Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Naming the suspect[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus in favor of naming the suspect, per WP:WELLKNOWN, etc. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the suspect be named in this article now that there is an arrest warrant with murder charges out for him? Corgi Stays (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - We've got four or five different talk page discussions going on about this matter, so I created this RfC to set the record straight and put it up for an official consensus vote. Corgi Stays (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTVOTE - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The suspect has been named in several publications. The subject in question here has lost anonymity and is thoroughly connected with these shootings, but has not lost the presumption of innocence. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but not because there's an arrest warrant, because the public figure threshold exception to WP:SUSPECT has been met. Also, as a practical matter, if the named person's identity had been mistaken, there's been sufficient time and opportunity for him to come forward and say so. Sandizer (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per WP:BLPCRIME/SUSPECT - A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Not convicted, nor even arrested. Not a public figure under LPI. Naming the person can imply that they are the culprit and are guilty of a crime. Per NOTPUBLICFIGURE, Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care [...] which is what we should be doing to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per widely reported in reliable sources. We can use in text attribution - (his name) was identified by law-enforcement as a suspect, and an arrest warrant was issued for him, citing eight counts of murder. He is now WP:WELLKNOWN, because of this event, and we have a multitude of reliable published sources, and this allegation and/or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and very well documented. It's hard to argue that he is still relatively unknown at this point, when he has been identified by law-enforcement, is the subject of a manhunt, and numerous high-quality sources are reporting on this. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The individual has been named in global media(like BBC) so he meets WP:WELLKNOWN. We can include a specific statement (as the media often does) that an arrest warrant is not a determination of guilt. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as widely reported, an arrest warrant (that alone should end the prohibition on his name not publicized), regardless of whether he is subsequently tried (maybe he dies before--then what does Wiki do), and convicted or not, and his conviction could be over-turned on appeal. What does Wiki do then, wipe out all the detail on him associated with the crime? There SHOULD be some type of line not yet listed, where an ACCUSED (how about an 'accused' line?) could be added for those merely accused, with it updated to 'assailant' as listed there now? SOME type of compromise MUST be done to stop this constant bickering every time someone who is not a well-known person is ACCUSED of some heinous crime! Otherwise, Wiki editors are doomed to repeat this discussion talk (and pic of him published or not) again, and again and again, ad infinitum! MondayMonday1966 (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, most reputible sources talking about the shooting are using the name and law enforcement has named him as a suspect and has issued an arrest warrant. While I understand the concern that one is presumed inncocent until proven guilty, adding this line alleviates any assumptions of guilt while still providing information (the name of the suspect) and adds to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The omission of his name here when he is a wanted suspect, discussed and described in minute detail by multiple reliable sources, is a very narrow reading of WP:SUSPECT. This guideline says we "must seriously consider not including material...that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime..." The threshold has been met; we've seriously considered not including his name, but at this point -- when the manhunt for one specific person is very much part of the event -- it is unsupportable to continue to censor his name. Avoiding the suspect's name is also inconsistent with articles on other high-profile but not-yet-adjudicated US murder cases, such as 2022 University of Idaho killings. Care should certainly be taken, as is standard Wikipedia procedure, to neutrally describe the manhunt/arrest warrant for him without "suggesting he has committed the crime." But avoiding using his name full stop at this point is frankly absurd. Moncrief (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The suspect is now WP:WELLKNOWN (though not under WP:LPI, which I misread), and there is nothing we can do to protect the innocent at this point. Wikipedia is not a news source, and the number of people who rely on us as their primary, let alone sole source of news is extremely small. In the absence of exculpatory evidence (to use the legal term), we’re going on a moral crusade for nothing. And I mean nothing. Esszet (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Multiple reliable sources described the subject in detail. The article should of course be written from a neutral perspective, but it is common sense to include his name if it is described in reliable sources. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport: Suspect is well known. Attempting to keep their name private is futile, as their name is currently being blasted all over the news and is already present in the article's reference section. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:BLPCRIME does not contain any prohibition whatsoever on naming the suspect, it just says that editors should consider not doing it. At this point, where the suspect has been charged with the crime, and his name has been plastered across the headlines of every newspaper in the country, it's hard to consider the omission to be anything other than virtue signaling. Of course we should be careful not to accuse him in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "State Police said that they have issued arrest warrants for murder for ██████ ████.") --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, Support, as I see way more articles naming him than not naming him. Though, like everyone else here says, we need to be very careful to not accuse him of the crime in Wikivoice. Luigi7255 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if there were any recent media reports that aren't naming him. Moncrief (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as arrest warrants have been issued. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (invited by the bot) Of course, limit it to what is solidly widely published. No slip-ups, over abbreviations etc. that imply that he is more than a suspect. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds of WP:SUSPECT. I also don't believe that reporting on the suspect's name alone is enough to turn them into a "public figure." If the individual comes out on social media, in an interview, or releases some other form of confession or motive, that would change my mind; however, reporting on the name alone doesn't overcome any of the issues posed in SUSPECT. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We always turn to reliable sources to determine if a person meets the threshold of being identified as a public figure, that threshold has overwhelmingly been met here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Luigi7255, Fuzheado, LegalSmeagolian, Yanping Nora Soong, ClydeFranklin, Acroterion, and Marmorda: they were in previous discussions - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never got your ping, so pinging them again in case they didn't either: @Luigi7255, Fuzheado, LegalSmeagolian, Yanping Nora Soong, Acroterion, and Marmorda: sorry if this double-pings you. Clyde [trout needed] 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Named in multiple reliable sources. WP:SUSPECT encourages strongly considering not including content that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.; it doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Clyde [trout needed] 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The original reticence to name the suspect is understandable and justifiable, but we are now far beyond that stage. This is now a ridiculous failure to interpret BLP properly. His name should be added. BLP is now satisfied. We can, using attribution, framing, quotes, and myriad RS add his name. We should make it clear that he is the suspect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is now a ridiculous failure to interpret BLP properly."
