Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting

Photo of Harper-Mercer

File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg
Adding a photo of Harper-Mercer to the article was bound to set off two arguments, a) is it fair use and b) is it glorifying the killer by giving him the publicity that he wanted? The Myspace image has been widely used in media coverage, and even if he is dead, he would still own the copyright on the image if he took it himself.[1] The fair use argument is open to debate as people have different views on how strictly this should be interpreted. On the issue of glorifying the killer, I think this is subjective. Most people are agreed that Harper-Mercer wanted to add his name to the history books by doing something disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not censored. Other thoughts welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I added HTML link in the OP and wikilink of photo, just in case... George Ho (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg doesn't fall under WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. Actually, it falls under WP:NFCI. WP:FREER does not apply because finding the free alternative is impossible. ATinySliver must explain objection to this image. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression Wikipedia wishes to stay out of the deny-recognition business. As far as I'm concerned, that is social activism and not part of our mission. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The purists will always say "yes, but a free image *might* be found." In the case of the Myspace image, it does have some relevance to the shooting as it shows how he saw himself, with a rifle in the image, possibly the one used in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, you missed FREER b. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all? If the answer to either [a or b] is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion." Meantime, per IMAGERES, while "there is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger." Also, you have an important criterion backwards: since you want to add an almost certain COPYVIO, the burden is on you to explain why it should be included. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support use of a photo with no copyright problems. Mandruss is correct. We are to treat this biography like any other. We're even bending the rules quite a bit by not even using his name in the title, but I'm fine with that. Political correctness and censorship are not part of our policies. We should use an image, but keep it really small. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

With every respect, policy is correct. In this case, "the subject [is] adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all". Copyright laws and Wiki policy supersede our opinions. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a vague and ambiguous clause that could be used to drop photographs of Abraham Lincoln provided the text says that he had a rough-hewn, angular face, dark hair, a beard, and a wart on his right cheek. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

*snerk* You do realize you just compared, in terms of historic importance, an otherwise unremarkable mass killer with the 16th President of the United States, right? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. The policy you cited makes no such distinction. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, okay, just to name a few points: as POTUS, Lincoln was both a historical and public figure, and his portrait is public; having died 150 years ago, his likeness would not constitute COPYVIO anyway; he never created a selfie. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahem. Policy and guideline are different from each other in Wikipedia. NFC (guideline) reflects practice agreed by consensus but can be best treated with (not ignored by) common sense (and/or common law). Some exceptions may apply. On the other hand, NFCC (policy) are normally accepted and followed. I'm sure the image adheres to NFCC --George Ho (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

NFCC #8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." [Emphasis mine.] This is the best explanation of what I've been trying, adequately or otherwise, to get across, and why this is in my mind a policy issue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

How is the suspect's image irrelevant and unnecessary to the article? George Ho (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1) "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic": an explanation of how is required by policy; 2) "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" there is no explanation anyone has yet offered. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you stop quoting policy and just paraphrase it or explain how and why the image's presence violates policy in your own words? And no quotes, please; I'll not accept your answer if you do so otherwise. George Ho (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Given your apparent insistence on affront—as opposed to what is or is not proper within the context of an encyclopedia—and, as a direct result, the insistence that I therefore must not be acting in good faith, I frankly have lost all fucks to give with respect to what you will or will not accept. Within the context of an encyclopedia, you are irrelevant—and so am I. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Will you allow me to reinsert the image, anyway, if you don't want to waste your time with me? The image will stay for indefinite time until the result will say "no consensus" to use the image. Agree? George Ho (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD—which, granted, is neither policy nor guideline—suggests you wait, but I won't revert. That does not mean someone else won't; I've been on the receiving end of some who take BRD very seriously. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not so much BRD, although I'm a fan. It's just status quo ante and the principle that any disputed edit stays out until consensus is reached for it (which George has exactly backwards). And this is a highly contentious edit. I'm leaning slightly in favor of the image, although less than I was 12 hours ago, but process must come first. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

