Jump to content

Talk:2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2019 UNCC shooting)

Map

[edit]

I've never put a map in an article before, and it isn't very good. It maybe should have a pin indicating the exact area. Please fix it as necessary. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using a photo of the UNCC campus instead. (I didn't see one of the Kennedy building specifically in the Commons category, but I'm not familiar with the campus.) Funcrunch (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost: Thanks, but is that map copyrighted? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2019

[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: The mid-discussion move should not have happened and has the potential to confuse matters, so Brightgalrs and Jim Michael please do not do that again. However in this instance there have been no comments since these moves, so it looks like we have found a good title for the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 UNCC shooting → 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting– Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When recommending a course of action, please write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
Should this page be moved to 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting, to avoid the abbreviation? I'm an American and I am not familiar with "UNCC", so I assume others might also appreciate the clarification. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd be in favor of this move. I am also a US-American and unfamiliar with the "UNCC" abbreviation. Funcrunch (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am an alum and student and it should be "UNC Charlotte."166.82.239.115 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it would be good to change this article name to avoid the potential confusion. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are other places called UNCC, so UNC Charlotte shooting would be a better title. There's no need for the year. Jim Michael (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The abbreviation of "UNCC" is ambiguous. It has a disambiguation page with several entries, here: UNCC. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support to either 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte Shooting or 2019 UNC Charlotte Shooting. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there are significantly more Google searches for University of North Carolina shooting than UNCC shooting. This will reduce ambiguity. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article should be moved to either 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte Shooting or 2019 UNC Charlotte Shooting, not to University of North Carolina shooting. The University of North Carolina refers to the public university system in North Carolina (17 separate campuses). More often than not, however, the name University of North Carolina refers to the original UNC school, which is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and, subsequently, google hits for "University of North Carolina shooting" may very well be for the 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for typing fast. I meant that I am in support of moving it to "2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting." Sorry for the confusion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both options, as we don't need the year in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Victim's names

[edit]

So, we apparently need to decide whether to list the victim's names. I say we should since they are already listed in the Victims section. Also, why wouldn't they be listed in the first place? Take a look at MPHS shooting, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden shooting, and West Nickel Mines School shooting. Why do all these have the victims listed but those haven't been reverted? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should since they are already listed in the Victims section. I take it you're seeking consensus to include the names in the infobox, your argument partly based on the list in the body which itself lacks talk page consensus. I'm going to !vote below against both types of lists. As for Take a look at, also take a look at examples of articles that don't do what you want to do; they are easy to find. What you're doing is called cherry-picking and it's widely viewed as poor practice and weak argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the most recent iteration of this never-ending dispute, see Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 10#A "List of the dead" needs to be added. My position is well articulated there and in the discussions preceding that at other articles, and is unaltered by the small number of victims in this case. I'll monitor this in case there are any new arguments that change my mind, but I don't care to spend my time rehashing this for the tenth time. I'll ask that editors refrain from addressing me with questions or arguments that have already been presented and responded to many times in previous discussions—if I fail to respond to you, you can read that as "see previous discussions". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well (response to Joseph), I might have misunderstood what I was voting on. I thought the issue was whether to include victims' names in the "University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting" TEXT BOX at the side of the article. So, to clarify: Their names should be retained in the article list, exactly where they are; and (although i'm not sure I understand the vote even now), I suppose this means my vote should be changed to SUPPORT.

