Talk:2023 Michigan State University shooting

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

Requested move 14 February 2023[edit]

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: not moved. While supporters of the move prefers a more concise title, those oppose brought up a good point with regards to WP:NCE, prescribing "when, where and what happened" to article titles of events. While there is a no year condition in the guideline, it is to be seen with a historical perceptive. As noted by participants of the discussion, this event is recent thus limits the amount of historical perceptive that we have on this article for now. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Michigan State University shooting → Michigan State University shooting – This is the only shooting on MSU campus in the school's history. We don't include years for many other school shooting articles. Love of Corey (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support because titles should be concise. We have many other articles about shootings at universities; the usual format is without the year, unless there's been more than one shooting there. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a rationale for moving. WP:NCE is the sitewide rationale for the title of this article until such time as a WP:COMMONNAME can be determined. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The common name is obvious. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, do you have any reliable sources with longstanding examples of this "common name" for something that occurred less than a day ago? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, but there's plenty for articles about other university shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, current title matches what WP:NCE prescribes: when, where and what happened. Proposers rationale hinges on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:LOCALCON is clear that we can't undo a sitewide policy or guideline on a talk page or even at a WikiProject level. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole – WP:NCE does not conclude that. Read the whole policy and the examples. It only concludes with that if you skim it. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 08:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, I've done more than skim it. NCE does prescribe what I've stated, nothing on that page excludes school shootings from the guideline. If you'd like to change that, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) or WP:VPR are the appropriate venues to make that proposal. Per WP:LOCALCON, we cannot overrule sitewide guidelines here on this talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole – Go to the WP:NOYEAR subsection of WP:NCE. It's right there. Year not needed for these. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 08:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are mistaken. As I indicated, if you'd like to propose a change to WP:NCE, you may do so on the talk page there or WP:VPR. If you don't understand how WP:NOYEAR doesn't apply, you may wish to ask for assistance at WP:TEAHOUSE as I've already explained to you how it does not. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specificity is the soul of narrative. The more information included in the title, the more searchable/ retrievable the article becomes. 76.179.249.230 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neutral per WP:NCE: Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. It's the only event of its kind. Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Changing to neutral because I don't think this is the kind of thing I want to be arguing about right now. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What historic perspective is there for an event that's less than 24 hours old? 🤷‍♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The historic perspective of all the other school shootings at MSU. Sorry if that comes across snarky - I realise we're reading that phrase differently. Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Shortest without a disambiguation is always bestest on the Wiki. First up gets the short name. We have no crystal balls. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 19:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. That policy is about article writing, not article names. In WP:NCE, we are in fact asked to evaluate the "historic perspective" and whether things are "unlikely to recur." - Fuzheado | Talk 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado. I was not quoting any policy! I thought you stated that you don't wikilawyer. I feel wikilawyered. LOL. No worries. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I want to add to my argument in support of the rename that WP:NOYEAR says, "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." When people look up a shooting at Michigan State University on Wikipedia, chances are, now, that it's going to be this event that they're trying to look up and not some other event, because clearly no other event like this has happened at MSU before. It's the same as when someone tries to look up Virginia Tech shooting or Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or Oxford High School shooting. It'd be unreasonable to think that they're trying to look up some other shooting that occurred there and that they're going to need a year for disambiguation. The only way a year would be appropriate in the title is if, heaven forbid, another shooting happens at the same location that is as deadly, if not deadlier, than this event. (Looks like you already kinda beat me to the punch in this argument by way of edit conflict, Guettarda.) Love of Corey (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, what historic perspective is there for something that happened less than 24 hours ago? If you wish to change WP:NCE, I suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) or make a proposal at WP:VPR. You're still using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but just being more verbose about it... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that it'll be any different to the many other university shootings for which we have articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, so we should follow the naming convention used in 2023 for every mass shooting event that occurred in a place we have an article for so far: 2023 Goshen shooting, 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, 2023 Monterey Park shooting, 2023 Yakima shooting. See, I can do WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS too. But I'd rather follow the guideline that our community has put in place. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They all have the settlement rather than a specific location in their titles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the community consensus to overrule WP:NCE for "specific locations"? Where was this discussion held? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sigh, same old issue again. WP:NCE says In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain... when the incident happens. It also says to consider "events that are unlikely to recur." Michigan State University is among the largest public university campuses in the United States, so "unlikely" is not the situation here. With time and distance, maybe it could move to just without the year. But for now, it should remain with the year, as dictated by our policy. Other large public university shootings such as 2016 UCLA shooting and 2022 University of Virginia shooting both have the year. