Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting

Deadname

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She didn't say she was going to commit a crime, she said she was planning on dying. And her friend did know and care enough to try and save her from herself, to no avail. Now that friend's left knowing Audrey trusted her more than anyone, even her parents, and she's fine with using "she/her" pronouns in public. Us strangers with no reason at all to respect "the shooter" (by any pronoun or name) should find it even easier to accept the mainstream view. For trans folk in general, sure, fight for the rights till they're equal. But don't lose sight of this tree in the wider sex and gender woods. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

HE was on HIS way to commit a crime and knew that his friend had enough information to inform the police he was planning to kill himself, which could have prevented him from committing the crime. He made it clear that he used the name Aiden and he/him pronouns, whether or not people respect that is irrelevant. We do not get to change the rules for respecting trans identities because we don't like the person in question, this issue effects the whole trans community not just this one person. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have it on good authority (newswires, police, recently professed best friend) that Audrey was a woman. And a woman who acted too fast for that friend to get through to police. Disrespecting a highly atypical mass murderer who was evidently fine with being called Audrey during her last half hour is no disrespect to anybody else, including trans or autistic men, women and children. And it's no disrespect to her, because she wanted to kill and die and got her wishes seven times over. That's already more placation than this extreme outlier should have gotten in life, in my opinion. Not in yours. I understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You do not get to decide what is disrespectful to the trans community, and your opinion is not relevant because it goes against WP:DEADNAME and WP:RS. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We're lucky then that Wikipedia doesn't publish what is respectful, only what is verifiable from reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What is your precedence for including his birthname in a third place in this article? Tekrmn (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources? MOS:GENDERID? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean where it says "birth name ... should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly" ...

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. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)?" because that's the opposite of what you're doing and it's clear your changes do not come from a NPOV Tekrmn (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not their main biographical article (and they are not notable enough to justify their own article), and regardless, they were notable under that name. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

yes, he was notable under that name which is the only reason it can be included in the article in the lead. that doesn't mean it can be included elsewhere. what are you referring to in genderid then, because I certainly don't see anything to support your argument. Tekrmn (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of MOS:GENDERID. Do you have a WP:PAG-based reason to omit their former name? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So what is the correct reading? you have yet to give any reason why his birth name should be included a third time in this article, so I'm not sure why you're placing the burden of proof on me to leave the article as it was. Tekrmn (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that use their female name, the initial reporting on this incident was with the female name attached and it is with that name that they became notable for this event. I'm still looking for the WP:PAG-based reason to omit the name, and I suspect none will be forthcoming. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

how is that relevant? it says that he was identified using his birth name which is mentioned twice in the artic;e. you don't need to find a reason to omit the name, you need to find a reason to include it. I am going to revert the article until you can do that. Tekrmn (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Bye. 👋👋 —Locke Cole • t • c 06:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I get to decide what I think is the proper respect I show to all mortal beings. We're distant cousins and some of us are friends, we've spent our lives together, generally. In this case, specifically, fuck Audrey Hale and the three guns she rode in with. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So in addition to refusing to acknowledge reliably sourced information, proposing we go agains WP:DEADNAME, and generally not having a NPOV while sharing your opinion all over this talk page, you also have a previously undisclosed COI? Again, what respect you think people do or don't deserve has absolutely no bearing on wikipedia. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If acknowledging we all have common ancestors, breathe the same air and bleed the same blood counts as disclosing a conflict of interest, sure. I guess I'll stay away from mortal being articles, lest my bias make me partial. And yes, I've repeatedly acknowledged reliably sourced information, it says she was a woman who may have wanted to be addressed as a man and her name in the real world, offline, was exactly what every RS says it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  this argument is disingenuous. if readers can't understand "Aiden, formerly known as Audrey" that's not wikipedia's problem. there's more than enough precedent to use the name Aiden in this article. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don't have to ask what name he preffered, he told everyone who followed him on social media and they have reported it to reliable sources. implying that his transness was related to the issues that led him to commit this crime is unbelievably transphobic.

WP:DEADNAME does not say we can use whatever name we want in the event the subject is deceased. it does say "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) 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. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." which we should be extending to his name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

I updated the article to use the name Aiden Hale in light of all of that reliable sourcing as well as WP:DEADNAME and was told to bring it to the talk page, even though this was the last relevant thing that was stated and is clearly in line with wikipedia's manual of style. Hale did not also use the name Audrey except where he was speaking to someone who was not aware of his name change. We have no reliable sources stating that he was still using the name Audrey. The fact that some people have not used the correct name for him is not relevant. In addition to all of the sources you listed here we also have https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/us/nashville-school-shooting-tennessee. I will be updating the article again to be in line with WP:DEADNAME and WP:RS Tekrmn (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is bullshit. "Aiden Hale" is something you synthesized. Police haven't changed their tune. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

feel free to provide a reliable source saying he didn't go by that name. Tekrmn (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You're supposed to source the claim. As it stands, both inline citations only mention the real full name (one in the headline itself). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did source my claim, which is why you would need to source to revert the article. If you're referring to the citations you marked, I did not include those citations and I don't believe they were intended to show that he went by Aiden. Tekrmn (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You claimed Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. Your source opens: The suspected shooter who killed six people, including three children, at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee, has been identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale. That's textbook incompetence, and competence is required. If you're not willing to learn, go away. If you are, welcome to Wikipedia! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, that was not my source.

The sentence after "Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter." is "Police initially identified him as a woman using his birth name, but authorities later reported he was a transgender man."

