above, we need to stop being so rigid with how we are viewing these guidelines and policies. It's becoming wikilawyering. All we need to do is conform this article to be consistent with the predominance of reliable sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's one thing to say that there's too much wikilawyering in terms of pedantically discussing the meaning of policies, it's another thing to complain of wikilawyering while attempting to directly contradict those policies. GENDERID does squarely say we should use the "most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". You saying "well we should make the article consistent with the predominance of reliable sources" directly contradicts that. I'd also note, frankly, that your opinion seems to be a distinct minority one on this RFC—even many of the editors who suggested B & D have specified that they think the birth name should only be "mentioned" in a few areas. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  From my understanding of the line even if it does not match what is most common in sources, it was put into place because there were arguments that people like Caitlyn Jenner should still be referred to as Bruce Jenner and use he/him pronouns because of the amount of sourcing historically that referred to her as he/him before she came out as transgender, even though the more recent one's use Caitlyn and she/her; hence, why it says "most recent." At least that's what someone told me that a while back. Yes, I'm aware I appear to be in the minority, specifically regarding primarily using Audrey. I think this RfC is lining up to meet somewhere in the middle, and I don't plan to lose any sleep over that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  What about pronouns? Cwater1 (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  The majority of RS are avoiding any pronouns for Hale and saying that Hale preferred he/him. I think those two things together means either avoiding pronouns all together or using he/him would be acceptable, and former discussion and GENDERID have leaned toward using he/him for this article. That's good with me. Using she/her would be inappropriate from what I've gathered. When it comes to pronouns, there isn't the recognizability issue either. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers It is confusing and when editing article, if you use the wrong thing then there are problems and you can get banned from editing from what I understand. That's the downside of Wikipedia. Cwater1 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, but the difference between C and D is not important to me (see my official vote above in the voting section) as long as Audrey also appears in the lead along with the principal name selected by consensus. I understand the argument for WP:GENDERID, but I echo Iamreallygoodatcheckers's points that the solution is probably found somewhere in the middle. To take us back to the basics, I offer WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."

Personally, I thought IncredibleHulk made some compelling arguments about reliable sources despite his/her wildly innappropriate tone to convey his/her POV. And I think if we set aside ideoligies and stringent interpretations of policies in the face of neutral POV and improving the encyclopedic nature of the article, we can see past any editor's potentially biased limitations and take away the value they add with their research and desire to improve Wikipedia WP:GOODFAITH. Banning passionate editors runs the risk of creating an echo chamber, and that concerns me. Of course I don't know what happened off our talk page in this particular case, so I certainly won't judge. I hope we can continue to be kind, work together, and listen to (even respect) opposing ideas. Penguino35 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of table meant to show a consensus as to how to principally refer to the shooter

