Jump to content

Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Is the NPOV tag appropriate?

NO RESULT
On April 17, 2023, five days after this discussion began, the NPOV tag was replaced with {{Content}}, which remained (and continues to remain) on the article without interruption. On April 26, I asked how that replacement affected this discussion. A minute later, another user expressed disagreement with the replacement but also stated that this discussion could be hatted. Since that comment, no users have offered input on the issue. Though I am an involved editor, I believe it is reasonable to, at this point, find that hatting this discussion is uncontroversial. Should any editor disagree, I would not object at all to be reverted.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

We've been asked to come to a consensus, and I'm sure we're all tired of back-and-forths. Please add your !vote to the subsection below, and keep replies in the discussion section so that a clear consensus can be developed from this thread. Also, as this has been hashed already multiple times, probably keep !votes shorter. Soni (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

!Votes

  • No. Template:NPOV is reserved for articles that seriously lack a neutral point of view, and that is not at all the case here. The issue being discussed in the RfC that the NPOV template links to is at its core a style issue–MOS:GENDERID is part of our manual of style (obviously). Readers will see this NPOV banner and assume there is something seriously wrong with the article, when in fact the issue it was placed for has zero impact on the article's factual accuracy. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
    no Dissagreements with MOS is not a reason to apply an NPOV tag that follow that guidance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    No Dissareement with MOS is not a reason to apply an NPOV tag to articles that follow that MOS' guidance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes -- Neutrality concerns whether or not the content of an article is written neutrally (WP:NPOV), and the disagreements that editors have had above demonstrate that some do not believe the article is written from a neutral perspective. That is the reason anyone would add an NPOV tag; they don't need to demonstrate whether it's 100% correct or not. The neutrality is simply "disputed", which is true. They claim it is written from a non-neutral perspective, and at the moment, the "How should the perpetrator be named in the article?" RfC will likely be the RfC to introduce neutrality, similarly to other discussions. Let it run its course and then remove the tag; I don't see any need to hurry the tag's removal. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Maybe I should have throughly searched the article before !voting... Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No. If I squint hard enough, I suppose I can understand the due weight arguments I've seen made, but I just don't think this tag is ultimately the appropriate one—very few people seem to be willing to identify what POV, exactly, the article is biased towards. I'm fine with some indication that there's a style debate happening and disagreement over how to identify the shooter (although even there the dispute seems to be "how often should the shooter be referred to by his birth name?" rather than anything really substantive), but I think NPOV just gives the wrong impression.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No What we've been discussing in the RfC, and the multiple discussions prior to it is not an NPOV issue. It's a mixed MOS:BIO and WP:BLP issue, as using the correct name, gender, and pronouns to refer to a person based on their own self-declaration is based in that policy and guideline, not NPOV. {{Disputed inline}} is probably the closest match for a suitable article maintenance tag to link to the RfC from the article, but even that implies something that the discussion isn't actually focusing on. Sadly none of the other article space tags really fit the underlying dispute without implying something that the RfC isn't actually about. {{Under discussion inline}} would be a perfect fit, as it only implies the presence of a discussion without really categorising the nature of the discussion, but according to that template's docs it's for the project space only. Though I suppose we could make an IAR case for using {{under discussion inline}}. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. I've already spent enough time justifying it above, but TL;dr, it's clear from the instructions that this template is appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, WP:NPOV clearly states representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The dispute is largely around Hales name, which has significant coverage, being fairly and proportionately included. Until which time there is consensus on this matter, the template belongs, imho. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No. I've explained it above. A content dispute is not the same as an NPOV tag, and latter requires serious breaches of policy or similar. Just the opinion of some editors does not make it so, since the threshold is that it can be reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. Based on WP:RS, this is not an issue. Soni (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. The current article does not acknowledge the perp name reported in many reliable sources. The article is not neutral. WWGB (talk)<
