Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting

RfC: Is "Mass murder" or "Mass shooting" more appropriate in infobox?

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.

---

Should the infobox contain the term for the incident "Mass shooting", "Mass murder", or both? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass shooting

• Support. The reliable sources in the article and internet searches seem to support both, however, "Mass shooting" appears to be the most prevalently and consistently used in reliable sources, even months after the incident. Further, "Mass shooting" is more specific whereas "Mass murder" gives no indication as to the method. As well, "shooting" in the title of the article, which seems to make "Mass shooting" a no-brainer. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass murder

Both

Per what I've said above. This isn't worth an RFC as it only slows down the editing process.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Activist (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Per what I said above. To summarize, both are accurate (this was a mass murder as defined by the FBI, according to our article); neither alone is fully descriptive of the event ("shooting" does not necessarily mean killing); not that it matters but both are used in reliable sources. Agree that RfCs should be reserved for more important matters and this is a regrettable waste of the community's time. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ensuing discussion moved to #Discussion 1. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Both.  It is important to point out the kind of attack it was; it is also important to point out that people were actually killed.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support use of both terms (perhaps alternately by mention) in the article, to make clear that the shooting resulted in fatalities and that the murders were caused by shooting. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm assuming that 3 to 1 settles the matter for "both. "Is that correct? Activist (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't count votes, we seek consensus via discussion and comments (the 'c' in RfC). And RfCs by default can stay open for 30 days. It's barely been what -- a little over one day? Besides, what's the hurry? Rome wasn't built in a day, and because it's not a newspaper and is never truly completed, there's no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If every decision on Wikipedia took 30 days, very little would get done. This could have been solved several days ago by giving both in the infobox. This RfC is little more than a WP:HORSEMEAT debate in an attempt to drum up support for the "mass shooting" option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone to RfC several times in almost three years, when I strongly disagreed with the local consensus. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's an abuse of the RfC process to use it for what amounts to a large nit. Experienced editors should know better. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Off topic

"I've gone to RfC several times in almost three years" A very interesting comment considering your editing history shows your first edit was just two weeks ago. I hope you aren't a block-evader, anon IP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This, mere minutes after "Your total lack of good faith is, sadly, noted", below, and "Please keep your comments focused on edits, not editors", above. Winkelvi, I've seen chronic hypocrisy at Wikipedia, but you take it to a whole new level. You have made an art of correcting and criticizing others while being completely unable to examine your own behavior. Stunning. Save your false righteous indignation. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC) You just admitted to having edited under another account or other IPs. If you are socking -- and because of your own words it seems very possible you are -- then it's on you to disclose that fact. There's no bad faith here, just observing and pointing out what you, yourself, so obviously stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, I "admitted" to editing under something other than this IP address, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. Registered editors can edit logged out, and IP addresses can change. There are editors whose IPv6 addresses change at least daily. Despite the fact that they can start over with a new block log at least once a day, the community has seen no problem with this, as evidenced in discussions at WP:ANI. Socking refers to using such things for illicit purposes, such as pretending to be multiple editors to gain advantage in a discussion. If you wish to accuse me of that, this is not the place to do it. You have been around more than long enough to know these things. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Well, you came clean, Mandruss. I knew something was quite familiar in your writing and communication style as the IP. Anyway, this RfC isn't the place to discuss further. At least now we know the truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC) No, I didn't come clean. I intended to post that logged out, but I logged in to check something and then forgot to log out again. There was nothing to "come clean" about. You're right, this isn't the place, which is why you were out of line to bring it up here. Stop breaking the rules and then correcting others for doing the same, please. It's unseemly. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your total lack of good faith is, sadly, noted, Ian. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out that the "both" option was good enough at San Ysidro McDonald's massacre. This RfC is going to stagnate long before the thirty days is up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why the example of another article not a good argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of otherstuffexists, but can't see why this has become such a major issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how major an issue it is. I just know that I personally disagree with "mass murder" being used in the infobox, and, it would seem others likely do as well who have edited the article previously and didn't include the classification in the infobox. That's why it's best to wait for any and all involved and interested in the article to comment. That can a while. Especially when there is a major holiday occurring at the same time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion 1