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our articles about university shootings don't include the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those schools are much smaller and not 50,000-person, large public university, mini metropolises. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado – What about WP:NOYEAR? That covers it, eh? Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 08:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been addressed before: that guideline says "in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." The point is not enough time has passed for that "historic perspective" especially given the size of the campus. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of the other articles about university mass shootings don't feature the year ([1]), unless there were multiple shootings that took place at that school. There have been no other shootings at MSU, so I support the move unless another mass shooting happens there in the future. Per WP:NCE Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. This is example, for the time being. Rockin (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But as @Locke Cole said above, we cannot have an historic perspective in 24 or 48 hours. Let the name stay, stick with policy, and we can always re-evaluate. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, but what about all the other college shootings that don't have the year attached to them? - Rockin (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we treat college shootings any differently? Where is there an exception in WP:NCE for college shooting events to deviate from using when, where and what happened as the naming convention (especially when NCE leads with In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors [...] (emphasis in source))? Why is it that all but one other mass shooting article from 2023 is following this naming convention? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it's because colleges are specific locations (per Jim Michael), but I agree with you, I think either all college shootings should have the year in them or none of them should (I'd prefer the former). If you look at the college shootings category, only 6/33 have the year in the article title. Is there a reason for this that this shooting in particular doesn't have? - Rockin (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that Virginia Tech shooting is listed under WP:NOYEAR (which is part of WP:NCE) as one of a few [e]xamples of some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title. Anyways, I think the problem is that there has been an increase in notable shooting events over the years, which is causing a conflict to show over differences between the majority of article in Category:School shootings in the United States (which Category:University and college shootings in the United States is part of) and those in Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year (which Category:2023 mass shootings in the United States is a part of). It seems that when a shooting occurs at a school or university, the year is omitted in most cases while if the attack occurs elsewhere, then the year and city is used in most cases unless it was near a specific location with a name, like a landmark, public space, or business. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Virginia Tech is listed there as the exception because it is the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history – an historical event on its own without qualification. This does bring up the issue of why the titling of events at colleges and university shootings seem to be out of step. The answer may not be obvious, but I have some thoughts.
    Our college and university articles have been systematically out of step with the rest of Wikipedia for most of our project's history. I've done many talks about conflict of interest editing, and at the top of the list of problems are pages about universities and colleges. These school articles are some of the most narcissistic and noncompliant content we have. Why? The top of any university or college article reads like a press release or marketing brochure. The lead section is almost always a string of accolades or cherry picked accomplishments, painting the school in the most positive light possible. (MSU was strangely touted as a "Public Ivy" in the third sentence in its article for months, until it was recently removed.) In terms of editorship, the pages are domninated by alumni, fans, or fierce defenders of those schools.
    Why is this relevant? Editors of those articles (and perhaps by extension, the related shooting articles) do not necessarily have a great perspective regarding the Wikipedia guidelines or seeing their school through a neutral lens of history. Whether it's intentional or subliminal, who wants their school to be known as having multiple years with shootings? Or, folks who have an association or affinity for the school see a shooting as an special rare incident that needs no further context than "School X shooting." I'm not saying this is gospel truth, but it certainly helps explain why some of our guidelines seem to fall flat when it comes to higher education. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NCE provides that the title should include when the incident happened. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WWGB – Please read WP:NCE below the fold where it states that dates are not needed, as in Virginia Tech Shooting]] per WP:NOYEAR. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 08:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For Virginia Tech Shooting it is listed under a list of [e]xamples of some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title. It is also the deadliest shooting as well. I'd also argue that it likely meets WP:COMMONNAME. That does not apply here. WP:NCE leads with In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors. That is what applies here. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — This exact same discussion comes up plenty of times in mass shooting articles. Generally, the rule of thumb is "include the year unless it's a notable event with sustained coverage". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which it is. Love of Corey (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, this discussion does not come up that often for articles in Category:School shootings in the United States. For colleges, 2022 University of Virginia shooting discussion appears to be the only one where WP:NCE was used in a move request. (A discussion did occur at 2016 UCLA shooting, but WP:NCE was not brought up.) For schools, I am currently unable to find a discussion where WP:NCE came up. I did find a comment at a discussion at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was said that our style convention is to append a year only when it's needed for disambiguation and that Unless another notable shooting occurred at the same elementary school, there's no need to specify "2012". It seems that there is an inconsistency for how policy applies to names. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral can you guys just respect the dead, anybody with a brain would do that. nobody cares about the page name. Wikieism (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Inclusion of date can help with recognizing the incident years later. We can remove it only if it is a highly notable event. --Mhhossein talk 05:36, 19 February 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[edit]