  • Yes - We are currently seeing some conflict between our guidelines regarding gender and our core policy of NPOV that says we should be critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias and that it cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines. The banner should remain till a consensus is obtained. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Following MOS:DEADNAME isn't a POV issue. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No - this is a clear misuse of the template. Tekrmn (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per Kcmastrpc’s reasoning. Yasslaywikia (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per Kcmastrpc and Iamreallygoodatcheckers. In addition MOS:DEADNAME (with regard to deadname) does not apply because the subject is dead. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name … In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name… starship.paint (exalt) 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Not every editorial dispute is an NPOV issue; in this case, nobody has given a satisfactory explanation for how including or excluding the name would be a POV issue specifically. People can disagree over whether it ought to be included or not, but that doesn't make the article non-neutral; is usage is therefore essentially as a "badge of shame", which is forbidden for NPOV templates. Beyond that, this is a textbook example of where WP:BDP applies, being both a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime, which means that WP:BLP and therefore MOS:DEADNAME apply. --Aquillion (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No MOS is not an NPOV issue. Otherwise every content dispute would warrant the NPOV tag which is clearly not what it is designed for. Why was Template:Content disputed not used instead - its clearly the far more relevant tag. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that this template makes more sense, but it doesn't entirely fit either because the disputed information is and always has been in the article, just not in the way Locke Cole thinks it should be. Tekrmn (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Tekrmn: just not in the way Locke Cole thinks it should be I see. It's just me, no other editor has supported the NPOV tag or the underlying issue at the RFC above. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No even though my argument above regarding how we should resolve Hale's name is based on the NPOV subcategory WP:UNDUE, I still don't believe the article is so swept up in bias that it requires the tag alerting visitors to the page. The resolution as it currently stands is not what I believe is best for the article or for the user experience, but all of the pertinent information is in there and represented neutrally even if eliminating Hale's birth name in the lead gives undue weight to Hale's preferred name that is far less prominent in Reliable Sources. Penguino35 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment It's worth noting, that on the 17th, FormalDude made a [b]old edit to change the NPOV tag to a content tag, despite consensus clearly being split here for removal. Given all the claims of BLP being relevant, I don't see how it's just a "content" dispute. I think it's safe for someone uninvolved to hat/close this discussion. Apparently neutrality is now optional if we don't want to offend people. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    Rather than assume that FormalDude concluded that "neutrality is now optional if we don't want to offend people", we could just assume that he thought the content tag—which, as I take is, is a flag for a dispute over the relevancy of Hale's birth name—was a better fit. After all, as I noted, few people have said what POV, exactly, the article is biased toward. I'm not sure that the replacement was appropriate in light of this discussion, but given how long it's been since the tag was added without reversion, I do think it complicates what the next steps are. It's not clear to me whether a significant portion of the editors who oppose the NPOV tag also oppose the Content tag, or whether a significant portion of the editors who support the NPOV tag find the Content tag acceptable.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    You know, I'm pretty sure it was your idea to have me not interact with you, so it's rather galling for you to immediately take issue with something I post after taking a break from this for a few days. Your wikilawyering a bad-faith move notwithstanding, many editors raised neutrality concerns above and in the RFC. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't magically mean few people have said what POV, exactly, the article is biased toward. That's just classic WP:IDHT. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    About a week ago, I asked for a wikibreak from eachother, which you made clear you were not going to honor. As you may or may not have noticed, I took that short break! Now, as to the task at hand, I'm not sure where you get "bad faith" from my question or comment—I was actually suggesting that you shouldn't assume FormalDude was taking the position that "neutrality is now optional if we don't want to offend people". But then, immediately assuming bad faith on those you disagree with is why I asked for the wikibreak in the first place—thanks for throwing in the accusation that I'm engaging in disruptive editing at the end there. I also ... don't see the contradiction you do in the portion of my comment you quoted. I acknowledge that people disagree about how prevalent the birth name should be, and they've suggested it's a neutrality issue, but that doesn't inherently mean they've identified the POV that's being pushed?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (NPOV tag)