While WP is not a democracy, I made this table in response to an inquiry below (in a different section), but I figured it actually belonged here if I intended to keep updating it (which I do!).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Group A B & C B & D D voters who have specified Audrey/Aiden Distribution 1[1] 3 13 21 Distribution 2[2] 8 8 Principally "Aiden" (if specified) 16 6 Soni, Tol, Ortizesp, Some1, HTGS, Locke Cole Principally "Audrey" (if specified) 0 7 InedibleHulk[3], Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Kcmastrpc, starship.paint, Red Slash, Cwater1, IP editor [1] This distribution assumes all editors that selected A and B & C would prefer A [2] This distribution assumes all editors that selected A and B & C would prefer B & C [3] Recently blocked for a year, partially due to edits and tone on this page. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC) I don't see the point of including Hulk's ban in this table other than WP:GRAVEDANCING. While I don't support the collapse of the section, consider removing the prose that calls him out -- it serves no other purpose than to shame and I consider the actions here falling under these two provisions of the policy: Insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question won't be able to respond to the comment. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees it because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together. Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. If you're attempting to inform other editors of his behavior, ask yourself why. Why is it relevant to this discussion? We're not talking about Hale's pronouns here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Certainly not meaning to grave dance! First, just to get it out of the way, let's be clear: I'm not doing either of the things you bulleted. I'm neither insulting the user knowing they can't respond nor am I pretending a consensus doesn't exist because a now-banned user contributed to it. In fact, as to the latter accusation, if you'll notice, the entire point of the table is that InedibleHulk was part of a distinct minority of editors. In other discussions I've been involved in, I've occasionally seen people strike (i.e. use strike tags) comments from editors who were subsequently banned—I don't really think that's appropriate, and in that sense I agree with the gravedancing essay—though I wouldn't pretend that it's definitely wrong (as, of course, WP:GRAVEDANCING is just an essay). But, again, given that the point of the table was to show that there was, in fact, a consensus as to how to principally refer to the shooter, I do think the ban is relevant, particularly given the reason for the ban (which included WP:GENSEX issues), as it actually reveals that the consensus is even stronger than it might first appear. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC) WP:GRAVEDANCING is an essay, but WP:NPA is a policy. Can you explain what relevance their block has to the discussion above or their !vote there? Typically when you see !votes struck, it's from sockpuppets abusing multiple accounts or very new accounts clearly being used as meatpuppets or that were canvassed to the discussion. None of that has happened here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Answered above, thanks. As to WP:NPA, please feel free to check out WP:WIAPA. And given that we had another discussion in which you assumed bad faith on my part (saying that because I didn't agree that the perpetrator was the "subject" of this article for the purposes of MOS:CHANGEDNAME, that meant that I didn't think the perpetrator should be covered at all), and I said we should take a break from interacting, I'm not sure why you're now following me to different discussions.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Answered above, thanks. Are you referring to I do think the ban is relevant, particularly given the reason for the ban (which included WP:GENSEX issues), as it actually reveals that the consensus is even stronger than it might first appear? If so, can you name the administrator or arbiter that deputized you to act on their behalf or the ruling made that said to go and call out all of InedibleHulk's !votes after their block? What am I supposed to "check out" at WP:WIAPA? I'm not sure why you're now following me to different discussions. Because you're engaging in personal attacks and WP:GRAVEDANCING? Do you think you can just break rules as long as you announce you don't want anyone to interact with you that might call you out on them? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Doing neither, as explained. Also, you'll notice I never asked Kcmastrpc not to "call [me] out"—I'm perfectly happy to discuss the issue with that user or other editors, which I was doing before you decided to chime in, and which I'm happy to keep doing. But given your tone issues—which you continue to demonstrate ("Do you think you can just break rules as long as you announce you don't want anyone to interact with you that might call you out on them?"), I'm not going to engage in conversation with you, for at least a while. Thanks--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) You might want to read the opening of WP:WIAPA since you appear to have glossed over that: There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable. If you think making statements about an editor who is not able to defend themselves is appropriate, then I have serious misgivings about your ability to be here long-term. I'm not going to engage in conversation with you That is your right, it does not prevent me from pointing out your behavior for others to see. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Your opinion is noted, thanks.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) While WP is not a democracy, I made this table: please don't, since it's indeed not a democracy; the closer can deal with it. DFlhb (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) In the context of the discussion below, and partially in response to a suggestion that I was supporting a fringe view, I was pointing out that there was a relative consensus as to how the shooter should principally be referred (even if there is disagreement as to how often the shooter's birth name should be used).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Downside of Wikipedia, wrong editing and wrong tone leads to blocks. Cwater1 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Penguino35: Overall I found your !vote reasonable, but I have to say I'm not sure I agree with the "don't use pronouns" portion. Using pronouns gives undue weight to gender? Is that true of every person or just trans persons? That said, I agree that the article isn't a biography of Hale (and thus, from my perspective, this portion of MOS:GENDERID applies: "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent."). And I agree that the birth name probably should be mentioned, mostly because it's how most sources refer to the shooter and we want to avoid reader confusion. (I also agree that confusion can be avoided by a single reference to the name.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Mmm I am glad you asked for clarification; I can see how what I said could be misconstrued. I do not think using pronouns give undue weight to gender. I think inconsistency (switching back and forth between pronouns with parenthetical remarks couching the gender we're using) gives undue weight to gender. In the name of consistency and [[WP:DUE]], I say pick a gender using WP policy as our guide and then stick to it.

To satisfy those who would argue using he/him could be confusing for readers, I suggest replacing the pronoun with "Hale" or working around it. Like in the paragraph about Hale attending school there as a child, I removed the pronoun, since as far as we know (or don't know), Hale identified as a female in childhood and only came out in 2022. Aside from that instance, I don't see how clarifying Hale's gender misidentification by police and news upfront in the lead and then keeping consistency throughout could cause any confusion to readers.