    I disagree, it's a success in following consensus, which was established early on. Consensus now appears to be changing, and this RfC formalizes it, but one single person should not be allowed to deviate from the establishment. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the subject's name is very widely reported across all new sites and is WP:WELLKNOWN. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, would also support a quick close to this RFC as it seems over the top to do an RFC for something that isn't even prescribed by WP:BLPCRIME, just suggested. If no one else does it sooner, I'll request a closure in 48 hours. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I'm hoping we won't have to wait that long for this to close. Having this in limbo is really hindering the ability to keep this article relevant and current. Moncrief (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Having this in limbo is really hindering the ability to keep this article relevant and current."
No editors have followed the convention of avoiding articles that name names already, so the amount of work to my understanding is just replacing the suspect's name with the word suspect. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would say this would be a good WP:SNOW close. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Because the suspect is now well known by global media, and so not mentioning his name would be redundant to protecting reputation. We can clarify that he is not legally guilty. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my whatever) - 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The suspect has been named everywhere in the media and from police sources, yet Wikipedia censor his name. They even found a suicide note in guys house. 86.6.163.32 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is because WP:DENY. He won’t be mentioned by name because that is apparently the motive of the attack, despite basically every reliable source mentioning him as the accused. 2605:8D80:407:37F9:50EC:53DB:4928:5437 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY is an essay specifically about on-wiki behavior. It is not a policy nor does it have anything to do with real-world events. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed above. Wikipedia has strict policies for writing about living people, see WP:BLPCRIME, and others which the community is evaluating. These policies protect you, too, in the event people write about you. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME is very specifically NOT strict. It doesn't contain any prescriptive language, just that editors should "consider" not naming names. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to refer to just BLP. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer a source that the note found was a suicide note, or withdraw the claim; CNN only says a note was found without specifying the contents. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per ABC, apparently a suicide note to the suspect's son. [1] ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Police are speculating that it might be a suicide note." (That's attribution and myriad RS can be appended to some variation of that sentence.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Victims' names[edit]

NO CHANGE
Our rule at WP:NHC asks closers to decide which view "has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". In closing this discussion, I have disregarded contributions by User:Jim 2 Michael, because he isn't a responsible Wikipedian, and I have understood contributions by Mandruss and Ad Orientem to mean "remove". This leaves me with no consensus. This is a content decision, so when we have no consensus, the rule at WP:ONUS says the disputed content is left out of the article. It's already been removed. Therefore the outcome is not to change the article.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The victims' names add nothing of use to the 99% of readers who didn't know them. We should be selective regarding what we include. We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims. Those were repeatedly added to Robb Elementary School shooting, which included their hobbies, favorite foods & aspirations for the future. It's very inconsistent that names are included on many mass shooting articles, but rarely on articles about bombings. Even in regard to mass shootings, names are typically included if it happened in the US, but not if it happened in Mexico, Nigeria or Pakistan. No policy or guideline says to include victims' names. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of this, Wikipedia editors are disproportionately American, so they are more likely to 1) know the names of American victims and 2) less likely to read Mexican/Nigerian/Pakistani media to learn the namesof such victims. We're only as good as our editors and what they decide to add.