Any replies, replies to replies, and so on, go here. Soni (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Open question to editors who think this is a NPOV issue. How and why is it so? How is using the name that Hale chose, the name that Hale had been using and had been requesting that people use for about a year a NPOV issue?
As a counter perspective, I would tentatively agree that it would be an NPOV issue if the dispute were over a controversial descriptor or label that we were applying to Hale. But using his name doesn't seem to rise to that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th It's not inherently an NPOV issue. I'm just referring to the fact that some are arguing that not including the shooter's former name (deadname) will not render the article neutral in perspective (especially when considering the fact that it isn't even mentioned once), possibly meaning that a neutral article wouldn't entirely exclude the deadname. I'm not saying I agree; I personally don't care. Yet if someone feels this isn't neutral, the inclusion of that tag is then justified. The tag itself simply states "The neutrality of this article is disputed", which is indeed a fact. And this won't be solved simply by adding {{Disputed inline}}, as it is clearly obvious that this possibly involves more than just one or two mentions, depending on the results of the RfC. The NPOV tag is rather technical, really. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
especially when considering the fact that it isn't even mentioned once: That strikes me as a slightly strange argument since the shooter's birth name is currently included? So the NPOV tag is there because a hypothetical future version of the article might be objected to on NPOV grounds?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
(Struck that mistake, sorry.) Well, you do have a point there. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV. Our sources do not support the trans name to the degree editors here are pushing it, and omitting or censoring the birth name is likewise pushing the needle on neutrality against our sources. It's NPOV 101. But I see we're still doing the deck chairs thing, so on we go... —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Respecting dead trans people, as much of a murderer as Aiden Hale was, is not a matter of NPOV. Will you start deadnaming me once I die in 60-70 years? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality is one of the core three policies on content. The others are Verifiability and No Original Research. The specific concern about naming here is WP:DUE. At present, our article deviates significantly from the breadth of WP:RS. I will not engage your attempts to make this a personal attack against you, as this article has absolutely nothing to do with you personally. You are not Aiden Hale. Please stop taking what should be a collegial discussion about process and trying to make it personal. once I die in 60-70 years I will be dead long before you, and regardless, if there were an article on you I assure you I would steer far away from it. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Before I continue, I’d like to preface this by saying that this is the first comment (or reply, take your pick) to an article’s discussion page, and I’ll be more than happy to learn more about Wikipedia’s policies!
Now, without further ado:
I think that this comment sums up why some editors here are in favour of using the shooter’s former name, in that they don’t want to respect school shooters, nor should they. The shooter’s preferred name and pronouns should be used through most of the article to maintain a neutral point of view and consistency with Wikipedia’s policies, and when relevant, i.e. the initial identification by police in Nashville, by their former name. To say that respecting respecting the shooter’s preferred identity is not a matter of neutrality is absolutely inappropriate - they must earn that respect, and if that person in question has murdered 6 people, including 3 children, then I don’t think that person is entirely deserving of respect.
Before I conclude this reply, I’ll say that, unless you’ve committed something as heinous as the Nashville shooter did, it’s unlikely that you’ll be misgendered, and if knowledge of your trans identity is lost as time goes on, then you’ll probably be misgendered, but this isn’t relevant to the shooting. This is not intended to be a personal attack, by the way - apologies if it comes off as one!
Also, I’ve referred to Audrey Elizabeth/Aiden Hale as a shooter throughout the reply to maintain a neutral stance on the matter and to avoid conflict in regards to their identity. This issue seems to be unresolved despite extensive edit warring and discussion on the issue, and consensus much be reached soon before everyone collapses of exhaustion. Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This feels like using our editing as a punitive measure against individuals mentioned in articles. I dont think this is really appropriate in any circumstance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I would second this. And, as I've pointed out in other discussions, even though masked in neutral language, the idea that we should use a person's former identity in order to avoid "respecting" them is, transparently, an anti-trans idea. How do I know this? Simple: Would the policy ever affect cis people? Would anyone support referring to Osama bin Laden as "she" in order to avoid respecting his gender identity? No, of course not. So the policy would only "punish" trans people.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn’t say that we shouldn’t refer to Hale by their preferred identity, I said that the idea of respecting a shooter put some users off (me, for example) of referring to Hale by their preferred identity when editing. I only think that Hale should be referred to be their former identity when relevant - see my reply to Filiforme1312. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Consider this alternate phrasal. It's not about "respecting the shooter" but about using principles equally on everyone, including shooters. We apply the legal system and justice regardless of if we respect the people involved. All laws apply to all people, including mass murderers.