Two out of 3 deceased students have been named. Brian Fraser and Alexandria Verner. Third students family wishes for the victims name to remain anonymous. Mouse3226 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't name them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not up to you. That's up to our WP:RS. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic and getting personal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many media outlets include mini-bios of victims as well, but for very good reason we don't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, the vast overwhelming majority of our articles name the victims. You're welcome to continue trying to cherry pick things to suit your goals, but we'll be following policy here, not your personal preference. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that the overwhelming majority of attack articles name the victims. You need to cite particular reasons that naming the victims would improve the article, not just say "it's what we do here". Especially when it is easily disproven that it's standard practice. 140.32.208.172 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics – you're welcome. not just say "it's what we do here" I'll note you put that in quotes, but I never said anything remotely close to that. Maybe don't be an asshole and actually respond to what I say, and not what you wish I'd said? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You limit your stats to mass shootings in the US. Include other attack methods & other countries then it's clear that most don't include the victims' names. It's highly unlikely that anyone will add victims' names to Mahas bombings, Makugwe massacre, 2023 Neve Yaakov shooting, 2023 Gqeberha shooting or 2023 Peshawar mosque bombing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, per WP:SOFIXIT, you're more than welcome to find reliable sources and add them to those articles if you wish. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe assume good faith instead of calling me an "asshole" for disagreeing with you. No one reading my comment in a neutral frame of mind would think that I was directly attributing those verbatim words to you, it was a paraphrase of the thrust of your comment simply making a bald claim. It would be pointless for me to maliciously misquote you when your original comment was the line directly above mine; it's there for anyone to read.
Some Wikipedia policies would be more convincing than a smattering of American articles you seemingly chose by hand. Why not list the 2017 Las Vegas shooting or the 2019 Dayton shooting, neither of which include the victim names? If your list does not include even high-profile articles which do not support your argument then that does not inspire confidence in its use as a policy decision tool. You are clearly emotionally invested in this topic, which is understandable as it's very charged. Just ease off the gas a little and present your argument instead of name-calling and then telling other people that they are engaging in WP:RGW just for having the gall to disagree with you on an unsettled policy issue. 140.32.208.172 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe assume good faith instead of calling me an "asshole" for disagreeing with you. There you go again. I didn't call you an asshole for disagreeing with me, I called you an asshole for quoting me saying things I didn't say. It would be pointless for me to maliciously misquote you when your original comment was the line directly above mine; it's there for anyone to read. And yet that's exactly what you did. Hence the "asshole". Why not list the 2017 Las Vegas shooting or the 2019 Dayton shooting ... For the former, because I was working the list alphabetically when editors at the time moved the goalposts from their claim being "all mass shooting articles" to "all recent mass shooting articles" not listing victims. For the latter, because I made the list in early 2019, and the Dayton shooting had not yet occurred. If your list does not include even high-profile articles which do not support your argument then that does not inspire confidence in its use as a policy decision tool. It really shouldn't be used for that at all. It's just a more verbose version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, you jumped in mid-thread to a flurry of replies to Jim, who I've already provided policy rationale to in the past and who appears to be engaging in WP:TE by trying to re-litigate the issue every chance he gets. The policy reasons are WP:NPOV, specifically, WP:UNDUE. The victims are WP:NOTEWORTHY, and omitting them and details about them is tipping the scales towards the perpetrator and the killing itself when our sources often provide a more balanced view. telling other people that they are engaging in WP:RGW just for having the gall to disagree with you Again, you're misrepresenting what I've said and done. Don't be an asshole and stop doing that, mm'kay? I quite clearly told Jim WP:RGW and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND applied to his wanting to try to solve the "great wrong" of Americentrism. As WP:RGW advises: Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. I hope that quoted passage is self-explanatory. Clearly you're emotionally invested in this, so hopefully you can stop putting words in my mouth that I never said, or ascribing events to me that never fucking happened. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only in regard to attacks that took place in the US. Most articles about attacks that happened in the rest of the world don't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For all articles, or only if they're mass shootings in the US? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the location matter if we're following our reliable sources and policies like WP:DUE? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's one of many examples of Americentrism. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. WP:RGW and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND are that way. Have a great day. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the aftermath[edit]