There were also a few instances where I thought "he" could grammatically suffer ambiguous pronoun antecedent as well because the article talks about both the police and Hale as "he" and using Hale's surname might have been clearer. I do not believe this is specific to trans persons. Penguino35 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! Thanks for elaborating. I'm still not totally sure I agree on the pronoun point (I think the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID makes clear that we should use the most recent gender self-expression throughout the whole article, not switch up depending on whether the person used that gender self-expression based on a specific time), but I also understand that you're responding to some arguments that have been made here.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. And I'm new to the WP policies on gender identification, so I can stand to be corrected. However, I'm not arguing for switching to "she," I'm arguing for switching to passive voice, which editors come across on the daily regardless of cis or trans. Penguino35 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Time to Close?

Is it time to ask for a close on this RFC? To be honest, I don't think the conversations are going anywhere—and a few seem to be going in circles.

As I documented in the table (in the hatted portion of the discussion) I made above, and having re-read each comment and logic carefully, I don't think the questions presented in this RFC have been totally resolved. While I can't predict what a closer will find, I do think (hope?) there are two points of consensus, namely, that we should use the name Audrey Elizabeth Hale in the article and we should principally refer to the shooter as Aiden Hale. I realize that even relative supermajorities don't matter if the one side has a substantially stronger policy argument, but here ... the question of WP policy as to the birth names of trans persons ... is not clear cut, to say the least. It's even prompted extensive discussion of an RFC on the Manual of Style page. 22 days into that discussion, that discussion (which I've contributed to) hasn't been able to agree on the questions to ask, much less what the answers to those questions should be.

And, unfortunately, and this is one of the reasons an early close might be productive here ... I think even a cursory examination of the various comments made thus far reveals it is extremely unlikely a closer finds a consensus on the number of times to reference the birth name and, relatedly, where to reference the birth name. Many, though not most, voters did not specify a preference as to location. Most editors that did specify location(s) either said the lede was the one place the birth name should be mentioned or included the lede as one of many places (with a few of the former pointing out that WP:SURNAME dictates that we should typically only use surnames after the first reference). But beyond that ... it gets dicey. If a second RFC is required, I think they're are gong to be some design problems, and I have no idea what we would do in the interim period (hopefully the closer could help figure that out).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So here's the thing about determining consensus, it's not a vote. It's up to the discussion closer to weigh the arguments made against the relevant policies and guidelines.

On the merits of an early close, I don't think we're there yet. There's still !votes being added to the survey section, and you'd really want that to have had no new comments for like a week before making an early close. Otherwise, we should make a request at WP:CR for a closer to come and determine this consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point! Though, as I said, given that the debate over what WP policies and guidelines require is not just confined to this page but is, instead, occurring on those policy and guideline pages (with, again, the extensive discussion at Talk:MOS/Bio so far unable to come close to figuring out what questions to ask, let alone what the answer should be), I'm a little skeptical that a closer is going to be able to find any arguments as to those policies convincing. I'm happy to not request an early close! I only raised the question because my read of the debate so far (not just the vote counts but the content of the arguments) suggests that another RFC is going to be necessary. The points that I think there are a pretty clear consensus on seem unlikely shift, and the points on which there isn't a consensus seems exceedingly far from that consensus. It feels, to me, that we're just circling the drain towards that conclusion, but if you're optimistic that another outcome might emerge, then I'll be optimistic, too :)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This kind of discussion (on the outstanding issues) usually happen after a close, not before. But I encourage those who already voted, to now express their views on specific locations, which might save us the need for another discussion. DFlhb (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fair! Since, in addition to repetitive arguments, the reason I was suggesting an early close was precisely because it seemed like the outcome of this one would require another RFC, I wanted to show that I had actually done my homework and wasn't making that assumption willy nilly. But I also realize, in hindsight, that "well let's try to be realistic and pragmatic about where we stand" can easily cross into "here's how I think the close should go"—so I'll be sure to evade that line in the future. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, let’s wait the standard month for WP:RFC, and ask for a close around 11 May 2023 at WP:CR. There is no apparent reason for an early close because the result isn’t that clear cut, in my opinion. Just a note for the closer - I did a source analysis for “Aiden Hale” [5] in another section of this talk page. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I explained, I think the result is bound to be no consensus and require another RFC. In terms of the "we shouldn't say 'Aiden Hale'" position you're taking, I think that's pretty clearly fringe—I mean, the point that few sources used "Aiden Hale" and that most sources used the shooter's birth name was made many, many times above, but maybe the closer will find your numbered list more persuasive than the participants found that argument!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My position is fringe? Funny you should say so, because WP:FRINGE actually discusses deviations from the best sources. My stance is, follow the best sources, so if you think my position is fringe from several Wikipedia editors, perhaps it is these several Wikipedia editors who are taking a fringe position with respect to the best sources. starship.paint (exalt) 07:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry—apparently I wasn't sufficiently clear. I meant it was a fringe view among Wikipedia editors in this discussion. (That doesn't inherently mean it's wrong!) As to the name of the shooter and WP:Fringe .. I don't think the shooter's name qualifies as a "fringe theory".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s possible. The view that “The shooter’s name was Aiden Hale” could be a fringe view, especially since I’ve shown that prominent reliable sources do not report thus. Now, of course, this is a different view than “The shooter’s name was Aiden”. starship.paint (exalt) 00:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, just from an internal perspective, I almost think it'd be a fitting end if we just referred to the shooter as "Aiden" throughout the entire article—no surname, maybe first reference as "Aiden (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale)". Then no one gets what they want!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There would be some logic in this, since it's clear that the perpetrator used 'Aiden', but not that they used 'Aiden Hale'. But I think that starting the article with 'Audrey Elizabeth "Aiden" Hale' and subsequently using their surname is better supported by the number and content of the sources; Wikipedia is an outlier in referring to the perpetrator as 'Aiden Hale'. 196.41.222.97 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