Additionally, the person who the police identified as the shooter was Aiden Hale. I made it clear that he was identified under a different name. The way these two sentences were written is in keeping with WP:DEADNAME. Tekrmn (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I said it was your claim. By making your claim next to a contradictory source, you've helped make Wikipedia a less trustworthy place. Accidents happen; will you now either change the source to match your claim or change your claim to match the source? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

KWTX quite clearly state "Aiden Hale" in their March 28th article. This is pretty clearly not a case of synthesis based on that article alone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a caption, not a source, and doesn't say that's how the shooter "was identified", unlike the multitude of sources which correctly do. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hulk you made the claim that name Aiden Hale was synthesis when you said "Aiden Hale" is something you synthesized. Regardless of whatever else that article states, the fact that the KWTX article uses Aiden Hale means that name cannot be synthesis, at least as far as we define the term on wiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, I was wrong. It was something someone saw in a caption. It's still at odds with the way the police, reporters and real life acquaintances identified and continue to identify her, per reliable sources. I get not wanting to make a living transgender person feel bad, in general. But in this specific case, the dead mass murderer feels nothing and you're all taking this to a rather nutty extreme. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The protections that are founded upon the BLP policy are not just there to protect our article subjects, they're also there to protect the family, friends, and loved ones of our article subjects. Yes Hale is dead, but people who knew him are not. By disrespecting him, no matter how heinous the crime he may have committed, we are also disrespecting the people that Hale cared about and who cared about him. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean by a nutty extreme. Calling a murderer widely and posthumously identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale "Audrey" is somehow a danger to her family, friends and loved ones, who don't seem to have known she thought she was a man, up to 30 minutes before she went postal. And the loved ones of other article subjects, somehow. Right. As I said on my Talk, I'll let you think about it for eight more days. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter. There are reliable sources stating that he went by Aiden, and the way his name is used in this article is the way it should be according to the wikipedia manual of style. If you can't provide a reliable source that says he wanted to go by his birth name then you have nothing of any relevance to contribue to this article or talk page. Your edits are vandalism at this point. Tekrmn (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

She signs "Audrey", first and foremost (Aiden parenthetically, as if optional). Her loved one chooses to reply "Audrey!" Audrey is unoffended and still thinks she's beautiful. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

We've had this conversation twice already, but he used his birth name in that message because he was using an account under the name Aiden, which the person he was messaging didn't know him by. Your claim that he was unoffended is based on literally nothing and wouldn't be relevant even if it were verifiable. Additionally, this does not in any way indicate that he wanted to go by his birth name, let alone explicitly show that to be the case. This is not a reliable source for your claim and you know it. Tekrmn (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I know what I know. I didn't know you use two usernames here. Now I do and am sorry your two identities made me repeat myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't use two usernames, I changed my username. Either way this is a discussion we have had three times (twice under this username) now despite the fact that you are making baseless claims. I'm not going to respond to you again unless you vandalize this article again or come up with a reliable source to verify your claims. Tekrmn (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The only user I've talked about this to went by "Derekeaaron1". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If I were reaching out to someone I knew over a decade ago, who I hadn't kept in touch with and certainly hadn't discussed my transition with before, then I could absolutely see myself leading with the name they knew me by as opposed to the name I use now.

The name on his Facebook account (as you can see in that screenshot) is Aiden, not Audrey. Our old pal's razor might conclude that the name he used on his Facebook page—not to mention the name he used on his other regularly utilized (i.e. non-LinkedIn) social media accounts, the name he had told friends to use, and the name he wrote on his gun—carries more weight than the name he led with once in a message to a distant friend who hadn't yet heard the news.

Noting that the person he hadn't spoken to about his transition responded to the first contact in a very long time with the name she most recently knew him by isn't the incontrovertible evidence you seem to think it is. Likewise, if I were less than 14 minutes away from setting in motion the events guaranteed to lead to my imminent death, inserting "um, actually, I go by..." into my final words would not enter my mind.

––––

Your recurring arguments here are:

• he wrote Audrey first in a message to someone who only knew him as that name; therefore, he had no preference for Aiden
• the police announced his legal name, leading most media sources to use that name; therefore, the name he actually used and preferred doesn't matter
• he was a mass murderer; therefore, we should make our editorial decisions with the intent to deny him an accurate accounting of his life, as retribution

Faced with reliable sources and policies/precedent that you disagree with, you've chosen to double down and explicitly endorse righting (what you see as) great wrongs and casting aside NPOV in favor of sticking it to a dead person because "fuck Audrey Hale and the three guns [he] rode in with."

On top of that, you've decided to exclusively refer to someone who virtually all reliable sources now agree was a trans man who used he/him pronouns as a "woman", using she/her pronouns in every single one of your talk page posts and both talk and article edit summaries.

I believe the sum total of all this is what's colloquially referred to as not a good look, and officially referred to as tendentious editing and interactions begging to be brought to AE or ANI. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3061:2C59:7F4:9178 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Very well said. I was leaning towards sticking with MOS:GENDERID before but you've convinced me fully. Loki (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you also Derekeaaron1 and Tekrmn, or a new voice here? (nevermind). In any case, I'm choosing to refer to her as her self-identified best friend continued to in reliable source interviews after learning about "Aiden", as a woman named Audrey. As have "authorities". I've used "he" a few times earlier on this talk page and always in article space, but am convinced some of you (in Wikipedia and the news) are basing your logic on a moral panic, as fallaciously as when it was "cool" to "think of the children" instead. Anyway, I'm trying to comply with Sideswipe9th's preference that I take a break, so I'd appreciate it if you (or your aliases) held up on bashing me further till April 12. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You know, it's quite easy to check my /64 and see who I am? We've interacted repeatedly. Hence the edit summary comment.

Also — weird leap, assuming someone who Aiden hadn't been close to in over a decade was his "best friend", when such phrasing appears absolutely nowhere. Weirder leap, assuming that would even trump the chorus of reliable sources. (I'll also note that you haven't acknowledged your stated intent to push a POV that bad people deserve worse coverage on Wikipedia.)

Pray tell, what moral panic is that you believe in? Apparently you view the proper response to it is to misgender someone, but I can't quite put my finger on what views would prompt such reasoning... 2600:1700:87D3:3460:85C5:CB26:A7AA:3D4A (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I suck at alphanumerics, so will defer to you on who you are (the first digits certainly match). The exact phrase is "most beautiful person I've ever seen and known all my life". It's not a weird leap to count that as a "best friend", "closest confidante" or several other things. "Distant friend" seems weirder to me, and I'd like to know where you gleaned that. That intent of mine is your invention; I could deny it or state my own, but it wouldn't matter, you'd put new words in my mouth. I've argued with people like you before, if not you yourself. Just replace "children" with "transgender" and it's nearly the same. That's not to say the basic rights at the cores are the same (though they can cross over), just the nutty extremes they've led to in such similar arguments. I'm not grooming children, if that's what you're implying, and don't want to protect anyone who is. I just don't think we need to apply a rule designed for a living person to a dead person whose last known expression of identity was "Audrey (Aiden)". Realizing the importance of parentheses, police statements of fact and the last person you tell you love before you shoot up a building isn't something only "the enemy" can do. Granted, I do only have one trans friend and know that saying so makes me sound defensive, but that's statistics for you. Might backfire less to promise you one of my favourite albums is about gender confusion. Or no matter what I say, this goes nowhere. Whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A: "a former middle school basketball teammate"

Aiden was 28, middle school in the US is generally ages 11-13. Over a decade since they were teammates.