A consistent policy would be helpful here. Columbine High School massacre lists victims. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt (m)any of those who add victims' names to US shootings edit articles about shootings (or other mass casualty events) in other countries, which is the main reason that no-one wants victims' names on Bahawalpur church shooting or Salamanca nightclub shooting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, it's standard procedure for articles like this to include the victims if there is reliable sourcing to do so. There doesn't need to be a prescription that we do so, we just need to follow our sources which invariably do. See also WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and this RFC closure. Regardless, please stop removing victims and being disruptive when you know that for 90% of our articles of similar events we name the victims. We'll be following WP:NPOV and or WP:RS here. Thank you very much. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not disruptive. Different discussions have reached different results, mostly due to who is in the discussion, which depends where the attack took place. Over 90% can only apply when the definition of similar events is limited to articles about US mass/spree shootings. It's very inconsistent that for most such events outside the US, victims' names aren't included. That's true even regarding those in other developed countries, including the Dunblane massacre, Erfurt school massacre, 2008 Akihabara massacre & 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is over there. And yes, it's textbook WP:TE to repeatedly edit against consensus like you have because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Again, we will follow WP:NPOV and what our WP:RS state, not what you like or dislike. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the names once is far from tendentious. There's no consensus to include victims' names in this article. In many others there is; in many others there isn't. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus to include victims' names in this article. There's no consensus only if you refuse to acknowledge the results of the last RFC. That's tendentious. Editing against established consensus is tendentious. Point of view pushing is tendentious. You've had your chance to argue this, you lost, and now you're attempting to continue to re-litigate this again and again. That's tendentious. [C]onsensus has changed, as per the RFC closure. Move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the RfC for this article where there is consensus to include the victim's names, because a RfC at another article does not apply to this article. And just for the record, I do not support including the victims names here. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because a RfC at another article does not apply to this article It's linked above. I do not support including the victims names here I don't care. WP:NOTVOTE. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, that RfC does not apply to this article. Furthermore, editors can discuss here on this talk page about including the victims names in this article, and so far, I'm not seeing a clear cut consensus in this discussion to include them. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, that RfC does not apply to this article. You can say that as much as you want, but that's not what the closer said in that RFC. I see a clear consensus from the community involved in that RFC that victims are relevant to events such as this. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to start another RFC. So far, you and Jim are basing your opposition on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and nothing WP:PAG-based. We won't be flipping the table on WP:NPOV just because you don't think the victims matter but our sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the RfC from the other article does not directly or indirectly apply to this article. The closer noted pretty explicitly that there was not sufficient participation to change written policy, and that at best it was evidence that consensus might have changed. In absence of a project wide discussion at one of the village pumps, the current project wide conensus is best represented by the May/July 2018 RfC, that NOTMEMORIAL applies.
However, even if you wish to apply the close from the 2021 Oxford High School RfC, that close pretty clearly notes that Importantly, [the names] should not be as a bare list, and editors should take care to ensure that names are used in an encyclopedic way. That is not the case here, where the names of the deceased appear as two bare lists. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to strike that last sentence. I did not say that, or imply that, and is an extremely gross mischaracterization of my comment, and I don't appreciate the insult one bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that we're saying that the victims are irrelevant & don't matter is clear strawmanning. You know that we're saying that the names aren't relevant to the article, which is very different. (Personal attack removed) Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not jumping into the content issue. I'm well-known for being anti-naming in years of prior discussions, but I'm now semi-retired and this is one of the things I try to avoid. I'm tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, ad nauseam. There have been multiple attempts to reach a community consensus on this issue, and the community has always said that we have to re-debate it at each article. I strongly disagree, but so be it. A consensus at one article or even many articles has no bearing on this article.
If "Oppose per years of prior arguments" would count for anything, I'd do that. I doubt it would; whether it should is debatable.
That said, I will chime in as to process. The names should be removed pending consensus to include them. That should go without saying. We once had a situation where the names were allowed to remain in the article for over a month while discussion was underway, and the closer said that represented a de facto consensus! That should not be allowed to happen again. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So as I see it, there's three interrelated policy reasons for why the current form of the victim list is an issue. NOTEVERYTHING, NOTTRIVIA, and NOTMEMORIAL.
Presently the victims appear in two unformatted lists, grouped by the location where they died. Aside from the location and their names, the only other information we provide is their respective ages. When looking at this dispassionately, this is pure trivia. It doesn't tell us anything about how they died, whether they were targeted by the shooter, or died protecting others who were present, or whether it was pure random happenstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Accordingly there's no encyclopaedic content there, and this is I'm afraid akin to a memorial section.
Per ONUS, I'll be removing the victim list as there is no clear consensus for inclusion. Note I'm not opposed in principle to including the names of the victims in some other form, if they can be included in a way that satisfies the policies I've linked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTMEMORIAL doesn’t apply. It is not a standalone article. I would argue the victims of an internationally reported event fall under the Notability Standards. I may be called biased as I knew 2 of the victims but I think it falls under painting a clean picture of the event. Especially with the current layout only listing an age range and that not necessarily being sufficient in the future if this is sourced. Saying an age range could be 12 14 year olds which could cause assumption of the reader to dictate the truth of no other research is done. A proper list allows for a better representation of the facts and context of the event. Izmeizme (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: I am very confused why you think NOTMEMORIAL would apply. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this isn't a standalone article. Per NOTMEMORIAL: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. That's mainly it. This is an article about the shooting, not an article about the victims. Trying to claim that naming the victims makes it a "memorial section" is baffling and implying that NOTMEMORIAL would somehow apply doesn't make sense. NOTMEMORIAL is useful for AFD, but not for censoring the names of victims. Please see WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Locke Cole's NOTNOTMEMORIAL essay, I believe the WP:VL essay is far more representative of the current project wide community consensus on this point, and certainly more in keeping with policy and guideline interpretations. VL has certainly been linked to in more article dicsussions than NOTNOTMEMORIAL.
As I mentioned above, the current project wide consensus is still the May/June 2018 on victim lists in mass tragedy articles. That RfC found no consensus for a change to NOTMEMORIAL to allow for victim lists in a bare list format to be added to articles. This is reinforced by the close of the December 2021 RfC on the 2021 Oxford High School shooting, which said that despite the RfC being a strong indiciator that consensus had changed, there was not sufficient participation to change written policy. That RfC closed with a recommendation a further wider discussion on the form of NOTMEMORIAL should take place, though to date it has not. As such, the long standing interpretation from 2018 still holds consensus, and that will continue to be the case until a discussion/RfC is held at one of the village pumps or the talk page for WP:NOT that is closed with a consensus to change the text and interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL.