Moved from !vote by 72.198.26.61 in #Both. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"As defined by the FBI" -- the FBI didn't write the article. "according to our article" -- where is the FBI quoted in the article as saying the shooting was a mass murder? Also, anon IP, please reserve your displeasure over the existence of this RfC for rewriting RfC policy and guidelines. If you must comment in such a manner, it's more appropriate for the "Discussion" sub-section of this RfC. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The article cites the FBI's definition of "mass murder", and that definition encompasses the undisputed facts of this case. We are thinking beings and we don't need a secondary source to confirm that this case meets that definition, any more than we need a secondary source to confirm that Roseburg, Oregon is in the U.S., another fact stated in the infobox. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. I'll ignore the rest as the combative lecturing that it is. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific as to where this cite is. As far as being thinking human beings and not needing secondary sources, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is the reliance on secondary sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Go to the Mass murder article, which I linked above for your convenience and link again here.
2. Locate the one occurrence of "FBI" in the article text. You can use your browser's Find function, or you can visually locate it there in the article's first paragraph.
3. Note that it speaks of the FBI's definition of the term.
4. Locate the citations following that definition. It must be one of those.
5. You will find the definition in the second of those citations. If you search for "mass murder" you will find this prose: Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).
6. Ask yourself why I was able to find that in a few minutes, and yet you found it so impossibly difficult.
Feel free to point to an equally authoritative source for a definition of "mass murder" that does not encompass the facts of this case. Re the rest of your comment, I have previously addressed that. You disagree, I get that. I think we have both stated our cases adequately and I'd propose that we end this and wait for other comments (I, for one, won't feel the need to counter every !vote that I disagree with; I don't think that's helpful in an RfC). 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

1. The mass murder article in Wikipedia means nothing in relation to this discussion or this article. We don't reference Wikipedia with Wikipedia. 2. You still have not provided a reliable reference in this article relating to the FBI and mass murder. 3., 4., 5. Same as 2. 6. Please keep your comments focused on edits, not editors. Yes, let's wait for other editors to comment, however, actually answering the question(s) I asked would be helpful as well as collegial. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that "mass shooting" isn't cited either. It does not need to be because it passes WP:V. "Mass murder" also passes WP:V and does not need to be cited. But, if would satisfy you, I could support adding a citation for each of the three items currently in the infobox plus mass murder. It would just be a little unsightly, unnecessary clutter. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this again: "according to our article" -- where is the FBI quoted in the article as saying the shooting was a mass murder? I am referring -- as it seemed you were when you made the statement -- to this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"According to our article" referred to the Mass murder article which has been linked twice before in this RfC and once in the earlier discussion thread. Of the two articles, which one contains the FBI definition? Is it not obvious to an intelligent person, then, which one I was referring to?
As is often the case, there is nothing in policy which clearly points one way or the other in this specific situation. So we're left to interpretation and judgment, and mine and others' differ from yours. This is becoming circular and I long ago learned to avoid circular arguments. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Harper-Mercer was not a white supremacist. He was biracial (his mother was black) and killed eight whites and a Hispanic (all for following what many think of as the white man's religion.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B11:8F20:6CE8:4F78:84C:FB86 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2017 (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.

Names

Entirely too much weight was given to the shooter's name (which basic decency insists should not be given at all, or once at most), and the victims are barely even mentioned; The instructor is only vaguely identified as "the teacher" and all of the victims are mentioned in one big jumble, treated as trash to be sorted, while the little bastard who did this sick act of terrorism is practically lauded as some kind of hero, given every possible mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.81.51 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With due respect, you're not the first person with no knowledge of Wikipedia content policy to say this at various articles like this. The applicable principle, embodied mostly in the policy WP:DUE, is that our coverage needs to be proportional to coverage in reliable sources (in this case, primarily news sources). The news media gave far more attention to him than his victims. Furthermore the victims were randomly selected and passive actors in the events, and Wikipedia articles are not memorials. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not going down the path of damnatio memoriae as recommended by Sheriff John Hanlin, as WP:NOTCENSORED applies here; this has been discussed before. As for listing the names of all of the victims, I'm not a fan of doing this per WP:NOTMEMORIAL as it doesn't add much useful information about the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