B: "They both went on to attend high school at Nashville School of the Arts and kept in contact over the years through Instagram posts and comments, but they didn't talk regularly."

Kept in contact in the way that one does with former friends, but didn't talk regularly, and certainly wasn't close enough to have learned about his new name or pronouns. (I believe that's more likely than "was told about new name and pronouns at a time prior to his final message, but actively chose to deadname and misgender, which Aiden was totally fine with.") If we even assume that they remained just as close through the end of high school, generally age 18, then it's been around a decade since that point.

C: "Hale never talked to Patton about Covenant — in fact, Patton didn't know Hale had attended the school." (ibid)

Not a close enough friend to know much about his past.

D: "Patton told CNN’s Don Lemon she was the shooter’s childhood basketball teammate and “knew her well when we were kids” but hadn’t spoken in years and is unsure why she received the message."

Hadn't spoken in years and didn't know why she was the recipient of that message.

I agree that "most beautiful person I've ever seen and known all my life" is ambiguously worded and could be read as indicating a best friend. Given all the above, I personally think "ever seen and known, in all of my life" is the more likely reading—someone thinking back to people they remember fondly in their life and choosing one to reach out to—but I get the uncertainty. With all of the above, though, I think it'd be wrong to consider them as having still been best friends.

––––

Anyways, I'm not accusing you of believing anything specific, but I'm noting that the terminology ("moral panic") you use to explain why you're continue to misgender someone is terminology (and justification) that has been used by quite a few people who believe that more people identifying as trans is the result of some great conspiracy theory.

You might well abhor everyone who takes that stance, but justifying continued misgendering by accusing those advocating for following reliable sources, policy, and precedent of "basing [their] logic on a moral panic" is bound to raise an eyebrow. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:85C5:CB26:A7AA:3D4A (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for not accusing me of grooming children or believing straight people don't do it more often. I'm not a right-wing kook, in any connotation, but that is what a lot of people I wind up arguing with try to suggest about me. I think keeping in contact through social media is just what "friends these days" do instead of talking or speaking to another. In any case, Hale chose her to confess, suggesting something deeper than the relationship she had with her parents, old offline acquaintances or her former teacher. For what it's worth, I think I'm using the correct pronouns, not misgendering. You mean well. So do I. We'll "talk" again. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A quick search on social media does reveal some people, some who say they knew Hale, expressing various degrees of frustration, anger, and sadness towards the misgendering and misnaming of Hale, both by the Nashville police and in the wider media. This is one of the areas where we can and should do better, regardless of the crimes that Hale may have committed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not "may have". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

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

If he was changing his last name he would have made that clear in his social media posts or name. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Did he actually state that he was still using his last name with Aiden? starship.paint (exalt) 03:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

not to my knowledge, but why would we assume he changed his last name with no evidence??? especially given that we still aren't using his new first name despite there being tons of reliable sources reporting that Aiden was indeed his preferred name. Tekrmn (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying assume he changed his last name, I'm saying don't assume that he didn't change his last name. starship.paint (exalt) 03:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Mononym! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have reverted an undiscussed edit by User:Justanother2 that had changed Aiden to Audrey. Justanother2, please do not make edits like that without achieving consensus or at least discussing, especially if a discussion is already ongoing. Everyone else, please feel free to change back to Audrey if consensus emerges so. Soni (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  You run exactly nothing on here, Soni. You're wrong, continue to be, and do not address me.Justanother2 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Soni is correct. MOS:GENDERID quite clearly applies here, unless there is a consensus that it doesn't. At this time, there is no clear consensus that it does not apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We have at least two reliable sources; KWTX, News.com.au that use the name Aiden Hale in their content. There may be more, though with many American news sites blocking EU (GDPR says hello!) readers I've not been able to exhaustively search for them yet. Additionally the NBC News article on what they call "confusion and disinformation" surrounding Hale's gender identity gives some support to the notion that Hale had changed his forename without changing his surname.

Channelling my Occam, the simplest explanation to me is that Hale changed his forename only, and that in absence of evidence to the contrary it's reasonably safe to assume he went by Aiden Hale. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Refusing to acknowledge reliable sources showing someone changed their first name because "well, what if they changed their last name too?" or "what if they changed it to a mononym?" is moving the goalposts at best and outright trolling at worst. Never mind the various sources that say "Aiden Hale" and not a different last name — what if he pulled a Prince and got rid of his last name? Hell, are we sure he didn't go full Prince and "Aiden" is actually meant to be a unique symbol? We better hold off on making any change until we deal with these important uncertainties.

I mean, come on.

I'm surprised the lone person claiming a lack of clarity on this issue hasn't gone "hey, these sources say Hale used he/him pronouns, but not he/him/his... it's theoretically possible that he used different pronouns for subject and object than for possessive, so maybe we should just undo everything and wait until reliable sources answer that unanswerable question 😇" 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID

I've read the above, and I agree with some parts and disagree with other parts, but the biggest thing I disagree with is the misapplication of MOS:GENDERID. The only salient part of that, IMO is the opening paragraph: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) 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. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. As far as I know the article is using male pronouns. The rest of MOS:GENDERID applies only to living subjects, and is irrelevant (to wit, If a living transgender or non-binary person..., In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person... and In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person... (emphasis added)). And even if the perpetrator were alive, they became known for this event (and their death in it) under their "deadname". Finally, MOS:GENDERID is a Manual of Style Guideline, and in the hierarchy that is WP:CONLEVEL, the application of it is not as black and white as a policy or even a broader guideline would be. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

you quoted that gendered words should reflect their self-identification even if it doesn't match what is used in common sources, and that for living transgender people birth names should be omitted unless notable and then only included in the first mention. yes, the MOS specifies living in regards to birth names, but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to mention his birth name as many times as we can get away with. Tekrmn (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to mention his birth name as many times as we can get away with. That's your interpretation. Our article is following the sources, which use both names reliably. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