Even outside law... Even if someone is a mass murderer, I would not make up falsehoods about them. That is also not about respect, but more about the general principles applied on myself (and kindof, all of Wikipedia editors). Not only is your concept flawed (because it invokes respect towards specific people as opposed to the principles on "ourselves"), it is also discriminatory (because it would affect only trans people you do not respect, not all people you do not respect).
So, as much as editor are put off by this idea, I'd respectfully say they need to get over it and focus on our policies at hand instead. Soni (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate this alternate phrasing greatly. It was incredibly inappropriate to demand respect for a shooter, and this is what I was trying to say, however I got carried away because of how it phrased. Thank you for the more appropriate explanation. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn’t say so. While I think that Hale’s preferred identity should be used throughout the article as a matter of neutrality, I don’t see the reason why we need respect a shooter because of their identity. By punitive, what do you mean exactly? I don’t think this would be punishing as Hale’s former name would only be used where relevant, such as in the lead to establish that they identify as trans and anywhere else that’s appropriate, such as initial misidentification of Hale by the police. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We dont weigh how often to use a name based on how often it is used by RS Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This is literally the opposite of what WP:DUE says about proportionality (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery). So, yes, we actually do. And right now our article deviates substantially from how sources cover the perpetrator's name. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: even if you're of the opinion that the deadname provisions of MOS:GENDERID does not apply, as Hale had changed his name months prior to the shooting MOS:CHANGEDNAME would apply. An argument could also be successfully made that because this is not a biographical article about Hale, the paragraph beginning A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. from CHANGEDNAME would also apply here, which would require us to use Aiden as the primary name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Also MOS:SURNAME tells us that once we've initially stated the name, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
No offense to the MOS, but WP:NPOV still sits far above that in the order of things I get concerned about (and WP:CONLEVEL applies here too). I do agree this is not a biographical article on the perpetrator, but as they aren't notable enough on their own, we tend to effectively have a mini-biography in these types of articles on these subjects. The last name is fine by me, I've never said otherwise: my concern has been the removal of the birth name from all but one part of the article; as this article is dealing with the event and a mini-bio of the perpetrator, IMO it's appropriate to include his birth name in all three locations (lead, "Perpetrator" section, and the infobox) as this both satisfies WP:DUE and doesn't leave our readers confused by the name swapping if they come in via a redirect.
I honestly think MOS:GENDERID should be taken out of the MOS and made a part of WP:BLP. I do think the wording can be simplified to consider WP:DUE better as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
On your last paragraph, feel free to suggest that at WT:BIO. The former might find some support, though I'm not so sure about the later. Though a discussion for that other venue, there are valid reasons for why DUE cannot wholly apply to the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals, particularly for those who were notable prior to transitioning but who transitioned either later in life or who transitioned after they "left the limelight" for lack of a better term, hence why there is the proviso that we always follow the person's most recently expressed identity, not their most commonly expressed one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the trick is making WP:DUE a temporal concern: e.g. for trans individuals, greater weight would be given to recent sources in so far as their gender identification and names are concerned. Obviously this would be reliable sources, so no consideration would be given to generally unreliable sources. Might be something to consider at WP:VPI and see if we can get these policies to stop fighting each other. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