≠== Open carry laws ==

Re this edit: it may well be true that Oregon has open carry laws, but adding it to the lead looks like trying to make a point. After the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, numerous gun enthusiasts pointed out that if staff at the school had been carrying guns, the shooting might have been prevented. The reality is that the average school teacher or student on campus is not open carrying in case there is a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The source covers a 2011 Oregon law that essentially requires colleges to allow concealed carry on campus, and it discusses that law in the context of this shooting. I don't think it belongs in the lead but it would be a good fit for the last paragraph of the Reactions section where other gun laws are discussed. –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If it goes in the body, it needs to go in the lead as well. It was very widely discussed. Meanwhile Ianmacm has been revert warring it out entirely, and it's clear from his comments above that he is doing this to support his own personal beliefs.GliderMaven (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a primary source so it lacks context. The Guardian article points out that Oregon allows guns to be concealed carried on campus, but there is a risk of using this for original research. Specifically, the Guardian article says "Oregon is one of fewer than a dozen states, along with more conservative counterparts like Mississippi and Utah, which allow concealed carry on college campuses." After Stoneman Douglas, gun enthusiasts argued that the way forward was to have everyone armed to the teeth. While schools and colleges may need to have armed guards, it's questionable whether teachers and students want to have this type of gun carrying as a regular feature of everyday life, and it is not the point that the Guardian source is trying to make. In fact, the Guardian article says "A frequent refrain among conservatives is that violent rampages happen in places like college campuses and movie theaters precisely because guns are banned there. The thinking goes that someone setting out to commit a massacre can select a target where he is reasonably assured not to encounter an armed citizen. (There is no evidence of a shooter ever selecting a target precisely because it is a gun-free zone.)", then adding "In the Umpqua case, though, at least one student (and likely others) was carrying a concealed weapon during the massacre. Needless to say, this did not prevent the tragedy."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I agree that the oregonlaws.org source is OR and should not be cited in this case, but I don't follow the OR concern for the other source. The statement was presented as a simple fact and wasn't being used to support a certain viewpoint or conclusion. Do you have any suggestions for improving the sentence? –dlthewave ☎ 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The point that the Guardian article makes is that despite allowing guns on campus, the shooting happened anyway. After Stoneman Douglas, there was a rethink about how schools should prevent this type of attack. One school in Pennsylvania armed students and teachers with rocks.[1] In the event of an active shooter, they are expected to grab the five-gallon bucket of river stones and throw them at the shooter. "One high school senior said he supports the plan, adding that throwing rocks is better than throwing books or pencils" (no, I'm not making this up). The question of how schools and colleges should defend against this type of attack is relevant, but in this article it isn't WP:LEAD material and should be looked at later on. At the time of the shooting, Umpqua Community College allowed concealed carry, another source here. This is an interesting source. It points out that John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran and several other people had concealed carry weapons on campus at the time, but did not fire them during the shooting. It says "A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said. "If we would have run across the field, we would have been targets," he said. "We made a good choice at the time." This is something worth adding to the article. Anyone using a gun during an active shooter incident risks being shot by law enforcement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Absent directly related resulting legislation or something equally weighty, I agree that we shouldn't touch on political issues in the lead. Otherwise no opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a video interview with John Parker here. It's rather long (5:25) but at around the 1:45 mark, he makes the same point that despite having a gun with him at the time, he was talked out of tackling the active shooter and asked to remain inside the building where he was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate category