I took some pictures of campus today. If anyone finds them useful there's at c:Category:Michigan State University shooting. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford High Shooting Survivor[edit]

There is nothing in the cited article indicating anyone who survived the Oxford School Shooting was a survivor of the MSU shooting. The women profiled transferred out before the Oxford shooting and there’s no mention of her “Oxford friends” who were at MSU surviving the Oxford Shooting. CovertCat5 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno which source you're looking at, but CNN has an article on this entire issue: [2] —Locke Cole • t • c 22:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking at the citation currently in the article. It doesn’t support what it is being used to cite. CovertCat5 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? What about the CNN article? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It’s not in the Wikipedia article. As of now, the current citation doesn’t support the claim made in the article. CovertCat5 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If additional citations are needed, I do have some: New York Times, Hill, Washington Post, Detroit Free Press, ClickOnDetroit, BBC. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That section is just a media beatup. Neither student was ever at the scene of a previous shooting. One left Oxford before the shooting, the other was just in lockdown at a different school to Sandy Hook. Neither student was ever in danger of a previous attack, let alone being a "survivir". WWGB (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the CNN source says I linked to above says: “(Fourteen) months ago I had to evacuate from Oxford High School when a fifteen year old opened fire and killed four of my classmates and injured seven more. Tonight, I am sitting under my desk at Michigan State University, once again texting everyone ‘I love you,’” Emma Riddle, a freshman studying history at the university tweeted overnight Monday. “When will this end?” and Emma Riddle survived the first shooting in Oxford by hiding in the band hall where others had barricaded the door before eventually fleeing to a store in the area, her father said, recalling the phone call he got as she ran away.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I failed to subscribe to the section. Anyways, I do want to add that I have never seen a definition of a school shooting survivor exclude those present in the area, but not encountered by a gunman. The CNN source that has been mentioned earlier also says, :::Some Michigan State University students who survived Monday’s mass shooting – and their parents – had already been through a similar, horrific experience. A seperate ClickOnDetroit article, A Sandy Hook survivor has lived through a second school shooting after three students were shot and killed on Michigan State University’s campus Monday. A separate Detroit Free Press article, More than a decade has passed since Jackie Matthews survived the Sandy Hook shooting, crouched down in her sixth grade class in a different school in the district as students were directed to shelter in place. (In all cases, emphasis mine.) Thus, by our reliable sources, those that were present on campus would be fair to describe as survivors. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the loose-with-the-truth media, Jackie Matthews was never a "Sandy Hook survivor". She was in lockdown in a different school, miles away from Sandy Hook. WWGB (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure the section has clarified that for a while now. Love of Corey (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current section reads like this:
Some students who were on campus at the time of the shooting were impacted by other mass shootings; one had been at Oxford High School during the 2021 shooting, while another had facetimed with friends in Oxford High School while at another school, and another student had been put on lockdown at a different school in Newtown, Connecticut, during the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Is there a reason we're using tortured English to avoid using names here? The way it's worded (without names) makes it unnecessarily (as there's no policy against naming people) confusing for our readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, sure. While I disagree with your viewpoint, even if everything I said gets discounted there is still the point that Locke Cole made regarding the CNN source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree that Emma Riddle was on-campus at two different shootings, and worth a mention in this article. I don't buy the "survivor" angle as she was never anywhere near the shooting; you cannot survive a threat that did not exist. The other two were never previously present at an active shooter attack, they just knew people who were. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lived through, experienced, something that captures the trauma of going through an experience like that twice. Modern American language is "therapy-informed" (for want of a better way to say it) and I understand why people gravitate towards "survivor". But plain English is better, especially when so much of our readership isn't going to be Americans.
The students and professor in Room 114 in Berkey are clearly "survivors" of the shooting, as are any others who encountered McRae in Berkey or the Union. But I don't mean to minimise the trauma everyone else experienced when I say they don't fit the plain English meaning of "survivor". Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunshot wound to the head[edit]

Neither of the places where phrase "gunshot wound to the head" (the lead and the bottom of the "shooting" section) has a source that supports that it was a head wound. Does anyone know a source that supports this? The only thing I can find this this WSJ reporting which quotes McRae's neighbour as saying "The cops pulled up and he shot himself in the head" (which isn't a solid-enough reference). Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this was information that was reported on the scanner and not from an official, attributable statement. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s not say the perpetrators name in any section outside the section on them[edit]