But, at least according to our reliable sources, it seems pretty obvious that "Audrey" was the shooter's deadname. "the shooter went by Aiden" is, pretty necessarily, "the shooter didn't go by Audrey". So I would still oppose, on the grounds I said in the survey, any effort to make "Audrey" the principle name by which we identify Hale, and I still think there's a consensus we should not do that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

People can actually go by different names among different groups of people. It's not uncommon. It seems like "Audrey" was the perpetrator's legal name, but that "Aiden" was some kind of experimental name, or a nickname. 196.41.222.97 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Our guidelines absolutely do not require a change in legal name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Aiden (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale)" isn’t too bad, it’s passable. Another one is “Audrey Elizabeth Hale, preferred name Aiden”, you could continue to refer as Aiden, but I don’t think you all would accept that. starship.paint (exalt) 13:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, as I've said, I think there's a pretty solid consensus against using the birth name/deadname as the primary name. That's really a nonstarter, and I'm not sure why we keep going back to it.

Also, given that some (admittedly few) sources have used Aiden Hale, and no sources that have referenced "Aiden" have explicitly suggested it was a mononym—in fact, some have written the name as "Audrey (Aiden) Hale", which has the contrary implication—I'm inclined to join the majority of editors who say that we should, at least until more info comes out, assume it was not a mononym.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If there was a consensus, this would have been resolved long ago. Unfortunately this discussion has become remote from the needs of the reader; your average person looking for information about the shooting probably isn't even going to know what a "deadname" is.