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

---

The category, anti-Christian killings had been added recently. In fact, the killer asked what religion his intended victims were and one said "agnostic," and another, "pagan." The teacher was ethnic Jewish and raised in that faith, but appears to have been secular. One young woman was 7th Day Adventist. The faith or lack of same of the victims did not seem to affect Harper-Mercer's homicidal intent. Consequently, I removed the category. Activist (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Telling Christians they will go to heaven before shooting them is definitely anti-Christian sentiment in my book. Wikipedia isn't a court, but I imagine there are some lawyers who could sell it to a jury too. I'm pretty set on requesting deletion for the hate crimes against christians cat, and for now I'm ambivalent about restoring anti-Christian sentiment here - I guess it's fine to keep them classed as "mass shootings" for now, but there are a lot of reasons why the "Religion" aspect gets discounted, and one is because it has in the past ended up being exploited, and media coverage has learned over the years to be more careful about both the religion and the celebrity angles. But it's still discussed at length in scholarship and it doesn't absolutely need a cat to be discussed in the articles, though its probably still too soon here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

We know (and Harper-Mercer knew) for sure that at least three of the eight killed weren't Christians. Gerry Spence would have a hard time selling a case of religious discrimination to a jury that was vetted by both sides in such a hypothetical case. Mercer was purely and simply a lunatic, who killed all those people so, per his own writings, he could become famous, posthumously. The Daily Mail source, no surprise, identifies his mom as a "nurse." She was actually an LVN. He was simply into tormenting his victims, and no doubt was able to do that by asking that question. He also told his victims that shooting them wouldn't hurt them. There have even been mass shootings in churches that were not likely "anti-Christian" such as Charleston, where the motivation was racism, and the Sutherland Springs church shooting, where the motivation was personal animus to the shooter's mother-in-law, a parishioner. Activist (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There are usually a combination of factors in mass shootings—antireligious sentiment, white supremacy/neonazism/racism, military culture, psychiatric background and celebrity/media influence are major ones. Unlike other types of murders, parents and possible childhood problems are hardly ever looked at and there is a culture of "don't blame the parents" - the response to these shootings is so vitriolic that it's not surprising. Due to the intense media pressure and social pressure following these types of shootings it can take upwards of 10 years before those involved feel safe enough to discuss it. There is more to it then an oversimplified analysis to "random targeting" - though, yes, generally it is thought that the in the moment targeting is random/indiscriminate that doesn't have much to do with the factors that contribute to the shooting happening in the first place. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The RS is too flimsy for this category in my opinion. There is the report of what he said, and the rest is a lot of speculation stemming from that, at least some of it agenda-based, which should count for nothing for our purposes. "Telling those who replied in the affirmative that they would go to heaven" could just as easily be interpreted as pro-Christian. "He made a woman beg for her life before shooting her" could be interpreted as misogyny, and "One victim...was killed while trying to climb back into a wheelchair at his orders" could be interpreted as contempt for the disabled. That is, if one is prone to allowing this kind of reasoning into their Wikipedia editing. The article states that "no online evidence of anti-Christian rhetoric was found." Ultimately, what we have is a big "maybe", and we shouldn't categorize based on maybes. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I already requested speedy for the hate crimes category due to there not being enough articles to populate the category, so I'm closing this discussion.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:10, 27 July 2018 (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.

People Magazine source is being drastically misrepresented and is being given WP:UNDUE weight

This source is severely misrepresented and given excessive weight in the article. First, we're devoting an entire paragraph to a single source - one that is not meant to be used for contentious claims. Second, we're misrepresenting what the source itself says; the source is careful to note that it couldn't confirm the existence of the manifesto and to attribute everything about it to an unnamed source, yet we were repeating it here with that attribution removed as if it were a confirmed fact. People itself calls it a purported manifesto, so we have to reflect their skepticism when using it as a source; and when covering the source accurately like that, it becomes hard to argue that this is WP:DUE. Likewise, in the People Magazine source, Satan and Satanism are very carefully only mentioned in quotes attributed to the unnamed source, never stated by People in the article voice; so we can only use it to attribute those things to the unnamed source as well. If there are other sources that confirm the manifesto rather than reporting it as something unverified, we can of course use those sources, but it's inappropriate to devote so much text to a single unverified report in a single source, which itself treats it with skepticism - and it was certainly inappropriate to report it as fact in the article voice when the source is careful to express skepticism. All sorts of things that, in the People source, were treated as unproven allegations or unverified claims, were reported as fact in the article; if we fix those problems, what's left? --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There are more sources attesting to the manifesto than just people, I was trying to edit them in but WP:ECF stopped me for a while.