At present, the name aspects of GENDERID are founded upon the BLP policy, and so subject to WP:BDP. BDP applies for a 6 month to 2 year (depending on a per-article consensus) after a BLP subject dies, which is part of why our BLP CTOP is for biographies of living and recently deceased persons. The current commonly held practice across many articles involving recent deaths of trans or non-binary individuals is that the name part of GENDERID continues to apply for at least as long as BDP allows, though per-article consensus can extend that indefinitely if deemed necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, with regards to how policies interact with guidelines, as WP:PGE states clearly, there's no community held brightline between how we determine a policy versus guideline. With only a handful of exceptions, like policies that have legal implications, it is not uncommon for policies to clash with other policies, guidelines to clash with other guidelines, and policies and guidelines to clash with each other. There is no overarching hierarchy for determining which policy or guideline takes precedence when it clashes with another. For example, a lot of editors cite WP:NOTCENSORED as a sole reason to include content, yet WP:V contains WP:ONUS which explicitly tells us that consensus can determine that we can exclude verifiable information. How do you reconcile a policy that states that we can include almost anything, with another one that states that by consensus we can decide to exclude it?

As for CONLEVEL, GENDERID has a very, very high CONLEVEL, with its application and practices being defined across many discussions over many venues, including article talk pages, MOS talk pages, policy and guideline talk pages, and various relevant noticeboards throughout the project. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

the name part of GENDERID continues to apply for at least as long as BDP allows You should probably get consensus for that and change MOS:GENDERID to state that. Should be simple if it is, as you claim, a commonly held practice. In the meanwhile, I'll deal with the policies and guidelines as written. Also, with regards to how policies interact with guidelines I'm going to stop you there. You link to WP:PGE, an essay. WP:CONLEVEL is policy. Once which also has the backing of the arbitration committee. You may think there is no brightline, but the community clearly disagrees with you. How do you reconcile a policy that states that we can include almost anything, with another one that states that by consensus we can decide to exclude it? Your question was it's own answer. That's talented. As for CONLEVEL, GENDERID has a very, very high CONLEVEL ... Respectfully, it does not. If it did, it would be similar to WP:NFC, which is an editing guideline, but that has WP:NFCC embedded within it, which is an official policy. You're more than welcome to start an RFC or a discussion at WP:VPR to see about getting MOS:GENDERID enshrined as policy. But in so far as this discussion here, as I stated at the opening, the only relevant portion of MOS:GENDERID to our discussion here is the concerns over pronouns, and this article already uses the correct pronouns. The concerns over "deadnaming" are irrelevant per the current wording of MOS:GENDERID. The perpetrator is not a living person, and the remainder of MOS:GENDERID only deals with living people. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

weapon type should be removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firearms

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

So maybe just get it right. There was no AR-15 involved it was a kel-tec sub2000 and a hand gun. That's it. I mean firstly they don't need to list the weapons at all, just say firearms were involved and be done. Its like when columbine happened they listed the guns used and soon after, Several of the guns they used went from 50 to 100 dollar firearma no one really bought to costing 400 dollars with some manufacturers even making clones briefly in the early to mid 2000s. So don't mention what types to prevent copycats and sickos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Requested move 28 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. The oppose argument to follow NCE is strong, but so is the point that including the year in the title is unnecessary disambiguation. In my experience, such divisive discussion almost always belies underlying conflict in guidance, and usually it's a contradiction between a specific naming convention, and general guidance at WP:AT. As an aside, I will take this opportunity to point out avoiding such messes is exactly why I believe specific naming conventions like WP:NCE should only be relevant when WP:CRITERIA indicates a title that is ambiguous and the topic is not primary for that ambiguous title. In other words, and this is just my opinion, NCE should not even be raised here. Instead, the discussion and debate should be entirely about what the most common name is per usage in reliable sources. I've intentionally avoided figuring out what that is here, and I get the "too soon" argument. But sources are referring to this event, and I'm sure there is a good candidate for most common name. I suspect it's not the current title... There is no moratorium on trying again. There is no guarantee it will garner consensus, but my suggestion is to find the best candidate that meets WP:CRITERIA and especially WP:COMMONNAME, and proposing moving this article there. I also recommend updating NCE. While it currently claims to "complement WP:AT", it immediately contradicts AT with the the assessment that titles for articles about events should usually include when/where/what. Is that the WP:COMMONNAME for most events? I, for one, don't think so. And that contradiction is the root of the conflict here, and at other disagreements about titles of articles about events and incidents. IMHO, NCE should state, in no uncertain terms, that it applies only when the COMMONNAME for an article is ambiguous, and the article's topic is not PRIMARY for that common name. Having a difficult time determining COMMONNAME per CRITERIA is no excuse to fall back onto a specific naming convention like NCE. Do the best you can. It's sure to be better than an unnecessarily disambiguated title specified by NCE. (non-admin closure) --В²C ☎ 06:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC) В²C ☎ 06:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support renaming: Agreed with above. Years/months in front imply it has happened before.

  conman33 (. . .talk) 01:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Giving a title a specific name will help more to learn about which shooting it exactly is. There were probably many more Covenant Shootings and people might get confused by which exact shooting it would be. Besides, the title is perfect the way it is. The 2023 does nothing to the title except give it more info on which exact shooting it is, like I just talked about. GhostOfWiki4 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Due to what Knightoftheswords281 said already Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Precedent"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of those titles originally excluded the years but they were changed without discussion. For example, "2018 Santa Fe High School shooting" was originally just "Santa Fe High School shooting," but user Love of Corey changed it a month ago. Silent-Rains (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So on principle I take issue with your claim that they were changed without discussion. The discussion occurred at WT:NCE and WT:AT. When we have a consensus at a guideline level, we don't need to have discussions repeatedly to enforce that consensus (see WP:LOCALCON). That being said, I didn't know about the recent moves on some of these articles, but the trend in recent RM discussions has been to follow what WP:NCE prescribes, so I understand why it was done. In general mass shooting articles (not just school mass shootings) follow WP:NCE, but for whatever reason, school shooting articles did seem to deviate the most without any good reason (and certainly no discussion at WT:NCE and/or WT:AT to carve out an exception for school shootings). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:19, 1 April 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.