TinySliver, How is "mixed race" adequately conveyed? Seeing the photo, he looks lighter-skinned. Per WP:NFCC, how would removing the image not affect readers' understanding of the event? George Ho (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to BullRangifer above—and the correct question is, how is mixed-race beyond the textual description important to the article? That he is "lighter-skinned", as you put it, is irrelevant and possibly SYNTH if, by its inclusion, the purpose is to draw the readers' attention to what might have motivated him, as opposed to who he was. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The version of the image that was uploaded was 960px, which is way too large and it should have been resized before uploading. A bot will do it automatically, but I have done it manually.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. Wait for the robot to do the job. George Ho (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already done it. If it is fair use, 960px is way too large. Most people are only going to look at the thumbnail in the article anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it; there is "400px" option for image display. Per WP:IUP, I would like to see a larger thumbnail rather than smaller. George Ho (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To my way of thinking, this is a policy issue, not one of content. For the edification of us all, should we seek expert opinion? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're really something, aren't you? Channelling Masem, channelling Masem, channelling Masem.... George Ho (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) In light of Masem's response, I'll try to avoid being scrutinized. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice. You're bordering AGF and NPA vios ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any need to include a non-free image of the shooter here. One can understand the article content without the photo of the shooter, there's no discussion of the photo(s) of him that I can see, and it's hard to judge presently if his story will have one of lingering interest (eg fall outside ONEEVENT/BLP1E asepcts). There's also a chance (but not an automatic failure of NFCC#1) that a free image could still be out there or obtained. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is the source of the image. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed All a picture will do is piss off the "Let's ignore this one especially because he's recent" crowd (and they're sizable now). Those who want the picture could reasonably argue that this is a racial case to satisfy NFC8, but is it worth turning this to another mass shooting article where we piss off racists and antiracists? That's what leads down that path, and if the picture side doesn't play the race card, there really is no contextual significance to his face, unless reliable sources note the Devil in his eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this has nothing to do with glorification. Even if it were possible for the dead to want and for the living to give them stuff, what he did isn't glorious. It's extremely shameful. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

