Jump to content

Talk:Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Motive

I removed "Dislike for Mondays" as the motive and was reverted by @NJZombie.

See here: Special:MobileDiff/1180894724

"Dislike for Mondays" is not an intelligible motive for a shooting. The only source for that as a motive is a singular statement by the shooter, and even then it would be more accurate to interpret her statement as indicating boredom as a motive if anything. Realistically mental illness or misanthropy are the more likely actual motives. I say it should be left blank unless there is a better sourced actual motive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated argument including new information which resolves the issue altogether:

1. Stated motive =\= Actual motive

2. "Dislike for Mondays" is not a possible motive for a shooting, that simply makes no sense. Arguably "To liven up the day" could be a motive but that's still a stretch

3. She only stated that as her motive in one single instance immediately after the shooting—what was revealed or discussed about her motive since then? Has nobody asked what the courts or legal system have had to say about her motive?

Unfortunately nobody here has done even a single Google search worth of research before commenting

In a 1993 televised interview, when asked about her infamous statement about Mondays, she said "I don't remember saying that. Right now we're trying to find evidence that I did say that. I'd like to hear the tape. It really influenced how people saw me and thought about the whole case." and "On PCP you're liable to say anything." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-lMzatv6Weg Timestamp ~2:40

Also an expert on school shooters wrote the following: Based on the available information, it appears that virtually every claim Brenda Spencer has made during her parole hearings has been false. [...] She claimed she shot them due to hallucinations of commandos attacking her. She claimed she didn't shoot them; the S.W.A.T. team did. She claimed she fired the rifle but didn't aim and therefore had not intended to hurt anybody. She claimed she had taken so many substances that she blacked out and therefore had no idea what she had done. She claimed she only shot to draw police to the house so that they would kill her." Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Langman/publication/308221608_Brenda_Spencer_Sorting_Out_the_Contradictions/links/57dec91908ae4e6f184c2d36/Brenda-Spencer-Sorting-Out-the-Contradictions.pdf?origin=publication_detail

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In light of this, any objection to using "Motive: Undetermined" for the infobox?
@NJZombie, @Koopinator
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, I would support that only if there is a sort of official report stating there was no clear motive, like at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Otherwise I think we should either leave the field blank or just take the monday thing at face value. Koopinator (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The sources I've provided clearly prove that "dislike for Mondays" was not the actual motive. What reason is there for giving any prominence to "dislike for Mondays" rather than any of the other many disingenuous motives the shooter gave? Yes, the case is famous for the "dislike for Mondays" remark but that is addressed within the page, and should have no bearing on the actual infobox motive. Also, requiring a report to conclude the motive is undetermined makes no sense. Rather, unless there is conclusive evidence of motive then the infobox should state "Undetermined". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
To add to this, I overlooked your comment about leaving the field blank, that seems a good solution/compromise. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Motive

Should "Dislike for Mondays" be the official motive given in the infobox? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

My arguments and new information which resolves the issue altogether: (This was originally posted here)

1. Stated motive =\= Actual motive

2. "Dislike for Mondays" is not a possible motive for a shooting, that simply makes no sense. Arguably "To liven up the day" could be a motive but that's still a stretch

3. She only stated that as her motive in one single instance immediately after the shooting—what was revealed or discussed about her motive since then? Has nobody asked what the courts or legal system have had to say about her motive?

Unfortunately nobody here has done even a single Google search worth of research before commenting

In a 1993 televised interview, when asked about her infamous statement about Mondays, she said "I don't remember saying that. Right now we're trying to find evidence that I did say that. I'd like to hear the tape. It really influenced how people saw me and thought about the whole case." and "On PCP you're liable to say anything." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-lMzatv6Weg Timestamp ~2:40

Also an expert on school shooters wrote the following: Based on the available information, it appears that virtually every claim Brenda Spencer has made during her parole hearings has been false. [...] She claimed she shot them due to hallucinations of commandos attacking her. She claimed she didn't shoot them; the S.W.A.T. team did. She claimed she fired the rifle but didn't aim and therefore had not intended to hurt anybody. She claimed she had taken so many substances that she blacked out and therefore had no idea what she had done. She claimed she only shot to draw police to the house so that they would kill her." Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Langman/publication/308221608_Brenda_Spencer_Sorting_Out_the_Contradictions/links/57dec91908ae4e6f184c2d36/Brenda-Spencer-Sorting-Out-the-Contradictions.pdf?origin=publication_detail