One of the leading theories as to why mass shootings still occur is because of infamy that comes from it. I think it is best that we remove all mentions of the perpetrators name outside of the section specifically stating who they are, because we should care more about the victims and hero’s who either saved lives or protected others. 2604:2D80:DE04:4600:7C1F:E7DE:56A2:AE07 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a reasonable sentiment, this isn't how we do things in articles. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. Love of Corey (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passive voice in the lead[edit]

Mass shootings don't just "occur" out of the blue, so I think using the passive a mass shooting occurred isn't the best option here. We should describe what happened - three people were murdered, five injured - by a gunman. It was a mass shooting, but it didn't just occur out of the blue - it was carried out by McRae. Guettarda (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event, not the victims, so the first sentence should mention a mass shooting occurred. Not that people were killed. Love of Corey (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey I opened this discussion so we could come to a consensus here - please don't post-and-revert, that's unconstructive. I agree the article is about the shooting, but the shooting was done by people and happened to people. Guettarda (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the opening of the Sandy Hook shooting, it says The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people. That's much more in keeping with the normal structure of the lead of a Wikipedia article.
If you look at Parkland, it says On February 14, 2018, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz opened fire on students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the Miami suburban town of Parkland, Florida, murdering 17 people and injuring 17 others. That one is less to my liking, and less standard, but it's still identifies the shooting as an action.
I disagree with the extent to which both of them feature the shooter. But I think they are closer to where we should be headed. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, trying something different based on the Sandy Hook lead. It gets most of the article title into the first few words of the opening sentence. How does that look? Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most mass shooting articles begin with "On [date], a mass shooting occurred at ...". I prefer that format for consistency. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it still has the issue that it isn't fully accurate. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving victims[edit]