Also please don't misconstrue my opinion here as advocating for censoring the names of the victims. I've already said I have no objection to including the names of the deceased, if it can be done in a way that is complaint with the policy points I have mentioned. The easiest way for this to be done would be to turn the list into prose, and include details about how and why those victims died. Were they targetted by the shooter? Did they die trying to protect or shield others? Or were they just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Simply listing the names in the form Location Name: Victim name, victim age, that I removed pending a conensus for inclusion, does not encyclopaedic content make. Alternatively editors could seek to change the text of NOTMEMORIAL either at WP:VPP or WT:NOT to allow for bare victim lists to appear in articles. Though I would be inclined to oppose such changes to the policy, if there was consensus for it to be changed in a manner that allows a list such as the one I removed yesterday, I would naturally follow it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th:There is no project-wide consensus or caveat not to include victim names in list form. In fact, that is done in most articles where there is consensus to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
VL has certainly been linked to in more article dicsussions than NOTNOTMEMORIAL. - Yes, I would agree that an essay from 15 years ago would have more links to it than an essay from just over a year ago. It still falsely claims that NOTMEMORIAL applies to sections within an article. (Presumably, this is because the wording of NOTMEMORIAL used to be Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.)
That RfC found no consensus for a change to NOTMEMORIAL to allow for victim lists in a bare list format to be added to articles. I believe you are misunderstanding that RfC then. The RfC closed as Consensus does not exist for any change to WP:NOTMEMORIAL at this time with no automatic rejection or approval. Therefore, the wording of NOTMEMORIAL is the same as it was and applies only to standalone articles. Neither the 2018 nor the 2021 RfC changed the wording. It was not expanded nor condensed and is being misapplied again.
I agree that it should be written in prose if possible. But again, the rest implies that NOTMEMORIAL applies to sections when it does not. To me, it feels like we are trying to suppress the victims names with some objection to their inclusion. Only those that are not victims can be named in the article. (Yes, I know NNC exists. I am not implying that we only leave the shooter's name in the article. It is just frustrating that we can name anyone tied to the article that isn't a victim, but naming a victim automatically makes it a memorial regardless of content. That's how it feels to me.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing an active attempt to suppress victim's names here. A list without context to the event doesn't seem to merit inclusion, but if, as discusssed above, there are RSs discussing relevant noteworthy actions of victims, that would be worthy of inclusion. Crescent77 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First comment in this discussion: The victims' names add nothing of use to the 99% of readers who didn't know them. We should be selective regarding what we include. We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims. [...] Even in regard to mass shootings, names are typically included if it happened in the US, but not if it happened in Mexico, Nigeria or Pakistan. No policy or guideline says to include victims' names.
The main problem with that is that the proposer is complaining that content was added that they felt did not belong on the article and was later removed. Despite being removed, the proposer does not want the victims listed to prevent any detail from appearing in the article that is not tied to the event, based on the "We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims" part of their comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite the stretch to suggest that the statements "add nothing of use" and "don't want...mini-bios" is a suppression of names.
The question here is whether or not the inclusion of names adds any encyclopedic value. Crescent77 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is this about my line above that says To me, it feels like we are trying to suppress the victims names with some objection to their inclusion? If so, the "To me" part implies it is my opinion.
In any case, this whole discussion has been about including or excluding the names. I mentioned below my thoughts on the encyclopedic part as I believe that exclusion means that the section is not fully comprehensive and that the section itself barely summarizes anything. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my point is I just don't see how a summary would need include a full list of names. To me, that seems to go directly against what a summary is. Crescent77 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's flip this for a second: why do we name the shooter and various other people who weren't directly involved in this event? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think we should not name the shooter? Crescent77 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a rhetorical question, but your response kinda points to the answer. It is obvious that we should name the person most involved with the event. To myself, we are intentionally naming everyone in the article *except* the victims. But why? Why are we forbidden to name the victims, but we can name a public officials and a spokesperson who were all not present at the scene? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't see anyone saying you are "forbidden to name the victims". The issue is with presenting a context-less list of names that has all the appearances of a memorial.
As I indicated above, which you seem not to have addressed, is that RSs merit the inclusion of Walker, at the least. If there are relevant reasons to include other victims' names in the narrative, please do so. Crescent77 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am saying that is because only the victims names are being considered to be prohibited on the article. It is okay to name the perpetrator, the Governor, the safety commissioner, and the army spokesperson without issue. Just the victims themselves must be unnamed. In any case, a memorial to me would be the stuff that was mentioned at the beginning of the discussion; the "hobbies, favorite foods & aspirations" part of the original comment. Naming a group of people who were victims just doesn't feel like a memorial to me. We are not paying tribute to them nor are we celebrating their lives in any form. We are just mentioning that they died in the event.