A factual question here: is a name only considered a deadname if it is no longer used by the person in any way, i.e., not to refer to themself and not as their legal name? 196.41.222.97 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The current question being considered by the RFC is whether and how often to refer to the birth name, not whether to use the birth name as the primary name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty solid consensus against using the birth name/deadname as the primary name I don't agree with that interpretation. I also can't really rationalize ignoring our reliable sources because some editors prefer a specific name over another; consensus can resolve many issues, but it can't change the facts. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly the way I see it. The perpetrator had a certain legal name, which is overwhelming used by established newspapers, and no ideological discussion is going to change this. 196.41.222.97 (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Legal name" isn't given special status.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No, but the name used in our sources is because of WP:NPOV. And no editor consensus can override our need to remain neutral. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you consider this to be a NPOV issue. I wonder why you think using the person's selected name is an NPOV issue, but using a person's selected pronouns regardless of the majority of reliable sources ... isn't. Either way, you've raised that point here, and many have responded and disagreed, but perhaps a closer will see it your way.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK the pronouns are either non-specific (they) or they avoid pronouns altogether by using just the perpetrators last name. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia's article also has to avoid pronouns or use "they"?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean I definitely think using the surname only would avoid the issue altogether, but that still leaves the matter of how to report the name in the places where it must be used. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. In light of your argument about the name, and given that you said that most sources use "they/them" or avoid pronouns altogether, do you think that Wikipedia has to use they/them pronouns or avoid pronouns altogether?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should use whatever our sources use. I also think this RFC is on the name, not the pronouns, so I don't really see the relevance of this. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that, in addition to thinking that using a chosen name as a principal name might be an NPOV issue, you also apparently think MOS:GENDERID's first paragraph, which explicitly says not to simply follow what pronouns are "most common in sources", is a problem. I think that speaks to the unique view of NPOV that you have.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation Well, you're welcome to look at the table I made above! (And didn't you already acknowledge as such? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Not worth going through it all again.) And, as many have said, we don't rely on third-party sources to dictate our guidelines or policies—for example, as MOS:GENDERID clearly says, we don't just use the most-common pronouns for a person; as WP:BLPCRIME says, we don't just print the name of a non-notable person accused of a crime just because many reliable sources have mentioned it. If you can't rationalize not using a deadname as a primary name, then I can only wish you the best of luck having to live with something you can't rationalize.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see you made a table. As it's not a vote, and the validity of arguments used should be weighed, I think it's pretty clear we should follow our sources, not the wishes of editors here to WP:RGW. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, excellent point: "We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion." WP:RGW Penguino35 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I have asked for a close at WP:CR. starship.paint (exalt) 14:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Start off with the full name in the opening then go by Audrey Hale for the rest. We need to come up with a solution. My idea is what I said. Cwater1 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is Audrey Elizabeth Hale redirects to the Perpetrator section, and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT (with WP:PLA) suggests we help readers understand they've arrived at what they're looking for by bolding the name at the destination. If the name isn't there, it will confuse readers who are confronted with only Aiden Hale. At the end of the day, we write these articles for readers seeking knowledge. Other concerns, especially for dead individuals, are far less significant. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. When editing, it is important to say the right name. Cwater1 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify why “Other concerns, especially for dead individuals, are far less significant”? I think I understand where you’re coming from, but if you also think that “At the end of the day, we write these articles for readers seeking knowledge”, then shouldn’t we provide more information on who Hale was and clarify their name and identity, especially considering that it can be ambiguous to some? To be honest, I haven’t kept myself updated on the talk page here, partly because any discussion led to the same points being raised up, but has there been any form of consensus reached on whether or not we should refer to the individual as either Audrey, Aiden or both? I suggest that everyone waits until the RfC is closed until we start editing the page to reflect consensus rather than our own ideas of “how it should be”. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

shouldn’t we provide more information on who Hale was and clarify their name and identity Yes, we should. But as can be seen above, there's a very vocal group that is absolutely against this in any way, shape or form. As for the clarification, I'm basically alluding to WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RGW. We're an encyclopedia. If we stick to our verifiable reliable sources, enforce WP:NPOV and WP:DUE in particular, then our articles shouldn't really offend anyone except the absolute most extreme readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

But as can be seen above, there's a very vocal group that is absolutely against this in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure I'd agree with that characterization! I mean, I don't want to dive too far into how this might play out, but, by my read, almost everyone supports using Hale's birth name at least once. Yeah there are a few extremists (Updated per @Super Goku V:--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)) people on the relative extremes, but I think most people are actually pretty close here, and I'm hopeful a good closer can find a solid consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Those who support A should not be considered "extremists" for their honest opinions and reading of policy. WP:NOPA applies. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the implication! Extremists was perhaps bad word choice—I didn't mean "ideological extremists/crazies!"—I meant extremists only in the sense of what their position is relative to the majority of editors here. (And just to be clear: my vote used to be A/B&C; I got rid of the bold "A" when I figured it had no shot at a consensus, but if you read my rationale—which I just supplemented rather than removed—it still has "A" logic in it.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha and no problem. Sorry on my end for misunderstanding what you meant. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to come up with a solution. The closer will review what has been said and attempt to determine what the consensus is based the discussion and policy. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant RFC

There's an RFC at the Village Pump concerning how MOS:GENDERID deals with the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons. Cheers--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:01, 6 May 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

Hello! I was wondering what people's thoughts were on the background section. I'm not at all strongly opposed to it, but it does strike me as a bit out of place. If you look at Columbine High School massacre or, perhaps more apt, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, neither has a section that's like "Columbine/Sandy Hook was started when the school was built in ..." or anything like that. Now, perhaps the key distinction is that Covenant School is a private school ... but does that actually matter in terms of relevance of the school start year to this article?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a standalone article for the Covenant School in Tennessee while we do for Columbine and there is a standalone article for the school district for Sandy Hook. I believe that is why this article has the background section mention the year it opened while the standalone articles contain that information for those articles. -Super Goku V (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure how apt the comparison to Newtown Public Schools is ... given even that article's light treatment of Sandy Hook (no mention of a founding date), but hey if anyone feels like it should be kept in, I'm fine deferring!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. I thought it could be inferred, but I just realized that it about the elementary school called Hawley School. (The first Sandy Hook wasn't built until the 1950s.) I would say that you are correct that it is a bit out of place. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Standalone victims section

Hello! @WWGB I saw you reverted my merge of the victims and shootings section.