On your point of NPOV taking precedence over MOS:BIO, I would direct your attention to Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays#Policy pages outrank guidelines, which in turn outrank essays. While that is an essay, it is one that is prominently linked on WP:PAG as an explainer for the differences between policies and guidelines. On this specific point, MOS:SURNAME, CHANGEDNAME, and GENDERID would be the most relevant advice that would apply to the content under discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh so that's why. So the tag isn't justified. I did not notice that. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
An explanatory note in tiny font at the end of the article is a token inclusion that would be missed by most casual readers. Balance would suggest the birth name be included at least once in the main content of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@WWGB:, unless I'm missing something, Hale's birth name is in the main content of the article. It is included in the Perpetrator section, where it is bolded, and it is also included as a note appended to the perpetrator parameter in the template.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This is how the article looked for quite some time, then repeated edit warring got us to where it is currently. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure how that pertains to what I said. WWGB said that the article only features the perpetrators birth name in a note—I pointed out that the article features the birth name in bolded text in the main content and in a note.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
After reading through the previous revision and comparing it to the latest revision at the time this reply was written, there has been a noticeable degradation in the writing style used throughout the article - proseline, although not against the policies of Wikipedia, is often found throughout the article (especially in the aftermath section) and significantly degrades both the quality and readability of the article - surely the information where proseline is used can be condensed and formatted better? For instance, the lead could be rewritten to something to the effect of ‘The 2023 Covenant School shooting took place in Nashville, Tennessee on 24 March 2023, and was perpetuated by Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who identified as Aiden Hale[4][5][6] at the time of the shooting. Hale, aged 28, was a local resident and former student of the school, and killed 3 adults and 3 children during the shooting, which started at 10:11 a.m. CDT. He was killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officers at 10:27 a.m. CDT, which ended the shooting.
The details regarding the school, such as it being a PCA school, can be included in the background section of the article. I’m definitely unsure as to how effective this rewrite of the lead would be, but I’m sure it’s a good starting to improve the quality of the article. The most glaring issues as I’ve mentioned are the proseline paragraphs present throughout the article, which can be addressed in a similar manner - should a new tab be created for such a discussion? Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I mean at least part of your proposal directly relates to the debate above—in your version of the article, the shooter's birth name is given primary and first reference. As @Locke Cole identified above, there's essentially a consensus that Aiden Hale should be the primary name that we use to identify the shooter, but the remaining debate concerns how often to include the shooter's birth name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I don’t mind either way - Aiden or Audrey Elizabeth Hale would sufficed as both are names Hale is known by, however I chose Audrey for the propose because it has had more coverage in reliable sources so far and is more notable than the shooter’s preferred name - I’m pretty sure a Ngram or Trends graph showed this and was posted here sometime ago on this talk page.
In terms of inclusion, I think Hale’s former name should be included when relevant, such as in the lead paragraph. Because of what @Locke Cole said, I’m now interested into seeing how the article’s quality should be improved - suggestions on what to do next, such as creating a new tab for this, can be discussed here or at my talk page. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
My point is this relates directly to the debate being have above. If you can't isolate your edits from that issue, then we should wait until a consensus is established.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. I’ll have to agree with this - there’s no clear consensus on the issue and we should wait it out for now before we start thinking about improving the article. Thanks! Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@LilianaUwU I seriously think the circumstances surrounding Hales demise warrant the discussion we're having now. Furthermore, using do you seriously... in the manner you did could be considered as a form of ad hominem attack, specifically a type of insult or ridicule fallacy. This type of fallacy attacks the person's character or intelligence rather than addressing the actual argument made. This isn't the first time I've seen it either [diff], and I recommend you seriously consider how you address other editors in the future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity—what's the status of this discussion? The NPOV tag was replaced a long time ago by {{Content}}. There's been no effort to revert that replacement. Is there a consensus that {{Content}} is sufficient? Do the editors who opposed the NPOV tag also oppose the Content tag?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Background