I am not sure which Walker you are referring to, but I did address the RS part. I said at the time, The main problem with that is that the proposer is complaining that content was added that they felt did not belong on the article and was later removed. Despite being removed, the proposer does not want the victims listed to prevent any detail from appearing in the article that is not tied to the event, based on the "We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims'" part of their comment. That ended up leading to us disagreeing with the meaning of a summary as far as I can tell. In any case, if it is determined that there will not be a list, then we can determine who and why in a separate discussion. Otherwise, I feel that there could be an edit war over including some details, which is why I have been refraining from editing the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why you think "victims names are being considered to be prohibited on the article". I don't see anyone saying that anywhere here. Crescent77 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the names cannot be on the article. If the consensus of this discussion closes with the victims names removed, then they will not be allowed on the article without a separate discussion. If the discussion closes with a compromise, that would be a different situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did anyone say names cannot be on the article? Crescent77 (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that above, and I haven't seen any disagreement. There is at least some opposition to the names being shown at all (the same opposition as in most prior such articles where a discussion occurred), so they should be omitted pending consensus to include. That is not a principle I invented. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you did indicate they shouldn't be included while a consensus is being worked on, and that is line with general WP principle, but your overall statement is unclear; are you suggesting that your opinion is that no victim names should be included at all, ie, we should "suppress the victims names"?
I'm not seeing anyone here make that suggestion, and if they are, I would strongly disagree. Crescent77 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were inclined to get involved in the content debate, that would be my position. I think the external link is sufficient. I wish there were an accepted way to refer readers to the external link from the Victims section; but, if the extlink became common practice, readers who follow mass shootings would already know to look there. This has also been the position of many in prior discussions, and I'm fairly certain it was the predominant position of the Opposers (I don't know why this position would surprise anyone familiar with the history). As I've indicated previously, I don't wish to re-articulate much less re-defend the full argument, so I can't expect my comments to count for much in a consensus assessment (IJDLI). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you suppress all victims names? Crescent77 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer that question without getting involved in the content debate. Have I been insufficiently clear that I don't care to do that? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't care to do that, yet here you are.
No offense intended, as I understand how hard it can be to let things go that you've put alot of effort into, but I've gotta tease you with this comment of yours, which didn't age well : "Temporary retirements demonstrate one of two things: insincerity, or a shortage of self-awareness and self-discipline. Knowing that my first retirement would be my last, I was careful not to make the commitment without thorough consideration. It's done, and I don't care to discuss the reasons."
You're out of retirement, you're here, and it sounds like you have alot of experience discussing this topic. So I'll ask again, just in case you really do care, why suppress all the victims' names? Crescent77 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't care to do that, yet here you are. Here I am, with nothing to say except as to process. I went a little further when prompted by you, saying a little more about what my position would be while being very clear that I don't expect those comments to count. Yes, I plead guilty to going from full retirement to semi-retirement after a few months; call it less-than-perfect self-awareness. If you look at my participation you'll see that it's way down from a few years ago. I don't know why this needed to become about me. No, I won't be pressured into being sucked deeper into this content debate, and I don't know why you would be working so hard to get more opposition to your position. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It became about you because you made claims of experience, at which point I thought your insight may be valuable. If you don't want to participate, don't, but it's not fair to enflame folks by suggesting victims names need to be suppressed, and then avoid discussion as to why. Crescent77 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history provides a number of fully articulated examples of the argument you seek. That's precisely why I shouldn't need to repeat it yet again, and I doubt I could articulate it as thoroughly today. If you want it that badly, go find it; it can't be that hard. If anybody is enflamed, I suggest cold showers. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW I have long been opposed to listing the names of non-notable victims of major tragedies in articles in all but the very rarest cases. The appropriate way to handle the subject is to include a link in the external links section to a list of the victims, possibly a tasteful online memorial site. I have had this battle more times than I can count and usually have ended up losing. The experience is about as pleasant or productive as pissing into the wind. There is a lot of emotion surrounding these events and telling people we should not be listing the names of victims has provoked some very testy responses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore They are the reason this death-based article exists and are mentioned in the first sentence. Reliable sources agree their identities are pertinent, hence the loads of independent secondary coverage. The governor has requested we read about them. NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. It never has, unlike NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: Reflecting on past discussion, I believe that the names of the victims belong on this article in some form, preferably in prose where possible. We should mention the actions of the victims in prose where it is known. Regarding the cited policies opposing naming the victims, NOTMEMORIAL has been repeatedly miscited and misapplied, both here and in other articles, to the point that WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL exists to explain NOTMEMORIAL. This is not a standalone article on the victims, but an article about the overall shootings. This is not an article where we are honoring the deceased and celebrating their lives, but an article about a terrible event and the details of it. The victims are tied to this article due to being harmed during this event. It does not make sense why everyone major and minor is named in the article with the exception of the victims. NOTEVERYTHING should not apply. Above, it is linked to the words "encyclopaedic content," which is interesting as the definition of encyclopaedic is that it is comprehensive. Keeping the names out of the article is the opposite of comprehensive as it is intentionally excluding details and making the article incomplete. To go further, NOTEVERYTHING says that an article should be a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The victim section is barely a summary at all. It covers those injured and those killed, where the victims died, a characteristic some of the victims shared, the ages of the victims, and when they were identified by. In contrast, the sub-section above it (Manhunt) summarizes the following: finding the abandoned car, federal assistance provided, number of victims verified, arrest warrant issued, charges against the suspect, the search warrant, the dive teams searching, means of escape unknown, shelter order revoked, hunting restriction implemented, body found, location of body, general location had been searched prior, cause of death, and the hunting restrictions being revoked. NOTTRIVIA also should not apply. I don't see how the the victims can be considered to be 'of little value' based on the definition of the word trivia. Regarding the link, NOTTRIVIA just goes to the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section of the What Wikipedia is not policy. The section says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. This seems to be misapplied here. This discussion has been about content, not data. To go through most of the list at NOTTRIVIA: This isn't about a creative work, but a mass shooting; this isn't about a song, but a mass shooting; this isn't about software updates, but a mass shooting. For the only uncovered part, the isn't anywhere close to being "unexplained statistics" and does not apply. It doesn't even get covered as unexplained as it was clear enough that these are the names of the victims. There are no policy issues with listing the names of the victims. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Card is the cause & focus of this shooting spree; the victims aren't. If it's known that any of the victims played an active role in trying to prevent it, that could be important enough to include. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Card shot the victims intentionally. They are part of the focus when we mentioned how many died, among other details. It has been suggested in sources that victims attempted to end the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those RSs may merit the inclusion of Walker, with proper attribution to his father as the source. Crescent77 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: Super Goku V makes a detailed and compelling argument. Though the subject of the shooting is Card, the victims (by no choice of their own) became part of the narrative. They were going about their lives when their lives were taken. How and when they died is important and part of narrative that is important to the article. The names should not be used gratuitously but only as part of the narrative to explain what happened and the sequence of events. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument would apply to/on pages about the victims, individually or collectively. On this page, it is WP:COATRACK. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SPECIFICO Oh absolutely the article is a WP:COATRACK, but more because of WP:CHERRY-picking: Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. As such, fact picking is a breach of neutral point of view by a failure to assign due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Only if we pretend our reliable sources don't talk about the victims does the current article NOT fail WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno. There's different kinds of RS. Some facts are prominent in RS but not encyclopaedic. Some facts are prominent in less enduring RS. Some are prominent in secondary but not tertiary. Some of the victims' families may be offended or inconvenienced by gratuitous listing of names without specific case-by-case purpose. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. As discussed repeatedly, I find the justifications for how the victims names pass the notability test lacking. Crescent77 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What notability test? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was more of a general offhand use of the term "notability" on my part, the technical WP terminology, as discusssed above, would be WP:DUEWEIGHT/NPOV/NOT/NOTEVERYTHING. Crescent77 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have a summary of an event like this and leave out the people without which the event wouldn't have been notable. If he'd gone into an empty room and shot holes in the wall, this article would not exist. As far as policy goes, WP:NPOV demands we include the victims (because our reliable sources do, often in significantly more detail than we do). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would've been just as notable if the victims had been different non-notable people. The notability of this killing spree is due to the number of people who were killed & injured, not who they were. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it was these specific people who died, not other people. And why should we supplant the judgement of our sources with your judgement when it comes to just doing the most basic thing: naming them? And this is of course ignoring the elephant in the room: WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, these people are integral to this incident, without their deaths this event would not even merit an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the people are essential to the incident, their names are not. You're edging into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Crescent77 (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where a consensus has been achieved yet. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus that "these people are integral to this incident". Locke Cole keeps strawmanning that into the issue of naming them. I'm pretty sure you get the distinction : We all agree that "without their deaths this event would not even merit an article", what's under discussion is whether the names merit inclusion in the article. Crescent77 (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I gotcha. I misunderstood and was thinking of a consensus as to include or exclude the names. Sorry for that. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to "leave out the people" as they are essential to the notability of the event; their names are not. Crescent77 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
their names are not Why? And why when our sources so clearly think they are essential? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they be? That onus is on you. Where do the sources indicate it is essential information? Crescent77 (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That onus is on you. No. The vast majority of our sources clearly think the names matter. The onus is on you to explain how omitting them is not a violation of WP:DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a better count. The vast majority of our references don't list victims names. Crescent77 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do. (Personal attack removed) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. Crescent77 (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as policy goes, WP:NPOV demands we include the victims (because our reliable sources do, often in significantly more detail than we do) With regards to the sources, I'm not sure that's entirely correct. There are 87 sources in the current version of the article, though some are duplicates. Of those citations, only six (citations 10, 34, 36, 41, 42, and 45) mention the name of all of the victims. Of those six, only citations 41 and 42 have details on the victims beyond their name and ages. Additionally there are five other citations (9, 18, 35, 40, 60) that mention at least one of the victims (but less than all) along with details about them.
The assertion that reliable sources include the victim names often is significantly more detail than we do does not appear to be supported by the sources used in the current version of the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to look at all reliable sources, not just ones in the article? The citations in the article are going to skew towards not having victims names, as they were added before that information was released or they focus on another aspect of the shooting. Why would we not look at our sources (CNN, AP, ABC, etc.) as a whole, not the individual articles they've put out and we've added to this article? For instance, the AP wasn't a source you listed (I think) as having details beyond the names and ages. But, that's simply a separate article that hasn't been cited on our article. Esb5415 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good strategy for independent research, but on a communally edited encyclopedia, we need verifiability : any information presented needs to have the specific sourcing presented as well, so that anyone reading can see exactly where the information comes from. We can't just say "CNN said this", we need to show the specific article where the information was presented, so that folks can readily verify its accuracy.