InedibleHulk and Masem, I reinserted the image. What do you think of it now? --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess he sort of resembles the Prince of Darkness (weapon of destruction, shit-eating grin, red sweater). Still opposed, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: additional discussion here. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Photo should be included. Agree with George Ho that the picture is relevant to the entry. Besides, the Sandy Hook shooting, also done by an Asperger-syndrome guy with an overprotective mother, also includes a picture of the murderer. Exactly similar case, so why the discrepancy with regard to pictures? XavierItzm (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because one article uses something doesn't mean a similar article should use the same thing; we judge case by case. Additionally, as I've seen with this one, there's been a more recent spark of discussion about exactly how to handle the person(s) that committed crimes that would fall under BLP1E, including the use of imagery, so consensus can change. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "we judge case by case." Correct, and in this case, since it is identical to the other, a picture of the murderer should be included. Similar case should have similar outcome. XavierItzm (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That's the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. To the best of my knowledge, the Sandy Hook shooter's image has not be challenged as this shooter has, meaning that whether the community accepts it or not is unknown. This picture is being challenged here, and, presuming that keeping the picture off here is determined as the course of action, that might be reason to then challenge the Sandy Hook picture for the same reason. Also consider again that consensus can change; Sandy Hook was two years ago, so WP's general attitudes towards those that do these types of crimes have also changed. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
        • OK, you are challenging it here, and apparently you have an expectation that there will be a challenge to the identical murderer's photo in the Wikipedia entry for Sandy Hook. Challenging something is fair game. In the meantime, as there has been no challenge at the Sandy Hook murderer's photo, then the argument is that the photo be included here, as it is relevant to this entry and furthermore 100% congruent with past and present Wikipedia practice. XavierItzm (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm only focusing on this specific image as I was asked to review from an NFCC standpoint. We have no established (written) policy or guideline specifically directed inclusion or exclusion of images of living or dead criminals that lack notability themselves and/or fail ONEEVENT/BLP1E (as here) but covered on the event that is notable. As such, I'm judging this image alone in context of NFCC and say it fails NFCC since there's no benefit for the reader to understanding the event to see the person's image. No one has appears to make a similar a similar challenge at Sandy Hook that I can see, but that doesn't mean consensus says it meets NFCC. It would be very POINTy right now to go and nominate that one for removal or deletion as well with this discussion open. (I suspect we have the picture at Sandy Hook because at one point there was a separate article on Lanza where a picture would normally be appropriate and per ONEEVENT/BLP1E, it was merged into the Sandy Hook article, picture and all, which again, more evidence that there hasn't been a firm discussion to say the use of the image there is good or not). --MASEM (t) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Under the reasoning that "there's no benefit for the reader to understanding the event to see the person's image," you could do away with most portraiture on WP. If blanket challenges to such tens of thousands of cases were present, your argument might have some grounds to it. But alas! for the quoted argument, the incredibly highly selective use of the quoted argument to only this case points to a lack of NPOV and to a highly selective effort to disregard past and present Wikipedia praxis on images of persons.
              Your speculation on an imaginary Sandy Hook photo challenge is well written, but again, it is mere speculation. As of now and for three years, Wikipedia has had Lanza's picture and Lanza's case is identical down to the over-protective mother details. As well as to countless other mass-shooting cases: see for example the photo of convicted murderer Hasan in Fort Hood and the photo of perpetrator Robertson on the 2014 Isla Vista killings. XavierItzm (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
              • If Harper-Mercer was a notable person and did not fail BLP1E/ONEEVENT, a non-free portrait of him on a standalone page about him would be acceptable, because the photo is the primary subject of that article. It technically doesn't help but we'd have written an article that establishes a transformational use of the non-free image (one of the factors of fair use) to be considered acceptable under NFCC. But that's not the case here, and why I think it's important to recognize that appeared to have been the case for Lanza/Sandy Hook (in that there was one a separate article for him). Here, Harper-Mercer is being written as the criminal that committed the act without further notability beyond the event; a photo of him would not be a transformational use. As for OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there might be a need for a larger discussion of including such images, but I think that's associated with the larger discussion that seems to be going on for shooting incidents like this in how the press tends to oversaturate news about the criminal that influences how we should be covering the situation on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Hello, you keep quoting WP:OSE, but I do not think WP:OSE means what you think it means. Please refer to WP:SSEFAR, a subsection of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to see what you are missing out on. Clearly, Lanza/Asperger/Overprotective Mother/Mass Shooting is an exact analogy today and since years ago and so the onus would be on you to challenge precedent where it lies, and not to try and impose an arbitrary, highly discriminatory to this article new policy by singling out the Umpqua article and only the Umpqua article.
                  Furthermore, while using Sandy Hook as shorthand for well established precedent on Wikipedia for photo of the murderer, your challenge is much, much taller. For instance, you would have to also challenge the Nidal Hasan photo in the Fort Hood shooting and the Robertson portrait in the Isla Vista killings, the Wong portrait at Binghamton shootings as well as countless others. Once you achieve success there, we can re-open the conversation here.