I had merged the victims section into the shooting section given how brief the victims section was. It was only a few sentences, with at least two sentences that, I think, obviously should be in the shooting section even with a victims section, and I think every sentence could be in the shooting section. But, as of now, the shooting section, somewhat bizarrely, doesn't discuss victims at all, probably the victims section needed every sentence it can get.

@WWGB I know you said that a standalone section is "standard practice". First, I'm actually usually quite sympathetic to consistency arguments, but I do think that the decision as to whether a topic should be given a standalone section has to be article by article—and our guidelines, to my knowledge, dictate as such. Is there a policy or guideline you know that suggests victims should always get a standalone section, no matter how long that section is?

But, second, I'm also not sure I buy the "standard practice" claim. The shooting that's probably most comparable to this one, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, does not have a standalone victims section. Nor does Columbine High School massacre. Nor does Virginia Tech shooting. Worth noting that each of those shootings received far more media attention (and far more page edits). Now, Parkland high school shooting does, but I think that section clearly indicates when a standalone section can be appropriate—with far more details than the section here has.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The older shootings didn't do it, but it has become standard practice now, look at all the school shooting since Parkland, almost all of them have victims section. Noblesville West Middle doesn't but that one had no deaths. I think a section for it is fine even if it is only a few sentences right now. If anything it could be as a subheading of the shooting section. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest, "there's a recent trend towards inclusion" doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument, particularly given how short this section is. I'm okay with it being a subheading—still strikes me as a little weird, but I certainly think that'd look better than having a category 1 heading with only a very short paragraph. --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an argument, so the strength of it or whatever doesn't matter. You said you don't buy that it is standard practice, I was simply pointing out the it has been standard practice for at least the last 5 years. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! But in terms of whether this article should have a standalone section ... what is the argument? If you're happy with a subsection, I can definitely let this be until we at least see if more encyclopedic info about the victims comes out.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not an argument it is just my opinion that it's better to have a section or subheading in these articles. A very common thing someone might want to know about when coming to one of these articles is the victims. In this article in particular it being an elementary school, they may want to know which were children. Instead of reading prose where its spread out where "John age X was shot here at this time", and "Jane, age Y was shot there at that time". It works better to keep those individual details in sperate paragraph together as is in your or the current version. At that point when its just their names, ages, occupations it no longer is talking about the shooting itself, it only is talking about the victims, hence the separate subheading. For me its not so much about the length of the subsection, so much as the content of it. Both can be taken into account, but as I said this is my opinion on what is better. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Treatment of victims has differed over time. Until recently, victims were often not named, so there was little need for a Victims section. Looking at other 2023 shootings, we see 2023 Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting, 2023 Atlanta shooting, 2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting, 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, 2023 Louisville bank shooting, 2023 Michigan State University shooting, 2023 Monterey Park shooting and 2023 Dadeville shooting all have a standalone Victims section. Looks pretty consistent to me. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See above :) But I do appreciate that we are all in agreement that this is not dictated by guidelines or anything, and is instead a "well, very recently, editors on mass shooting articles have used standalone sections, so we should too" argument. Given the sort of arbitrariness of "well look at only the most recent shootings" ... I don't really think it's a consistency argument—after all, editors could go back and change the older shootings, but they haven't. Rather, it seems a little bit like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.

Also, on the talk pages of one of those pages you listed, there's currently a debate concerning whether the victims names should be listed at all ... and there's a discussion over how, two years ago, that was hotly debated (and some older articles don't include lists0, but now it's more common ... although that particular discussion seems to not have much of a consensus). FWIW, just broadly speaking, this is why I sometimes think people are too quick to invoke WP:CREEP. It'd really help if we had a guideline that clarified this type of thing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sandy Hook used to have a victims section/list, but it was removed because it "goes against WP:NOTMEMORIAL" per the talk page. Columbine used to have a victims section/list, but it was removed "in accordance with WP:MEMORIAL" per the talk page. Virginia Tech used to have a brief victims section when the shooting occurred, but it was removed because "wikipedia is not a memorial" per the listed edit on the talk page. After a number of discussion, a list was created instead which survived removal discussions. (This is part of the reason that the essay WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL exists.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)