If you feel sources need updating, or sources need adding, please do so. Just please don't WP:Cherry. Crescent77 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Esb5415 was suggesting looking at Reliable Sources to see what they say rather than limiting it to just the article.
Since I may as well, here is a brief list: ABC News, (AP mentioned above), CBS News, Los Angeles Times, NPR, Reuters, USA Today Super Goku V (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. We can look at other articles, but if we plan on including the material gleaned from those in this article, we need to include those as references. Crescent77 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. This ties back into a previous comment: As far as policy goes, WP:NPOV demands we include the victims (because our reliable sources do, often in significantly more detail than we do). Reliable sources are covering the victims, they just were not being counting unless they were currently in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referencing information gleaned from reliable sources, those sources need to be included in the article. Crescent77 (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. We are discussing the reliable sources, not saying to force them into the article. The point above has been that our reliable sources are covering the victims and so should we, not that our reliable sources have a bunch of additional sources that we could potentially cite. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: I had started looking at the sources in detail, and came to the opposite conclusion upon just checking the first 8 in this revision. Only 13% of the checked sources (that's 1 out of 8) didn't name any victims, and 25% (that's 2 out of 8) didn't name them all. The other 6 sources (75%) name them all, often in multiple articles.
  1. Source: https://apnews.com/article/lewiston-maine-shootings-49da6d06a8b5a15d3b619b3927bc33ff
    1. VS: https://apnews.com/article/maine-shooting-victims-1be7d14e90ef6c91ca23819163d29f3e
  2. Source: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/10/25/multiple-victims-reported-following-shootings-in-lewiston/
    1. VS: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/10/26/lives-lost-in-lewiston-theres-nothing-he-wouldnt-do-for-anybody/
    2. VS: https://www.sunjournal.com/lewiston-mass-killing/ - top of page highlights victims on their landing page for the mass shooting event, also contains links to full obituaries right at the top
  3. Source: https://themessenger.com/news/maine-mass-shooting-ruger-sfar-308-battle-rifle
    1. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-maine-mass-shooting-victims-18-killed
    2. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-mass-shooting-victim-keith-macneir-visiting-maine-celebrate-birthday
    3. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-mass-shooting-maine-mechanic-bob-violette-dead
    4. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/beloved-asl-interpreter-helped-deaf-maine-pandemic-lewiston-mass-shooting-victims-joshua-seal
    5. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/father-son-maine-shooting-victims-lewiston-bowling-alley-young
  4. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-shooting-timeline-maine-attack-rcna122290
    1. VS: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-massacre-manhunt-suspect-rcna122436#rcrd23551
    2. VS: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/remembering-those-killed-in-the-lewiston-maine-mass-shooting-196584005652 - not only were they also presented in text, the nationally aired nightly news which is also re-broadcast on YouTube and other platforms, included a segment on the victims
  5. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/maine-shooting-idAFKBN31S064
    1. VS: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-shooting-victims-pipefitter-who-loved-wrestling-father-son-bowling-league-2023-10-27/ - full list with additional bio details
    2. VS: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-shooting-victims-father-son-out-bowling-night-bar-employee-2023-10-26/ - partial list prior to the full list being released by officials
  6. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/at-least-16-killed-dozens-injured-in-mass-shooting-in-us-state-of-maine
    1. VS: None found
  7. Source: https://france24.com/en/live-news/20231027-maine-city-deserted-as-residents-hole-up-during-hunt-for-killer
    1. VS: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20231027-manhunt-for-maine-mass-shooter-extends-to-second-night - partial victim list
  8. Source: https://www.wmtw.com/article/where-robert-card-lewiston-maine-gunman-body-was-found/45672278
    1. VS: https://www.wmtw.com/article/victims-lewiston-maine-mass-shootings/45656677
    2. VS: https://www.wmtw.com/article/lewiston-mass-shooting-remembering-victims-stories/45657528
In the WP:RSN sense of "sources", they do overwhelmingly include victim names and often in significantly more detail. As far as neutrality goes, this is cherry picking to omit a fact some editors don't appear to think is valuable (supplanting the choices of our sources with the choices of our editors). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting way of presenting this information, not the least because you seem to be conflating the source article with the source publication (bullet point 1 vs 3 of SOURCEDEF). At the article level, when we say "sources" we're generally talking about the pieces of work that we cite in our articles, in this case the 8 articles you have cited in your first list level. All 8 of those articles are cited in our article, however none of those 8 mention or list the victims. Conversely, the 16 articles in your second level list do mention or discuss, in whole or in part, the victims, however none of those are cited in the article or have been presented previously in the talk page.