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. She was asked why she committed the shooting, and she said it was because she didn't like Mondays. We shouldn't be in the business of deciding which motives for mass shooting are "valid" (I don't think any of them are). What makes sense to us can be very different from what makes sense to the shooter. Also, "mental illness" isn't a motive: It's a condition you're in that can influence your motive, but many mentally ill people do not commit violent crime. It's like if we added "being white" as a motive to every white nationalist mass shooting. Koopinator (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it really reasonable to trust a criminal's stated motive without any corroborating evidence? Especially where mental disturbance is suspected?
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Considering there's no motive for the shooting, the usage of "dislike for Mondays" is a sound fit. This is a Wikipedia article, not a court document. The media has portrayed this shooting in the same manner because of the lack of motive. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
So you're saying that since there is no motive for the shooting, the motive should be declared "dislike for Mondays". I don't see how this is a rational argument. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No with a strong dose of WTF?. An off-the-cuff comment by a psychotic perpetrator is not the literal motive for a murder, any more than the Son of Sam's motive was "a dog told me to." Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    And could I ask for your opinion on a solution? To remove the Motive section from the infobox or to have something like "Undetermined" as the motive? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    For example 1984 New York City Subway shooting has as motive "Disputed; Goetz claimed self-defense". We could do something similar here, along the lines of "Unknown; Spencer attributed it to a dislike of Mondays". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    Omit the parameter entirely, as there is no motive. Zaathras (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    If a consensus has been made, the request for comment needs to be closed BEFORE the pertinent edits are made. NJZombie (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    A consensus has not been reached because people are not engaging in discussion. Especially yourself @NJZombie. You've never explained why you think "dislike for Mondays" should be the official motive, and you've repeatedly reverted its removal even after it has been proven with sources that it was not the actual motive. I'm not an experienced editor and so I'm not sure how to proceed here. Any advice @Zaathras? Also, it's ridiculous this edit is even controversial in the first place. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    My participation is not required to reach consensus. My initial revert of your removal of the item was due to your reasoning that her motif was mental illness or misogyny which may be underlying causes and not motives. As an admittedly inexperienced editor, you should be reading up on the policy and procedural pages suggested before continuously assuming as you did when you reverted simply because you mentioned it on the talk page and again when the RfC wasn’t closed. NJZombie (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Don't you think it's wrong to add/restore content which has been proven false? And you really can't give any guidance on how to proceed eh? Your contributions here have been the opposite of productive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    What I think is wrong is your inability or refusal to learn and follow the procedures that productive Wikipedia users learn and follow. NJZombie (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    @NJZombie: Oh please. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and please do not bite the newcomers. People do not have to read many thousands of words of instructions before they can contribute to the discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Nobody bit anybody and nobody said anything about not being allowed to contribute to the discussion. They made a change that was questioned and were directed to post an RfC. They posted a comment instead and when nobody responded in several hours to that, they just made the change again, citing a discussion that didn’t happen. When they finally did post the RfC, they changed it again as soon as the discussion swayed in their direction. They were simply asked to not make the change until the discussion is closed. Which you could have even done without reading “thousands of words” at WP:RFCEND. NJZombie (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    I was never directed to post an RfC... I had to figure it out for myself that that was the correct way to proceed. Also, I didn't remove the information again "as soon as the discussion swayed in [my] direction", I did so after I proved with reliable sources that the information was false. See Talk:Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego)#Motive IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    You absolutely were directed toward how to gain consensus as seen here. RfC is part of that page you were directed to. Also, you deciding that you’ve provided proof and changing it is not how the process ends. It doesn’t just change because you’ve added what you’ve decided is undisputed proof. All this time you’re spending arguing with me, by the way, could be spent closing the request or finding someone who can. NJZombie (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    How can I close the request if consensus hasn't been reached? I've been trying to achieve a consensus but it's hard when people are not engaging in discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    You’ve, had numerous people involved in the