                  Agreed that Harper fails BLP1E/ONEEVENT and therefore you should not even consider spinning off an article just for him. Goodness gracious! However, that's not the case here. XavierItzm (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • And as I've said, I think what is needed is a discussion to codify if we allow non-free images for people that would fall under BLP1E/ONEEVENT; the use of such images are inconsistent across WP, and when put up against NFCC policy, typically would all fail NFC without the backing of any established consensus precedent. That said, to start that discussion now while this RFC is going would be bitey and confusing. I'd rather see a more centralized discussion not related to any specific crime or event to establish that. So I'm isolating my evaluation on this usage only since nothing else is codified. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • And that's what is inconsistent WP:SSEFAR about your argument: you are trying to isolate your evaluation to this case only, which is highly discriminatory towards this article, breaks WP:SSEFAR and is arbitrary to this article. Unfair to this article and unencyclopaedic because it breaks with the rest of the similar Wikipedia articles, such as Sandy Hook. It is regrettable that you feel that to initiate a global discussion would be "bitey and confusing" at this time, but until the global discussion is had, it is just bias to apply your newfound criteria to this article only in breach of WP:SSEFAR. XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • SSEFAR is an essay, NFC is policy, and NFC always works on a case-by-case basis (its why we require separate rationale for every use, because one rational can rarely cover multiple cases) And arguably using this image in this article is unfair to the Foundation who are trying to create a free-content and reuses that can't use that image because of its non-free nature. Further, not every image use is reviewed by editors skilled in NFC, and there are so few such reviewers to begin with that lots of image uses go through the cracks. It's becoming clear we need to address pictures of otherwise non-notable criminals like this, but that is a separate discussion. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
                        • File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg doesn't fall under WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. Actually, it falls under WP:NFCI. This has already been addressed above; i.e., writing "NFC" is no argument for exclusion in this case.
                          The other arguments against "fairness to the Foundation," and "insufficient reviewers", unfortunately for your case, are just appeals to emotion. The bottom line is that per WP:SSEFAR and consistency with long-established Wikipedia praxis, including Sandy Hook, 2014 Isla Vista, Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood, Binghamton shootings as well as countless others, the picture must be restored.XavierItzm (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Masem, why blending WP:BIO, which doesn't mention images, with other image-related rules? George Ho (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose image Yes, it's probably valid via fair use, but the guy did say something about shooters living forever through their notoriety, and I think that even though all we're really doing is recounting what happened, we should be careful not to glorify the killer any more than necessary. This guy is probably inspiring the next killer, already. I don't see enough encyclopedic value in including that Myspace photo to override that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a social engineering platform and there is no policy to hide, disguise, or occult perpetrator data. If you feel such a policy is important, I recommend you start the Wikipedia process to adopt this policy. One may agree with your feelings but are your feelings encyclopaedic? XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily an "encyclopedic" opinion, but sometimes ya gotta WP:IAR, especially if there's even the slightest chance it breaks this cycle (it probably won't, but something has to change somewhere and why not here?) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. I don't know that there's any policy that says we have to use an image of him, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't get the IAR reference, since it's not a rule (policy/guideline) being cited here. I have seen attempts to use Wikipedia to achieve social change, but they certainly lack consensus and I'm strongly opposed to using this encyclopedia for that purpose. Can you imagine this kind of discussion going on at Encyclopedia Britannica? I can't. Wikipedia is not a social activist organization, and we don't change its fundamental mission an article at a time. This kind of thing should be at WMF level. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I realized that with my postscript. If there's no policy one way or the other on this one, then it comes down to consensus, which will be based on personal opinion. (I imagine we're a lot more fun than the Britannica folk.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, Mandruss is quite correct that "we don't change its fundamental mission an article at a time." Therefore, and given long-standing Wikipedia praxis of publishing the photo of the murderer (cf. the Sandy Hook case which closely parallels the Umpqua case regarding the illness of the perp, his over-protective mother, the assault to a gun-free zone, the suicide, etc.), the photo needs be published here as well, absent a WMF level decision to ban all BLP1E/ONEEVENT mass murderer photos. XavierItzm (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu, can you cite a policy or guideline supporting your argument? What about WP:NFC? George Ho (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • All I can really cite is this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That monster got all the attention that he wanted. How would adding the photo of this monster not help matters? --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Geez. That emotion-based, openly POV argument is as bad as its opponent. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry. Bad attempt at sarcasm. The perpetrator has been widely reported but not as much as the shooting itself. Now that the photo is publicized everywhere, how does the photo add nothing or no value to encyclopedia? George Ho (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
            • o/i/c. Well now you're just arguing against your own case. You could just as easily say that the photo isn't needed here because all the photos you ever want are just a few clicks away. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
              • I tried to ask you why else opposing inclusion of the image in the article other than preventing glorification of the guy. Somehow, either you gave me the "you" answer, or my words are twisted. And I don't think WP:BIO1E applies to images. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Are you asking me to argue the opposition's case? I can't do that. The only real reason I'm in this thread is to argue against the deny-recognition social activism argument, and I'm not certain that the opposition really needs that argument to prevail. I'm not familiar enough with the applicable policy. Otherwise I'm just wasting a little time between Netflix movies. And probably doing too much of that, now that I think about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • I apologize, Mandruss. I got you confused with Muboshgu, to whom I intended to respond. I struck my responses to you. George Ho (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • No problem, I've done the same thing. We definitely need more consonants. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT USING THE PHOTO concerning the "glorifying the killer" aspect of this discussion.  Whether or not some people feel it glorifies the killer is not relevant.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Concerning the  fair use / copyright  issue, I offer no opinion because I am not very knowledgeable on that subject.
  Richard27182 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That explains why you don't oppose it, but why do you support it? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