Biden ice cream criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Silent-Rains Make sure you source statements. Cwater1 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1: I think that you might not get a response from your ping, so out of curiosity what source is missing? The reply above yours is the sources that Silent-Rains provided for the quotes above and I provided sources for Snopes, USA Today, and Politico in my ping to FormalDude below. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the sources you provided now. I was reminding someone else that they should cite the statements. Cwater1 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see his response. I just noticed he did add sources. Sorry about that. Cwater1 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. No problem at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Exclude. The "ice cream-gate" is no more than a conservative beatup to attempt to smear Biden. He was speaking at a business forum, where he made a light-hearted comment to the audience. He addressed the shooting with appropriate commentary and demeanour. It has been demonstrated that his ice cream comments were taken out of context.[1] WWGB (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Leaning exclude - I disagree that this would be COATRACK; the president's "poor" joke before speaking about this shooting would be relevant enough for a mention here if sufficient sourcing covered the comments. However, I don't believe it to be established enough in mainstream coverage to warrant a mention, per WP:DUE. All I've really found is Snopes, USA Today, CBS 21. Not enough really. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Political gaffs might be due in an article about the politician but they don't pass the 10 year test for an encyclopedia article about the event. Springee (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Include See my comments below.Derpytoucan (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude This is the place for criticism or praise of the Covenant School shooting, not Joe Biden. He has his own article for that. Besides, the last version removed didn't even say who "criticized" him, and the sketchy source only claimed he "was mocked". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude. Ice cream comment wasn't about the shooting, and he had been just introduced to speak at the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Summit. starship.paint (exalt) 06:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude While I agree that if someone like Trump had said this it would've been most likely included without any debate, the comment itself does absolutely nothing to improve the article or inform the reader about the reactions to the shooting. Saying "I came down because I heard there was chocolate chip ice cream" isn't a reaction and isn't relevant to the subject matter. Rabawar (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude While there was some news coverage about it, it's mostly irrelevant. It was at a business forum that was planned way before the shooting. The criticism was mainly used by conservatives against Joe Biden and lacked proper context. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 01:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe not include it in article. I don't think the criticism is needed. This could be bias, not 100% sure.Cwater1 (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Other coatrack concerns

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

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

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

Pronouns...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is terribly perplexing how we find ourselves in this situation, harming an encyclopedia to satisfy the dreadful delusions of a mass murderer. What progress we have made! Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The source says the shooter was later identified as transgender man. [2]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/28/nashville-school-shooter-identity-transgender Cwater1 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk I've updated the lead section, to prevent confusion for readers. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 18:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to violate NPoV by calling her a man. If she's undergone gender reassignment and had her gender legally changed fair enough, as far as I'm aware she just identified as a man why is everyone falling over themselves not to misgender her, especially considering what she did? Faronnorth (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have stated that whilst born a woman, she identified as male as used he/him pronouns, regardless of whether she legally changed her gender to male or had surgery, the article simply reflects what the sources are saying, as you put it above why is everyone falling over themselves not to misgender her, especially considering what she did, because articles are written from a neutral point of view, not based on editors thoughts or opinions as that wouldn't be neutral, regardless of what she has done, articles are written from a neutral perspective with no bias regardless of who or what the subject of the article is about. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 13:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Baptist News Global article

Here’s an article that delves into the relationship between the school (and its affiliated denomination) with LGBT issues. [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do unproven allegations from blogsites and failed lawsuits meet the threshold of credibility for Wikipedia? 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If reported in reliable sources, than yes (talking about failed lawsuits). For blogs, see WP:SPS. A09 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Background of child abuse in Covenant Church

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

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

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

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

Emotional disorder according to the media.

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

@Dyaz04102003: Just clearing that making bold assumptions/connections on two subjects is considered WP:OR A09 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Long comparison table made with the help of H:COLS

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

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

Definitely seems inspired by the BBC article, but changing a few words is exactly what prevents plagiarism. Just paraphrasing, like Wikipedia does. If, for any reason, we must quote (the woman you call Ms. Friend) and it includes (the pronoun you call Hale), we shouldn't alter her exact words, as relayed by whatever source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what Santoshsendha wants added here, so for now we don't need to do anything unless they respond or someone else finds something that can be added. In any case, if the paraphrasing is not a problem, we still should not use NEP for quotes as they have modified the quotes that the friend said to the BBC. Also, I didn't modify any pronouns; I just excluded Hale's first name since there was plenty of discussion elsewhere regarding names. (I apparently forgot to link to the BBC article which would have made this clearer, so here it is.) That aside, I don't currently think that we should name Hale's friend without a good reason. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Deleted message)

Just have it link to that church. No evidence has been presented that the motive was the Church's stance on same-sex relations, so it would be OR to include. Using "anti-LGBT+" would appear to be a loaded term here. As far as I can tell that label is not used for the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, Islam, or other religions who hold positions that are the same as the one here. If there is some evidence that their stance and actions is closer to say the Westboro Baptist Church, it might be warranted.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that it's a PCA church. But the denomination's, church's, or school's positions are only relevant if they are part of the motive. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is the previous discussion?