discussion, many of which agree with you. Try WP:RFCEND. NJZombie (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    So you're implying that you think consensus has been reached? Why would you continue to revert the edit then? "Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change to a page content, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    I’m not implying anything. I first reverted your edit because your reasoning want valid to me. It wasn’t because I’m devoted to keeping the information itself. This is far from the first time someone has tried to make the same edit, although typically with no reasoning whatsoever. As it’s been an issue before, you were steered toward discussing it on the talk page. The person opposing the change is not required to participate. So stop worrying about my participation in the actual discussion. If a fellow editor, typically an uninvolved one, feels that the matter has reached a consensus, it gets closed and the edit is made. The participants can all agree that the discussion is over and agree to consensus that the matter is resolved. If no consensus is made at all, it typically stays as it was. NJZombie (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    1. "The person opposing the change is not required to participate. So stop worrying about my participation in the actual discussion." Is there anything in the guidelines that says this? Everything I've been reading seems to suggest the opposite. 2. You continue to not address my claim (backed up by reliable sources) that the information you keep restoring has been proven wrong. If you don't agree that it has been proven wrong then you should explain why. If you do agree that it has been proven wrong then you should not be restoring it. From Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained." As far as I'm aware, "procedure" is not a valid reason to revert a constructive edit. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Please respond to this so we can resolve this dispute @NJZombie. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like there is much to resolve here. A non-admin close to any discussion is someone who does not participate with the discussion which a summary can be seen at WP:NACINV. – The Grid (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with supporting the removal of the “Dislike for Mondays” “motive” but you should be aware of WP:BRD and WP:EW. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
No I agree with the no votes and what was said by IOHANNVSVERVS and don’t have much to add. The parameter in the infobox should either be “Unknown”, “Disputed” or omitted. I’m leaning towards something like “Unknown; Spencer attributed it to a dislike of Mondays in a phone call to a reporter” like Jochem says but that may be too wordy. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
But Spencer had multiple conflicting statements of motive. Why should one be given more prominence than any other? She also recanted the "dislike for Mondays" motive, and it was likely never a serious statement of motive in the first place. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
If that’s the case based on RSes then maybe something like “Unknown(or disputed); Spencer has given multiple conflicting statements.” would be better. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
It may be better to put this detail in a footnote if mentioning it as unknown or disputed. Mellk (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment If there are sources, then say "disputed". If not, "alleged" or blank is better than "unknown". Senorangel (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment. (Summoned by bot) I don't think the motive in the infobox should be based on such a comment that was made (unless there are sources that describe this as the motive for the attack) so it would be better to just omit or mention this as disputed in that case. Mellk (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No - that passage "I don't like Mondays" was cherry-picked from what she actually said to the reporter, which was: "I just wanted to. I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day. I shot a pig, I think, and I want to shoot some more." So according to that quote, her motive could have been because she "wanted to" or to "liven up the day" or she wanted to "shoot some pigs", which apparently she fantasized about per this article from February 9, 1979 and she talked again about killing police. And then there is the matter of her constantly changing her story at parole hearings. Since we have no real evidence of her motive, it should state unknown in the infobox.
On another note, I didn't see any mention of this in the article - Sniper Victims Get $350,000. There is precedent for it being included, see: Columbine High lawsuits, Sandy Hook legal proceedings and Parkland High civil lawsuits. Just a wild guess on my part, but it is probably the first modern day lawsuit filed in relation to a school shooting. 🎃 Isaidnoway (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm with the Infobox showing nothing. This probably could have been done without a RFC. – The Grid (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment NO! That description risks trivializing a horrible event in which people died. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: When we say this is a stupid reason, what are we comparing it to? It seems to me like any time somebody does something like this, the reason is necessarily stupid, res ipsa loquitur. There is no such thing as a really smart, intelligent reason for murdering random people. If they were intelligent they wouldn't do that, so I think we have to take their word for it. jp×g🗯️ 05:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
    so I think we have to take their word for it. People can lie about their motives. Some1 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)/Archive_2&oldid=1238559899"