My comments were strictly limited to whether or not I would support or oppose the photo's inclusion in the article based on the fact that it might be seen as glorifying the killer.  I basically disqualified myself from commenting on copyright issues. In other words, I do not believe the photo should be excluded based on the "glorifying the killer" argument. I am not qualified to say if it should be excluded based on copyright issues.

Richard27182 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but there's a difference between why something shouldn't be excluded and why it should be included. When you discount the glory argument, what's left that persuades you this is worthy of inclusion, rather than simply eligible for inclusion? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:04, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; I misunderstood your question. You're asking why, not counting any possible copyright issues, I feel the photo should be included. Harper-Mercer is a major figure in a historical event, and as such (even though he performed an unconscionable act), a photograph of him is appropriate.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Much clearer, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Image in or out during the RfC

George Ho wishes to re-add the CHM photo until consensus is reached to omit it. I believe that's backwards. I believe disputed edits stay out until consensus is reached for them, and I see no reason this disputed edit should be treated any differently. See our relatively short user talk conversation, here. I'm actually still leaning toward inclusion of the image, but an orderly, sensible, and consistent process is more important to me than any content question. I'm interested in other opinions and will defer to consensus on this as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Should be added back, because the RfC was not created as a result of "hey, should we include this pic which perfectly meets WP:NFCI and all other criteria including WP:SSEFAR and long-standing WP praxis" but instead was the result of people deleting it for social activist reasons, i.e., the laudable but mistaken idea that to have included the pic is "glorifying" the killer, a social activist POV which is currently contrary to WPF policy. XavierItzm (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose that reasoning as a non-AGF and selective application of (or non-application of) well-established process. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we move this thread to the RfC one? This is becoming nothing more than a duplicate thread. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to a subsection of the RfC. It's really a separate issue from the RfC and shouldn't be interspersed with that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I expected more interest in this question. If I have no clear support by 02:45 12 Oct UTC, I'll concede defeat. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The archiving bot won't archive it that soon. We have the RFC tag, preventing a rushed archiving. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What has this to do with archiving? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You said you'll concede defeat, but I implied it as if the bot would archive. Is that what you meant? George Ho (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant that's when I'll concede defeat, and you can re-add the image with no further opposition from me. Just telling you in advance, so you two won't think I'm just stalling with no end in sight. (Also it asks you to wait that long before declaring a 2-to-1 consensus and re-adding the image.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, let's ask ATinySliver about this. George Ho (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Image out during RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

providing a more complete weapon list

A .40-caliber Taurus handgun was mentioned in the reference from that provided the makes and models of the shooter's weapons, but is missing from the list of weapons in the wikipedia article. The real dan (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that's one of the "three other handguns" mentioned in the infobox. I don't feel much need to exhaustively document makes, types, and calibers, especially when there is no indication he actually used that gun. In my opinion we already have a little more detail in that area than we need. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding the Taurus, but the syntax of the article, personally, made me unsure if it was one of the three handguns recovered on the campus or one of the eight found at his apartment. Maybe I missed something, so if the article does make it clear that it was one of the weapons found at the crime scene, then do add it in. Versus001 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough it was at the scene. As I said, I believe it's already represented in the infobox but not separately. I'm obviously willing to defer to consensus but it's worth discussing first. For now, it's a disputed edit without consensus, and should stay out. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An article on CBS also states it was at the scene.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Providing a weapons list without excessive detail (noise)

So let's expand the scope of the discussion. My preference would be something more like this:

• Three semi-automatic pistols
• Two other handguns, types unknown
• One rifle

I would prefer "AR-15 variant" (or simply semi-automatic rifle) for more accuracy (the difference between an AR-15 variant and a Remington bolt-action deer rifle is very significant), but I don't think we have that at this point. Since there is no Wikipedia article for Del-Ton, a reader has to use Google to determine that it's an AR-15 variant; therefore it doesn't help much to say simply Del-Ton. If we ever learn which weapons were actually used, I'd prefer limiting the infobox to those and mentioning the others in the body where we can be clear about it (but still without the exhaustive detail of interest or meaning to few readers besides gun buffs). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this from CBS News should be enough to say "AR-15-variant rifle". Or, if we can infer semi-automatic pistol from Glock 9mm (I believe we can, per other Wikipedia articles and WP:BLUE), we should be able to infer semi-automatic rifle from AR-15 variant, and that would be more consistent treatment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Nytimes says that the shooter's mother referred to an AR-15 in her house in online postings about her guns. The police report erroneously called it a ".556" when they meant "5.55mm NATO". Ms Harper said in a post that her house has an AR-15 and an AK - and Del-Ton makes ARs but not AKs. -- Callinus (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Any opinion on this proposal? For the average reader, is there a meaningful difference between a Glock 9mm and a S&W .40-cal semi-auto? Is that a useful distinction in your opinion, or just data for the sake of data? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Help:Infobox says they should not contain lengthy or trivial information. I'd perfer:

• Five handguns, including a 9mm Glock and .40 S&W pistol
• 5.56mm AR-15 rifle

That may be more concise and simple - the repetition of "handgun" is possibly not needed. The AR-15 was not fired. -- Callinus (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I assert that the makes and calibers are trivial information; that's the point of this proposal. I'm still waiting for someone to say how they are non-trivial. Anyone? Bueller? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll assert that the manufacturer, model and caliber of the guns that were used to commit the murders is nontrivial. I'm old enough to remember the legislation against "Saturday night specials," and the price of a gun tells you something tangible about the shooter. Either mention the makes and models of all the handguns, or mention the makes and models of none of them. Just mentioning some of them clearly reflects a bias of some sort. I requested the information in the first place because I came to the article to find out what guns were used (I apologize if I have violated unwritten etiquette in this talk page)The real dan (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have thought for some time that the level of detail about the weapons in mass shooting articles is too high, particularly in the infobox. Sometimes it does not add significantly to a reader's understanding of the case. All of the Umpqua victims were killed with a handgun, and this is enough for the infobox. The fact that the shooter took five handguns to the school is significant, the exact make and model of the handguns is not. This level of detail needs to be justified in the context of the shooting, otherwise it is bordering on cruft.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: In the case of Columbine some of them were smuggled across state boundaries - in this case they were all legally bought, so distinctions aren't really as important. -- Callinus (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Callinus I don't think I've read anything about smuggling weapons across state boundaries. The only things I've seen about Columbine is the sawed-off shotgun (unregistered NFA weapons are illegal to possess) and selling handguns and handgun ammunition to someone under 21. Usually, when the press says "legally bought," it's a transaction between the last traced FFL holder and a non-licensee. Shipping pistols through UPS out of state requires an in-state FFL (and background check and 4473 form) to conduct the transfer. But a private seller can bring his guns and sell them face-to-face. ATF will not license someone who's only business is from gun shows (even if they want to be licensed) nor do they allow private sellers the ability to run a background check on a buyer. There is no "private sale" ATF form so I'm not sure how "smuggled" (or even "straw purchase") is applied to Columbine. I'd be surprised if anyone was charged with more than "selling pistol/pisyol ammunition to underage person" or "illegally possessing or transferring NFA weapon." --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Sorry that was just from my recollection. The classification of "Assault weapon" was important to that article. In my opinion, weapon types and calibers should be included when:

• It effects policy (eg weapon sales laws) after the shooting.
• It effects policy on bullet proofing - bullet proof glass has to be thicker to stop sniper rifle/battle rifle rounds rather than handgun rounds.

Models of vehicles used in bombings/terrorist attacks are useful for information on protective measures. -- Callinus (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's bizarre to intentionally leave out key information about a violent crime from an article about that crime. The precise variety of weapon used is part of the story. I can't see any benefit gained by using the same amount of space to provide a vague description. I object to this proposal. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:3C44:E8A5:26B1:DBC8 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What is bizarre to me is the fixation with gun models in mass shootings. It's like a part of the American gun problem. Who cares and what does it matter whether the shooting was done with a state-of-the-art killing machine, or a blunderbuss? The poor b@st@rds are just as dead, whatever weapon was used. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is about omitting as much unuseful information as possible, lest it obscure the useful information; i.e. separating the wheat from the chaff. Half of our readers wouldn't know a 9mm Glock from a Seth Thomas clock, and few of the remainder would care when it comes to understanding this incident. Every little piece of information must earn its keep, especially in an infobox (and that's not about physical space). Bear in mind that the specific information can be found easily enough in the cited sources, for any who really care. But please, explain how the makes and calibers of the handguns are meaningful to the average reader, and how this is "key information". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The number and general type (handgun, single action or semi-auto, rifle, shotgun) are relevant, but the exact model isn't always significant, and just serves to glorify the brand, which only feeds the perverse curiosity of copycat killers, ammophiliacs, and ammosexuals.