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

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

And also Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting/Archive 2. Nothing was lost, I just archived older and/or closed discussions. A09 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Arizona press secretary tweet

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

Meh. She's not a notable person and worked for a very different state, from a rather different city. Most of the attention is from association with a notable governor, who really has no business being stuck with the mess. If you want to keep her name out of it, though, and just focus on the actual idiot, I guess that's cool. Cooler, anyway; still could open the floodgates to all sorts of peripheral quasicelebrity yahoos who catch heat for tweeting something yahooish about this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm more inclined to include the allegedly anti-trans responses, as well as the calls for it to be investigated as a hate crime. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't have to cover just one subject. We do have potential sources for the anti-trans responses that can be used (1, 2, 3) and potential sources for the investigation part. (1, 2, 3) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with SGV, we can cover both. starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  @StAnselm: A separate discussion was created regarding covering the investigation part. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am in support of a sentence briefly covering this. If we don't want to include her name, then that is fine with me. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I am OK with including the press secretary's response, including the press secretary's name, but I agree that the governor's name does not need to be included. starship.paint (exalt) 03:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the governor's, that's who I meant by "her". Name the one shamed. That's the name of the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. That is still fine with me. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, an important member of the Governor's staff had to resign and was covered by multiple sources. Also agree it should be one sentence for brevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs)

That part I understood. Just misunderstood and thought we were going to keep out the name of the resigned press secretary for some reason. (I don't have a strong opinion either way on including or excluding either name.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate\Misleading Addition to Perpetrator Section

I see someone added "People who knew Hale said he had been having a difficult time dealing with the death of a classmate in the summer of 2022. Hale had known the individual since they were in middle school; they were basketball teammates".

This is problematic and misleading. Hale never played men's basketball and there is no dead male classmate. The reality is that one of her women's basketball teammates died (was killed?) back in August or so, and she struggled greatly with it.

The current language misgenders the historical reality. Since I don't want to start an edit war I'm posting this here in the hope consensus will recommend change. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no misgendering. The sentence doesn't say the teammate is a he and never states that Hale was in men's basketball. What exactly is wrong with those sentences? Silverseren^C 04:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I've bolded the original sentence to make it more apparent. Hale is referred to as male then it pivots to 'his' teammate. This is misgendering. Basketball is divided by gender so if Hale is male then 'he' played male basketball and 'his' teammate is also male. This is false. Thus the paragraph ought to say "People who knew Hale said she ..." I'd also recommend tweaking the language to "... they were in middle school and were basketball teammates". The current syntax is a little awkward. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like WWGB already fixed the issue by changing the sentence to "Hale had known her since they were in middle school". Silverseren^C 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reaction Addition

Tennessee has just passed a law so that it is now legal for private schools to contract with local law enforcement so they can hire school resource officers.

It wasn't actually what I was looking for but is likely worth adding to the section.

I seem to vaguely recall reading something about (federal?) Republicans proposing that school resource officers be made available to all schools, public and private, but Democrats blocked it. I can't recall where I saw that and can't see it in my browser history. Am I misremembering, or has someone seen a similar story elsewhere? 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Are any reliable sources connecting the bill and this incident? Was the bill proposed afterwards or has it been going through the state Congress for a while? Silverseren^C 05:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The bill's two proposers connected the two two days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Federal business here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

So we'll presumably be seeing reliable source coverage of the bill sometime soon, if the news hasn't reported on it already. Since we shouldn't be using a primary source like that for inclusion of the information. Silverseren^C 16:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's in the news, too, had to add an extra word to find the press release. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The new law's in the news, I mean, I know nothing of the story the OP seems to vaguely recall. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it might fit better in Aftermath than Reactions. It's still words. But they're in effect, like an action. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Support with rewording. A09 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's way too late and beyond our power to reword the bill, and there's no related edit (real or proposed) to finesse. It'll have to be worded at all first. I nominate you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Sorry, I don't think I'm qualified enough to write articles or parts of articles that I don't have much knowledge of. Again, sorry, but you can file in edit request with "change X to Y" format :) Sincerely, A09 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made a request to add this, this is the first time I've ever made a protected edit-request so sorry about screwing up the format. You can find it below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting#SAFE_Act Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think having a sentence or two would be fine. If you want a second source for it, I came across the AP's article that mentions the bill and the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, one fine sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are two sentences. I'd go ahead and add these myself but I'm still 100 edits away from extended-confirmed. In response, Governor Bill Lee has signed a law allowing private schools to contract with local law enforcement to hire school resource officers. The law, which goes into effect immediately, does not require private schools to hire such officers but clears the path for them to do so. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing information

According to The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/nashville-school-shooting-manifesto-audrey-hale-b2310865.html

Hale had been able to legally purchase seven firearms – despite receiving mental health treatment at the time. In a press conference, Chief Drake said that Hale was under care “for an emotional disorder” and that her family “felt that she should not own weapons”. The police chief said that Hale’s parents were aware the suspect had purchased one firearm, but believed it had since been sold. In reality, the 28-year-old had legally purchased seven firearms and hid them around the family home. Three of those firearms – two assault rifles and a handgun – were used in Monday’s shooting. Even if Hale’s parents had been aware of the stash of weapons and contacted law enforcement, there is no red flag law in Tennessee that could have been used to take away the firearms.

Hale had “looked at” carrying out attacks on two other schools, both of which were public. But he said that Hale appears to gave decided that “the security was too great to do what she wanted to do” and so “she chose a private Christian school, for, probably the reason is that the security is a whole lot less”. Nashville Police Chief John Drake said on Tuesday that investigators “strongly believe” Hale was planning to carry out other attacks including at a local mall and targeting family members. “We strongly believe there was going to be some other targets, including maybe family members, and one of the malls here in Nashville,” the police chief said. “And that just did not happen.” He said that some maps “pertaining to maybe some thinking about some other incidents” had been discovered during a search of the shooter’s family home, along with other weapons. The Covenant School was believed to have been singled out for an attack because it had a lower level of security – with no school resource officer – than other locations.

Sadly this article seems to be locked (?) and I can't edit it. I think the above information should be worked into the article. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is just WP:BLUELOCKED as there was some vandalism earlier this week. In any case, can you mention specifically what parts are missing from the article? I can see that some of this is covered in the article, such as the line about the seven firearms. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, you can now edit the article again, Nordostsüdwest. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit extended-protected Request (5)

• What I think should be changed (addition to Reactions):

SAFE Act

The Securing Aid for Every (SAFE) School Act is a proposed legislation in the United States Senate, introduced by Senators Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty. If passed, the Act would make available a $900 million grant program for public and private schools to train and hire veterans and former law enforcement officers as school security officers.

• Why it should be changed: This has been suggested on the talk page and has received significant coverage.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):"U.S. Senators Blackburn and Hagerty introduce SAFE act, $900M for school safety | WTVC". Retrieved 2023-04-02.

Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: This reads too much like a political advertisement. I would advise rewriting, ideally making the suggested addition shorter to focus on the facts of the matter, not the intentions and values of the lawmakers. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I dropped the last sentence. Any other suggestions? Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, look at the last line of Aftermath. It already passed. I don't think it makes sense to single (double?) out its proposers, since Tennessee as a whole is now on board, but some detail is probably missing and warranted. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe there might be two different "things" here. One is a local law that has passed, the other is a bill that might have been introduced to the house. In any case, I'll do some research and add it myself at some point if someone else doesn't since I've reached ext-confirmed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I read (past tense) poorly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Listed as a Hate Crime

Shouldn’t this be labeled as a Hate Crime? KeysNC (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Until such time a large swathe of WP:RS report on this, no, not really. The FBI still hasn't released the manifesto, and we don't know when they will. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It can only be so if the motive is released and RS begin referring to this as a hate crime. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the calls for it to be investigated as a hate crime by congressional republicans be put into the article? Foward123456 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I just created a new section discussing the possibility of adding congressional republican calls for the shooting to be investigated as a hate crime. Mainstream and reputable sources have published articles on this. Thoughts? Foward123456 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree that republicans are inquiring about this as a hate crime. It’s widely published and the important for the reader to understand all aspects of the reaction. I’d say to put it in the reaction section only. 47.200.110.84 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Add Congressional Republican's demand for Hate Crime investigation to Reactions?

Some congressional republicans have called for a hate crime investigation into the shooting. Multiple main stream media sources (NBC, Axios, the hill, Yahoo news, Fox News) have released articles about this so it seems like this should be put into the article. Foward123456 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No. We are not the news. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense. Members of congress requesting a specific type of investigation, requests that are widely covered by mainstream sources is something exactly in line with wiki standards. What did you mean by "we are not the news." Foward123456 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They are most likely referring to WP:RECENT. A small number of GOP representatives asking to designate or investigate the shooting as a hate crime is interesting as a current event, but its long-term impact is unclear. It may become more relevant long-term when the shooter's motives are made public, if there are more representatives pushing that designation. EatTrainCode (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent although, adding this is some what aided by police statements that the shooting may have been ideologically motivated. Certainly something to watch for, especially if a large number of members of congress sign on to some sort of letter to the justice department, which can often happen in these cases. I will say information related to the discussion of this shooting as a hate crime seems to be relevant to the article. This will also likely be resolved when details of the manifesto are released. I would still argue that hate crime speculation should be added to this article as it has been widely propagated by political figures on the right, and also factors into discussion about an anti-lgbtq backlash. Foward123456 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Now THAT is hilarious. 109.93.177.159 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hoax calls

Until recently, there was a line in the Reactions section which read "A two-day string of hoax calls was made about active school shooters in six states." It had an issue that the source used did not mention all six states, so I moved the source and was planning to fix the issue when I could. Unfortunately, I botched my edit a bit and the sentence was removed in the next edit. I think that the sentence could be restored, but I am unsure of all of the states that were impacted. The Washington Post source in the article mentions Pennsylvania and New Jersey and I found a source for Massachusetts and Utah. (And apparently Wyoming, but that was this week.) Does anyone know the other missing states? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hoaxes occur after many major crimes and events. I don't think they are particularly significant or notable. Mentioning every state where a hoax happened is even less useful. WWGB (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, but I wasn't saying to mention every state in the text. I was just trying to figure out what the other two states were, assuming that there was six in total. If there wasn't six, then the sentence would need to say, "A two-day string of hoax calls was made about active school shooters in six four states." In any case, if you think that it is not notable, then it can be dropped. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

These are the six I saw. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request(?): Error in Perpetrator section

The section includes the sentence "It is said to not be rare for trans and non-gender conforming people to selectively reveal their sexual orientation; a 2023 survey revealed over 10% never share this aspect of their lives." — this is incorrect/confused, the source states that 10% of trans/GNC people have not shared the fact that they are trans — gender identity/trans status is separate from sexual orientation. It should instead read that "…trans and non-gender conforming people to selectively reveal their gender identity…", or, preferably — staying accurate to the source — "…selectively reveal that they are trans…".

In fact, that entire sentence is, quite frankly, distorted out of recognition. “It is said”? (By whom?) “not be rare”? (Orwell is spinning in his grave) “non-gender conforming”? (The normative phrase is "gender-nonconforming" as WikiPedia itself attests)

I understand that wikiPedia must be careful not to copy sentences verbatim but this is taking it quite a bit too far I think!

Thank you, that is all. 99.146.242.37 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I updated the sentence to address these concerns. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this sentence, about impersonalized statistics, is relevant in a section about this person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, the sentence is trying to address potential confusion from the line, Six other associates do not recall talk about gender identity. I do get the point that the line is still a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we included the thing about the six associates or the statistic about trans people who aren't out- I get the impression these were added to discredit his gender identity and not to address potential confusion, which is made clear where it's acknowledged that police have identified him as a woman and under his birth name (and in the pronouns and names used in sources, even if they admit that he used he/him pronouns and the name Aiden). is there a consensus that the mention of the six associates and the statistic are notable in this article? Tekrmn (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of the six associates bit does not appear to have been discussed, so it's inclusion right now is per an implicit consensus. Removing it and the subsequent sentence, pending an explicit consensus for inclusion seems like a reasonable thing to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've changed "revealed" to "suggests", "over 10%" to "12%" and the bit about this not being rare to nothing (because any 12% occurrence is pretty uncommon). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Statements lacking balance

The article includes a "former art teacher and a former classmate recalled him coming out as transgender" yet the sourced statement "six other associates did not recall him discussing his gender identity" has been removed. This seems like the removal of balance, and a disputed assertion has been made to seem unrefuted. The claim by the other six should be restored. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The "dispute" is over whether Aiden should be prioritized above Audrey in naming the shooter.

There is no dispute over whether or not he came out as trans to some of the people in his life. As any trans person including myself could tell you, it's exceedingly rare for someone to have come out to everybody in their life early on in their transition.