The name of the one survivor who was named was removed with the edit summary There is no consensus to name surviving victims. I'm not quite sure how there can be "no consensus" when there was no discussion, so I'm starting the discussion. Why shouldn't be name the survivors, at least the ones whose families have talked to the press about them? Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support following what our sources provide. I find this helps the neutrality of these articles, which often drift into excruciating detail on the assailant and the event itself, while trying to omit any and all details about those affected by the incident. "Dehumanizing" is the word I'd use to describe how these articles sometimes end up. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I accept that recent discussions have supported the naming of fatalities. But naming survivors? Really? That contradicts so many policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have no problem naming survivors like Brandon Tsay who were actively involved in defending an attack, but there is no benefit to the reader in naming survivors who are otherwise not noteworthy and happened to be in the wrong place. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it genuinely necessary to turn every discussion into a !vote? I'll come back to give a proper response to the various policies, but it's wholly unnecessary to vote at this point. See what I did above? I just replied to the conversation without feeling compelled to bold a "support" or "oppose". —Locke Cole • t • c 01:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my business how I choose to express myself. No harm in making oneself clear. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a fair point, WWGB, but I think that applies as much to the people who died as those who were injured. Huapilla-Perez has received a fair amount of news coverage, I think in part because of her GoFundMe campaign which has raised a remarkable amount of money, and to a lesser extent because she is part of the College Assistance Migrant Program.
    Articles like these accrete content in the immediate aftermath, and then are pruned. Right now, I think we should cover what the media is covering. What's important and what isn't can really only be decided retrospectively. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As promised, a rebuttal: But naming survivors? Really? Is this so shocking, given that our articles are written summary-style, with an eye towards giving our readers an overview of a topic or subject? Proportionally speaking, the victims (inclusive of survivors) are covered widely, from their conditions for those injured to those who simply speak out using the platform being involved in such an incident provides. You mention Brandon Tsay, and as I said on the talk page there, I'd be a "Weak keep" for the separate article (mostly owing to his State of the Union appearance and continued presence in the media), but not because he defended himself. Look at X González and David Hogg, both people who merely survived a similar school shooting, but they now stand on their own with their own articles. Are we there yet for some of these survivors? No, but omitting them completely from an incident with which they were involved (and about which they have chosen to speak publicly and advocate on) seems like a violation of the Five Ws of writing.
    As to the policies: WP:NOTNEWS– a reading of this policy makes clear it is inapplicable, this article is not "original reporting" (our editors here are following what our sources are reporting, there is no original content at play), it is not "news report[ing]" as the subject (the mass shooting) is clearly notable per our standards, and this seems to be concerned with articles on news events in general, and "who's who" is relevant, but as noted there our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. We aren't writing a complete biography for them, and our coverage is proportional (I'd say we're actually too conservative in describing the trauma survivors of these events go through). Their "importance to the overall topic" is likewise decided by our sources.
    WP:UNDUE– I think this is self explanatory from the previous, but again, our coverage is actually very conservative in our article compared to what our sources are doing. For example, take this NBC Nightly News broadcast from tonight (here– link will skip to the time segment; 9:51), an assistant professor, Marco Díaz-Muñoz is still discussing and doing interviews about his experience. We mention him in the Shooting section, but despite his repeated media appearances and interviews (he also appeared on CNN, see [3] here), we don't mention him anywhere else. As @Guettarda notes below, we can prune information that doesn't stand up over time, but we shouldn't be using personal preference to overrule our sources.
    WP:NOTDIRECTORY– Not even sure what part you think applies here, as none of it seems relevant to this discussion.
    no benefit to the reader in naming survivors who are otherwise not noteworthy and happened to be in the wrong place. That is not for you to decide. If we follow our sources, respect neutrality (WP:NPOV, which WP:DUE is part of), and provide a balanced view of these people proportional to the overall coverage of this event, then we're doing it right. Suggesting some invisible/undiscussed scheme that deviates from our sources for inclusion/exclusion is original research. The only policy concern I'll express is WP:BLP, and only in so much as our coverage of survivors needs to be very well sourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have named survivors before, but it has depended on their actions or someone's actions to them during the incident. For one incident, the person was shot, but was able to call 911 and helped tell the 911 operators where the shooter was which was apparently relayed to first responders. For another incident, the person was named not because of her actions, but because of others. She was shot while pregnant and she survived, but the shot was fatal to the child. A person took a photograph of her in grief after being shot and it became a notable picture of the incident in reports. Unfortunately, all I am aware of about her is that she is a student who graduated from a Florida high school, that she attended MSU and was shot in this incident, and that her family has started a GoFundMe due to the extensive injuries that she received in the shooting. Based on other articles, it seems like this would not normally be included in the article based on an old policy called WP:NOTMEMORIAL that only was to apply to the subjects of articles that was also misapplied to exclude naming victims from shootings in the past. (As referenced above, editors would give a significant amount of coverage on the shooter while trying to keep those killed or injured nameless and downplay their actions when possible.) Given recent changes though, I do think that we could include a mention of the names of injured students, though I would recommend having the sentence also say that she was critically injured in the shooting and a mention of the GoFundMe because of the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WWGB's argument. Love of Corey (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more support than opposition to inclusion here. Please don't remove them again while this discussion is ongoing - we can find consensus in a reasonable, constructive fashion. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023 (2)[edit]

change. School districts close to the university also canceled their classes the day after the shooting; they included the Webberville Community Schools, Lansing Public Schools, Haslett, and East Lansing Public schools.[53

To. School districts close to the university also canceled their classes the day after the shooting; they included the Webberville Community Schools, Lansing Public Schools, Haslett, Okemos Public Schools,and East Lansing Public schools.[53 Nameismyname (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I should be added. Okemos has a very personal connection with msu if we include Weberville which is farther away from campus than Okemos. Okemos is very close to campus so I think it should be included Nameismyname (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Duplicated request - This request is similar or the same as your prior request above. Please discuss this topic at your prior request rather than making a new one. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to just trim the entire list. EL is where the shooting occurred, so it's worth mentioning, along with "surrounding" school districts. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing factual data because it’s inflammatory[edit]

I added an edit about how this tragedy is now being used as part of a Biore ad campaign that in effect normalized the shooting into just another stress that will work itself out. I would like to know why this edit was removed. It is an accurate reporting of an actual occurrence. if needed reference a Biore ad created by cecilleemax on TikTok. Please advise or restore the edit 70.178.94.98 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that it is part of an "ad campaign"? Looks to me like a Tik Tok creation without merit or significance by a bored kid. No reason for inclusion here. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove your head from the sand here:
https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/biore-tiktok-slammed-school-shooting-survivor/ 70.178.94.98 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 52[edit]

it appears that source 52 is not properly cited. 138.43.84.132 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting&oldid=1207155177"