Since this subject will repeatedly come up in the future, and already applies to a number of articles, I would like to see a policy about how to deal with the level of detail for weapons used in mass killings. We must cover the subject, but it is undue weight to wallow in the nitty gritty details of the exact brand and model. The references can serve that purpose. Wikipedia should seek to de-emphasize such detail, as an act of solidarity with the cause of anti-violence. We shouldn't even begin to do anything which benefits violence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh, more social activism. We should be an encyclopedia, a cold-hearted, disinterested encyclopedia, BLP stuff excepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this article is about a "shooting" is in itself an indication that the gun or guns are important to the story. You might as well say that reporting the brand of autos used in a car race is unimportant detail. The standard for inclusion is covered in WP:NPOV. It's not undue weight, since it takes no more space than using vaguer references. And if the names and specifications of guns are so unimportant to readers, why does Wikipedia have so many gun articles? Obviously, it's a topic of interest. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:3C44:E8A5:26B1:DBC8 (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I could spend the next half hour of my life responding to your comments point by point. But, since you're all alone at this point, and consensus is king at Wikipedia, I'm going to bed instead. It's pretty clear that no reasoning will satisfy you anyway. Others may feel inclined to debate you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The gun enthusiasts always want to know the make, the model and the caliber of the weapons used. In some cases this is relevant, in other cases it is not. A person killed in a hit-and-run incident is just as dead regardless of whether they were hit by a Ford or a Chevrolet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The make and model don't seem that important to this Average Joe, but the caliber does. Bigger barrels mean bigger bullets and bigger damage. Could be the difference between missing a major organ or artery and not. Getting hit by a Ford Focus is quite different from getting hit by a Chevrolet Silverado.

If another reader is familiar with the subtly different sights and sounds of different models, these details would help them understand the event (in a what sense, not why) that much better. Seems reasonable to include. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Dead is dead, regardless of the type and degree of internal damage. You might as well insist on including locations of all wounds inflicted, if that were available, so as to better understand the event. Yeah, we could have a section summarizing all autopsies, since many readers would be interested. </irony> And honestly, there's something a little sick about a desire to understand the "sights and sounds" of a mass shooting. A larger caliber is more likely to send the victims backward on impact, and I really need to know whether that likely happened. I need to be able to mentally put myself on scene, to imagine that I was there, with as much vivid detail as Wikipedia can provide me. Not. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If dead were simply dead, we wouldn't even specify they were shot (and not everyone who was shot is dead). Not sure if you're just being theoretical about summarizing autopsies, because I've actually done that. Maybe I'm sick, but sights and sounds of any event seem pretty important to the What. Helps distinguish them from other events. Doesn't the lead make you picture people getting shot? It should, because it's a perfectly normal description. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