It is pure WP:FALSEBALANCE to claim that it's necessary to add "but some people weren't told!" after that statement. Not only that, it's clearly a tendentious insertion with the intent to discredit the fact that he was trans. (I certainly don't believe anyone who's still using she/her pronouns on every single talk page entry here is approaching this with a NPOV.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor here. There's no balance issue at play here, and as far as I can tell despite the earlier reporting Hale was a woman no-one is actually disputing that he was trans. There are a multitude of reasons why he may not have discussed it with those six people, none of which are really encyclopaedic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

it was brought to the talk page before it was removed. people not recalling something is not relevant information- none of those six unnamed people even claimed he didn't come out as transgender. Tekrmn (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous

12% of non conforming have I’d their gender!?! Why is it even on here? 47.200.110.84 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't still take Wikipedia seriously, do you? I like to come here when they make articles about ongoing or recent events and just read the Talk pages for laughs. American politics and the Ukraine War are currently my favorite topics for pure gold. I then make memes about it with friends, I find it refreshing. Wikipedia ain't good for much else these days. 109.93.177.159 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s insane. They’re a joke. Why would that factoid be in an article about the shooter. Oh. Don’t forget a definition of recession! 47.200.110.84 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is place that talks about events. I get confused on what pronouns to use. Cwater1 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended

Could extended protection be applied? Justanother2 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justanother2: Please see WP:RFPP for requesting page protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there has already been an accepted RFPP request. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Good thinking though @Justanother2 Cwater1 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Add videos

Should be the links for the videos from the body cams be posted onto Wikipedia? It was posted on the article for the Killing of Tyre Nichols. The policy on Wikipedia is not censored refers to how Wikipedia can show anything. Cwater1 (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there an encyclopaedic reason why we would want to include it? WP:NOTCENSORED allows us to include content that some readers might find questionable or objectionable, but at the same time it is tempered by WP:GRATUITOUS. To put it another way, just because we can include something like this, doesn't mean we must include it. What informative content would inclusion of links to the footage give us, that we don't already have from the article's text and linked sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to overboard with the anything can be shown. It was just an idea. The article does explain it well. Wait a minute, I found a link below the infobox. I did not notice that until I looked at the article again. If I had notice it, then I wouldn't had added this topic but it's too late. Sorry about that. Under the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, removing my message isn't allowed. Cwater1 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including the CCTV link below the infobox. But I'd note that the videos were a key part of the story of the killing of Tyre Nichols and are discussed extensively in that article. That is not the case here, so these articles are not particularly comparable in terms of what we should do. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also remember that since the videos are not work of the federal government, they are not in the public domain and thus we'd need a fair-use justification specific to them for inclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

True, it was just an idea I had. Good thing I brought it up in the talk page. Good idea to bring things up in talk page before adding in article. Cwater1 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly also a suicide by cop

A note was found in the bedroom of the perpetrator that says it could have also been a suicide by cop [4] I think something should be put on the page to reflect it could have been a suicide by cop Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The source says nothing about "suicide by cop". It just says a suicide note was found. Maybe she intended to swallow the barrel but the cops beat her to it. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The perpetrator's intentions withstanding, what occurred is textbook suicide by cop. However, the media doesn't frequently use this terminology, and some of the wikipage examples' citations don't include "suicide by cop" in their sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree although it is something that should be talked about more because this is one of those things that fits in but because people don't really talk about it and it isn't really known or used in the media and the fact that there isn't really proof until the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit is done and might be able to shed some light on whether it should be classified as a suicide by cop or not. Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

links that dont operate

some of the links lead to blank pages 71.223.84.215 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Which ones? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Npov addition

The perpetrator section has "but six other associates did not recall discussions of gender identity from him"

A sentence should follow "NBC News noted it is common for trans and gender non-conforming people to selectively come out; or as a 2023 survey found, over 10% never share that information."

It's in the same reference. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:517C:35D4:591F:79A8 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in a discussion above called Error in Perpetrator section. It might be better to suggest it there. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Video for the article Covenant School Active Shooter Case--MNPD Body Camera Footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue2tZa4hT0c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.252.45 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

blank links

any way to fix the links? 71.223.94.49 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale

See also: § Deadname

An editor has repeatedly sought to remove the birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, of the perpetrator.[5][6]. Please discuss. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS I asked WWGB to revert their restoration, which they refused to do. Again per ONUS, I have removed the content again from the infobox. As ONUS quite clearly states the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, editors seeking to include this content should state their reasons why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The name has been there since the article was created and at this point onus should be on those wanting exclusion. The inclusion is DUE bases on its use by sources. Please self revert to stop this edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Are we just gonna throw MOS:DEADNAME out of the window now? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME does not apply. The person is not living. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What kind of logic is this? Brianna Ghey was murdered, yet we don't post her deadname in her article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said above at #Deadname, it's clear that MOS:GENDERID needs to be changed to reflect what editors seem to think it says but doesn't. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean what it should say? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It can apply to dead people given that the basis of it is BLP (cf WP:BDP) but in this case the person was first notable by his deadname. We include deadnames in such cases EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're using the second clause of GENDERID, for a trans person whose name was notable pretransition (which is very arguable in this circumstance), the guideline still states (as well as the commonly used practice of it) that we should only include the deadname once, in the article lead. Including it elsewhere, like in the infobox and article body is still disallowed per it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this and have reverted back to the status quo. If Sideswipe9th wants to remove the birth name, they should get consensus to do that. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The policy language says, 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. Emphasis added. This killer is dead, and therefore the policy language does not apply. Plus, the "deadname" of this indisputably dead person was the name by which they first became infamous. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The point on the deadname of the deceased being the name by which they became infamous, so the second criteria of the deadname guidance applies is arguable. While it is true that Hales deadname was widely disseminated by the Nashville police and press, he had already transitioned at that point at which he killed his victims. Though unconventional, it is the case that until Hale had carried out this shooting, he was not a notable person, and his notability comes from the shooting.

As for the guidance not applying because it only applies to the living, the guidance itself is to treat pretransition names as a BLP privacy concern, and per WP:BDP such concerns are still valid for 6 months to 2 years post death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you please point out what part of WP:ONUS states that the onus on exclusion of content is the responsibility of those who are seeking to exclude it? Because it actually states the opposite as I quoted in my initial reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)