When assessing due weight we need to look at how prominent each viewpoint is. To assist with this, you would need to put this into the proper context, by at minimum providing a comparison of source articles, grouped by publication, and differentiated between those that do mention or discuss the victim list, and those that do not. Ideally this could be further subdivided or augmented by differentiating the sources that simply mention the victim names, from those that also discuss victim details. That way we can better figure out how to include such information, and how much detail it should be given. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking above, no one seems to have used DUEWEIGHT until now. NPOV is being used only in support of including the names and not in opposition. NOT isn't really a policy to cite as it is more of a container policy discussing the various things Wikipedia is not, and regardless, seems only to be used to say that NOTMEMORIAL needs to be modified first. NOTEVERYTHING has been used above, though I have posted a comment disputing that NOTEVERYTHING applies. I would recommend you review the policies you mentioned and explaining how they would apply to satisfy VAGUEWAVE. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight is part of NPOV, it's the same page, linked repeatedly above. WP:NOTEVERYTHING (which is also on the same page as NOT) directly addresses "Appropriate weight" which directly links to DUEWEIGHT/NPOV. That's all a central concept of WP. I would recommend you review those policies to better understand how they work together.
More to the point at hand, your wall of text doesn't explain why a summary would need to include names. Crescent77 (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but NPOV is the main policy, which DUEWEIGHT is a specific part of NPOV. Hence why I said that no one seems to have used DUEWEIGHT. A similar thing applies between NOTEVERYTHING and NOT. You could cite NOT, but you would primarily be citing the lede to it, which doesn't really work unless you meant to imply that something that isn't covered by the specifics should apply. Also, I was trying to hint that you should consider explaining the policies to satisfy VAGUEWAVE so that your point is better. Sorry if it didn't come across the right way.)
It is sadly lengthy because it is easier to claim something applies than it is to attempt to disprove that it applies. In any case, we are leaving out information by excluding the names, along with hammering covering details. Omitting the names and details does not make it a true summary. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summaries do omit details, otherwise they wouldn't be summaries.
If the names and details are relevant, they should be included. Except in the aforementioned case of Walker, I haven't seen any presentation of relevancy beyond their role as unfortunate random victims. The only reason they are victims is because of their location at the time of the event, which is covered in detail. Crescent77 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My personal interpretation is that summaries are to condense details, not omit them. In any case, I guess this has gotten off the original subject and neither of us really agree with the other. For one last question, would you clarify who you mean by Except in the aforementioned case of Walker, as I am unsure of who you were referring to. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "condense" details. As a hypothetical, we have lists of names of millions of victims of the Holocaust. How do you condense those details into a summary fit for WP? Crescent77 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, of course. For all the reasons set out at WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and WP:CASL, not to mention the prior RFC that had been advertised in various community noticeboards and was closed with a decision that "consensus has changed". It strains logic to think we can write a summary-style article about an event like this and leave out half of what made the event notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I am always against these lists as they add little content to the article. If anything, write out the names in a sentence. Details on their age, jobs, favorite colors, beer preferences, and dental hygiene are all fluff the media puts out to increase clicks (revenue) by exploiting people's emotions and morbid curiosity. 98% of the time it's not remotely notable in the long-term. Yes, I am being a callous jerk, but I would never expect to see lists of victims names in my old World Book Encyclopedia and I don't expect to see it on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much of the media - including some RS - love to sensationalize things to gain more sales &/or pageviews. Not everything they report about notable events is notable or encyclopedic. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are the people whose death made this event notable unencyclopedic? As to notability, that concept has zero influence on whether or not we include information in already notable articles, see WP:NOTEWORTHY. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That there was 18 killed, and 13 injured is certainly noteworthy. Those figures in summary are consistently mentioned throughout reliable sources discussing this shooting. However the names, ages, and other details about the victims seem to be mentioned only by a minority of sources. As such, and as much as I regret saying so, including them would be to give undue weight to something that reliable sources do not seem to be discussing.
That being said, there are, as mentioned by other editors, a couple of names within the victim list that have had some attention drawn to them by reliable sources. Those individuals, whether it's due to their background within the community or actions on the day, may be due for inclusion in summary form here. But the list as a whole does not seem due for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, your old World Book Encyclopedia is not exactly the standard Wikipedia is trying to obtain. Even though RS may try to sensationalize news, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Being that this was the largest mass shooting in the United States in 2023, each victim matters and should be appropriated cited to in the article. The details you included are not necessary, but who they were and where they were killed are important and should be in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article already covers who they were (relevant to the event in question) and where they were killed. Crescent77 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, per Locke Cole and Super Goku V. Esb5415 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. As the victims are not notable individuals, their names are not encyclopaedically relevant to the event itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTEWORTHY, but notability is not a concern here. WP:RELEVANCE is. The victims are central to this event (with the perpetrator). Omitting all details of them whatsoever is an easy WP:NPOV violation, and as this article stands, it is not neutral. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you're strawmanning. "All details of them whatsoever" were not omitted. There are a few details in the article; feel free to add more, if they are relevant.
    What folks are trying to avoid here is a list of names without context, which has all the appearances of a memorial. While that may be an admirable motive, it doesn't justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Crescent77 (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just like to note that @Mandruss may have presented an acceptable compromise to this issue : he included a direct link to a list of victims and their personal details in the External Links section. Crescent77 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The names add no significant encyclopedic information. Victim denotes their status is through no action or fault of their own and the public at large has no interest in knowing their identities. The rare individual who may have a need to know the names of the victims can research them elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the names of the victims and related information lend to the truth of the situation that occurred that night. This page isn’t about Robert Card. It’s about the shooting and the people affected by it. Izmeizme (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2023 in the United States collage submission[edit]

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Lewiston_shootings&oldid=1217909502"