  • Support – I support listing the victim names. On Wikipedia, you will find many articles that do list the victim names; and you will find many articles that do not list victim names. There is absolutely no consistency. I have raised this issue several times. I asked for a policy, one way or another (to list or to not list victim names in these type of articles). I was directed to some sort of discussion, the location of which I do not recall, so I cannot link. But, the consensus of that discussion was, in effect: "we are not setting a cookie-cutter rule or a blanket policy for all articles; each article will be judged independently by (separate) consensus". Hence, the inconsistency across articles. And the lack of a "clear policy". Thus, this wheel has to be re-invented every time the question arises in a new article. All that being said, I support having the victim names listed in this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to names of the deceased victims. I don't think names of the wounded victims should be included. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the discussion to which I referred above. Here it is: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 149#WP:NOTMEMORIAL Victim lists in mass tragedy articles - Round 2. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph A. Spadaro: I don't see an argument for inclusion in your comments, nor do I find it in the above-linked discussion or two others that I checked. All I see is your frustration with the inconsistency between articles and the community's resistance to establishing a guideline on this, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Per WP:DEM, this is not a democratic vote and we need to articulate an argument or provide a pointer to it elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandruss—WP:ONUS places no greater responsibility on those wishing to include content than those wishing to omit content—aside from concerns pertaining to verifiability. You cite in this edit summary, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That language, found at WP:ONUS, is just a manner of speaking. The same idea is expressible as "The onus to achieve consensus for omission is on those seeking to omit disputed content". At WP:ONUS we are concerned with whether the inclusion of certain material does or does not "improve an article". Such concerns should be contrasted with those found under WP:BURDEN, which says "all content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The responsibility under WP:BURDEN is to provide verification for something of a factual nature. Under WP:ONUS we aren't especially concerned with verifiability. And in our instance we know that the names of the victims are verifiable. That is not in dispute. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's just a patently false argument, as the consensus burden (onus) can't reside on both sides of the same content dispute simultaneously. You know very well that verifiability is not the only factor at play here, and, per WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." I refer you to this passage at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Process, to which I've added relevant diff links and italics for emphasis: "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." This revert was therefore improper. Despite what some editors believe (most of them not particularly familiar with process policy and guideline), consensus is not determined by counting the editors on each side of a revert war.
    All that said, aside from the short-term privacy issues, I don't particularly care if the content remains in until this discussion concludes—provided there is no attempt to treat a "no consensus" result as "no consensus to remove". That is, the content doesn't accrue de facto consensus while it's under discussion, merely because its opposers refrain from edit warring to enforce proper process. In the event of a "no consensus" result here, I'll interpret any such attempt as WP:GAMING, and probably proceed accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Edited May 9, in response to Joseph A. Spadaro. I mistakenly voted originally to Oppose. My intended point was simply that I see no need for a separate listing of the victims' names in the info-box. There is well-written preliminary synopsis covering key facts about the victims in the Victims section of this article, which should be retained there and edited as new information warrants. Erasistratus1 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Erasistratus1 (talk)[reply]
@Erasistratus1: You are saying that we should keep the victim name/information in the article. Yet, you voted "opposed"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification here

[edit]

What exactly is at issue, here? Is the question whether or not to include victim names at all? Or whether or not to include them in an info-box? Or whether or no to include them in the narrative body? I guess the above discussion – see "Seeking clarification here" – got me confused. What's the issue/question that is being discussed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both types of list are disputed, so both need consensus. It wouldn't make any sense to seek consensus for the infobox list alone while there is no consensus to include either list. I'm assuming what makes sense, although that's a risky assumption sometimes at Wikipedia. ADD: Oh, and none of the OP's three linked example articles has a list in the infobox. Thus their argument appears to be that the body should list the names because it already does. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, I think that the victim names should be included in the article. Whether it is in narrative form in the article body, or in an Info-Box, or both ... any of those three options are fine with me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I reiterate this, which remains an issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss—aren't many of us indicating, either implicitly or explicitly, that we prefer the names of the deceased be included in the article? For your part, I find you indicating, at least in an edit summary "list of non-notable, randomly-selected victims' names adds nothing to reader understanding of the subject event, is unencyclopedic". What your argument fails to take notice of, is the pertinence of those names to this incident. This is the article on the topic of the killing of those individuals. You are saying the individuals are "non-notable" and "randomly-selected". This detracts not one iota from the pertinence of the names of those individuals to this article. That is because this is the article on the topic of the killing of those individuals. You can say that this is the article on the act of violence by the assailant. The names of those killed by the assailant are still pertinent to this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including victims names in the article. In particular, one of the students killed, Riley Howell, died while trying to tackle the shooter, and Howell's actions became a major aspect of the story. There is a large amount of ongoing media coverage about Howell, probably more than of the shooter. Not including Howell's name would be both a WP:DUEWEIGHT violation and a perversion of common sense. The other victims received less coverage, but still a significant amount. Since the number of victims is small and including their names does not overwhelm the article, it is better to include those names as well. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since victim's names are listed in almost every other shooting article. What makes this one an exception? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Spadaro and Nsk92. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 00:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion discussion

[edit]

I created the discussion page for this articles deletion here [1] using the automated link. I am not sure why it didn't link to the deletion template on the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Charlotte shooting Reed Parlier

[edit]

Reed is left out of the narrative, he was shot first and shot six times. As his mother he is a hero because he took those first six bullets. While I am thankful for Riley’s actions Reed should gain the same attention and admiration 2600:1700:E980:5E30:9026:5C23:3BA:DBA5 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is a hero just for being shot. What did he do that was "heroic"? Howell actually tackled the shooter. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_University_of_North_Carolina_at_Charlotte_shooting&oldid=1196842317"