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2017/09/umpqua_community_college_shoot_3.html

https://schoolshooters.info/chris-harper-mercers-manifesto

Koopinator (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: pinging in case you missed my comment above (and apparently the sources I provided inline in my edit). I provided the sources in the edit you had just reverted. Koopinator (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Schoolshooters.info isn't a WP:RS and only provides the WP:PRIMARY text of the manifesto itself anyway; we can't rely on that for anything controversial, which this clearly is. Oregon Life is better but what it says doesn't remotely reflect the text that we had before - it makes no mention of Christianity at all, and the only mention of Satan or Satanism is a brief one-line After embracing what he described as Satanism... The extreme focus that the old version of our coverage of the manifesto put on those aspects is still obviously WP:UNDUE; are we going to devote an entire paragraph to something that was one sentence in that source? If you want to use Oregon Life as a source, you have to reflect its focus and weight, which places far more emphasis on loneliness, racism, and so on. But nothing in the Oregon Life article supports Harper-Mercer wrote his actions were done to serve Satan or who, according to Harper-Mercer, would "reward" murderers in hell by turning them into "gods", neither of which get a mention, or describing him as a Satanist in the article voice (it is careful to say "what he described as"; again, all sources are much more cautious than the text you're trying to re-insert) or These beliefs have been linked to his decision to ask victims to state their religion, shooting those who identified as Christians, which is simply not there. The entire paragraph would have to be rewritten to use that source - none of the old version remotely reflects the focus and weight in the Oregon Live coverage, and most of the key points simply aren't there. --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to judge Schoolshooters.info as being "not an WP:RS", you would have to open a thread at WP:RSN and get a consensus for that. WP:PRIMARY does say that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The purpose of the additional two sources was to verify that the manifesto exists. The People source still describes the manifesto, which is why it's a source for that extra text.

"If you want to use Oregon Life as a source, you have to reflect its focus and weight, which places far more emphasis on loneliness, racism, and so on."

But the headline is, of course, "Umpqua Community College shooting: Killer's manifesto reveals racist, satanic views". Based on that, you think they consider satanism a big part of the story? Koopinator (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:HEADLINES; headlines are not generally usable as sources. They're usually written by copyeditors, not journals, and their purpose is to be eyecatching and attention-grabbing rather than accurate. The People source does not describe the manifesto the way you're trying to describe it. First, it doesn't even contain the two quotes you want to put in; and second, it still attributes all the interpretation to its unnamed source, which means we'd still have to attribute it ourselves. Finally, you can't use the Oregon Life source (which is obviously superior) to verify the existence of the manifesto, then turn around and use the weaker unnamed source from People magazine to describe it; that's, again, placing undue weight on that unnamed source's views. And it isn't necessary to take every source to RSN, but if you truly think that Schoolshooters.info is a RS, or that it's appropriate to pull WP:PRIMARY quotations from it that have no coverage in reliable sources, I'll take it there; it's an obvious enough question that I can't imagine it would take much time to answer. --Aquillion (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware of WP:HEADLINES. I will throw up my hands here, you can do as you please. I will say though, I feel really uncomfortable that he explicitly wrote in his manifesto "I did for for Satan" and that we make no mention of his own self-provided motive. Koopinator (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2024

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: no consensus. – robertsky (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

---

2015 Umpqua Community College shooting → Umpqua Community College shooting – The year does not need to be included as this is the only notable shooting to happen at the school and the school is the identifying factor in the shooting. MountainDew20 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Further discussion needed; per WP:NOYEAR, it's a judgement call as to whether this event has sufficient long-term significance to justify removing the year from the title. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (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.