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

We don't have a standalone article for the Covenant School in Tennessee while we do for Columbine and there is a standalone article for the school district for Sandy Hook. I believe that is why this article has the background section mention the year it opened while the standalone articles contain that information for those articles. -Super Goku V (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not sure how apt the comparison to Newtown Public Schools is ... given even that article's light treatment of Sandy Hook (no mention of a founding date), but hey if anyone feels like it should be kept in, I'm fine deferring!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah, whoops. I thought it could be inferred, but I just realized that it about the elementary school called Hawley School. (The first Sandy Hook wasn't built until the 1950s.) I would say that you are correct that it is a bit out of place. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Standalone victims section

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

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

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

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

The older shootings didn't do it, but it has become standard practice now, look at all the school shooting since Parkland, almost all of them have victims section. Noblesville West Middle doesn't but that one had no deaths. I think a section for it is fine even if it is only a few sentences right now. If anything it could be as a subheading of the shooting section. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll be honest, "there's a recent trend towards inclusion" doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument, particularly given how short this section is. I'm okay with it being a subheading—still strikes me as a little weird, but I certainly think that'd look better than having a category 1 heading with only a very short paragraph. --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not using it as an argument, so the strength of it or whatever doesn't matter. You said you don't buy that it is standard practice, I was simply pointing out the it has been standard practice for at least the last 5 years. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough! But in terms of whether this article should have a standalone section ... what is the argument? If you're happy with a subsection, I can definitely let this be until we at least see if more encyclopedic info about the victims comes out.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not an argument it is just my opinion that it's better to have a section or subheading in these articles. A very common thing someone might want to know about when coming to one of these articles is the victims. In this article in particular it being an elementary school, they may want to know which were children. Instead of reading prose where its spread out where "John age X was shot here at this time", and "Jane, age Y was shot there at that time". It works better to keep those individual details in sperate paragraph together as is in your or the current version. At that point when its just their names, ages, occupations it no longer is talking about the shooting itself, it only is talking about the victims, hence the separate subheading. For me its not so much about the length of the subsection, so much as the content of it. Both can be taken into account, but as I said this is my opinion on what is better. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Treatment of victims has differed over time. Until recently, victims were often not named, so there was little need for a Victims section. Looking at other 2023 shootings, we see 2023 Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting, 2023 Atlanta shooting, 2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting, 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, 2023 Louisville bank shooting, 2023 Michigan State University shooting, 2023 Monterey Park shooting and 2023 Dadeville shooting all have a standalone Victims section. Looks pretty consistent to me. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
See above :) But I do appreciate that we are all in agreement that this is not dictated by guidelines or anything, and is instead a "well, very recently, editors on mass shooting articles have used standalone sections, so we should too" argument. Given the sort of arbitrariness of "well look at only the most recent shootings" ... I don't really think it's a consistency argument—after all, editors could go back and change the older shootings, but they haven't. Rather, it seems a little bit like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
Also, on the talk pages of one of those pages you listed, there's currently a debate concerning whether the victims names should be listed at all ... and there's a discussion over how, two years ago, that was hotly debated (and some older articles don't include lists0, but now it's more common ... although that particular discussion seems to not have much of a consensus). FWIW, just broadly speaking, this is why I sometimes think people are too quick to invoke WP:CREEP. It'd really help if we had a guideline that clarified this type of thing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Sandy Hook used to have a victims section/list, but it was removed because it "goes against WP:NOTMEMORIAL" per the talk page. Columbine used to have a victims section/list, but it was removed "in accordance with WP:MEMORIAL" per the talk page. Virginia Tech used to have a brief victims section when the shooting occurred, but it was removed because "wikipedia is not a memorial" per the listed edit on the talk page. After a number of discussion, a list was created instead which survived removal discussions. (This is part of the reason that the essay WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL exists.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Nashville_school_shooting/Archive_5&oldid=1160552418"