We give autopsy information where it is relevant, as in Michael Brown. We do not give it where it is not relevant, as in Umpqua. That's Wikipedia editing. Yes, I picture people getting shot, but I don't dwell on the imagery of the victims' terror, the sounds of the gunshots, the impacts, the wounds, the victims' agonized vocalizations before dying, etc. I don't need that vivid detail to "understand" the event. Sorry, you'll have to wait for the movie unless there is more support for your viewpoint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I may have not been clear. By "sights and sounds", I mean of the guns. Not the victims. The first paragraph was about the wounds. Not about picturing them, but just knowing what caused them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Bullets caused them. Again, if you need to know whether it was the pop-pop-pop of a .25 auto or the louder crack of a larger caliber, just check out the sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit inconvenient, but yeah, that could work. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't like all the details because lately, these mass shooters are feeding off each other. The guy who shot the TV reporters and knew nothing about guns, purchased the exact make and model of the South Carolina church shooter. That's a rather odd fascination that doesn't really help our reader understand the shooting. Some of the distinctions are as mundane as 4.5 inch barrel vs. a 5 inch barrel. Some of the details get mucked up in politics such as a California shooter that manufactured his own AR-15 receiver with metalworking tools. No firearm was ever purchased or sold and the press simply couldn't understand this. The press likes bad guys to explain how bad people got guns but Home Depot tool department was a tough sell so they ignored it. The 3-D printer gun got a lot of attention until State Department invoked ITAR. I am okay with broad families of firearms such as semi-automatic pistol, revolver, bolt-action rifle, semi-automatic rifle. I'd stay away from terms like "assault rifle" or "machine pistol" or "personal defense weapon." I'd also stay away from terms like "high-powered rifle" as there is no reference point beyond .22 rimfire cartridges. --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The TV guy and the church guy's infobox weapons don't match. Do you know something Wikipedia doesn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Read the manifesto the TV guy wrote and the account by the news. Breaking news stories are all over the map especially when model number, number of rounds and caliber all mean something. Giving numbers to reporters is like triggering all the high school math they failed. Body counts always rise because "including the gunman" eludes their trap-like intellect. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, there's a paper here that says mass killings follow media coverage: Yukich, Joshua; Towers, Sherry; Gomez-Lievano, Andres; Khan, Maryam; Mubayi, Anuj; Castillo-Chavez, Carlos (2015). "Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings". PLOS ONE. 10 (7): e0117259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117259. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

DHeyward is probably right - but more than that, there is more than anecdotal evidence of individual shooters - there's some statistical evidence linking mass killings to earlier media publicity. -- Callinus (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

About the gun, it was like the one Seung-Hui Cho used. That was the Virginia Tech guy, not the Charleston church guy, and ABC only notes it as a coincidence, not a plan. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Identify family

It is customary practice to identify parents of a gunman and provide content about family life in articles such as this, but some editors here keep deleting their names and more information about Harper-Mercer's family life. Providing these facts does not glorify the shooter. As Callinus noted above, it is consistent with the approach in other articles, including those the article on the Charleston church shooting (there is also an entirely separate article on the perpetrator) and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where both parents are identified. I think the issue should be discussed here on the Talk page, rather than left to individual editors who seem to be forming some arbitrary new approach. I'm not suggesting that there be a separate article on Harper-Mercer, but this one needs to be more complete.Parkwells (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a "new approach", and certainly not arbitrary. We (should) add content based on relevance, not on subjective perceptions of customary practice (and see WP:OTHER). This bar is justifiably higher when living people are involved. This is not a biography of Harper-Mercer, where parents' names might be expected. Please explain the relevance of the parents' names. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(...)As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred (...). Checkingfax (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Checkingfax that consistency is to be preferred under WP:SSEFAR and Wikipedia has had details on the parents of Sandy Hook (in an infobox!), which is so nearly identical to this case, and numerous other cases for years. XavierItzm (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SSEFAR is a fair counter to OTHER when OTHER is the only argument given. It is not; in fact, I put it in parentheses to emphasize that. I'm still waiting for relevance of those names, as well as justification for associating the names of innocent people with this killer until the end of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the discussion was finished. Maybe you should say why his biological parents who raised him are not relevant to his life. This is not a suggestion to "out" them; they are already publicly associated with him by media reports about the shooting, and his father has spoken in public. They are part of the documented facts of his life, which is why it is relevant to have them in this article. Why is it okay to write about them and not have their names? Or is it something you want only to be in the sources and not here? If you feel so strongly about this issue of excluding parents of killers (does that include excluding parents and family of the many other criminals?), perhaps you should try to take it up as a policy issue. You would also need to proof and correct the many articles (Sandy Hook, Newtown, etc.) written here about killers and other criminals to ensure you have deleted the names of the parents or other family, including historic figures. Parkwells (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Parkwells: Apologies for the AGF failure. I generally expect to see in the editsum a reference to the change and "per talk". When I don't, I sometimes ABF. Of course it doesn't help that the sneaky editsum tactic is occasionally actually used.
Once again, this is not a biography of Christopher Harper-Mercer, so the documented facts of his life are not a goal here, and that is an empty argument. Note that DHeyward just removed the birthdate and the infobox with the same rationale (and I concur).
Yes, I want those names to be only in the sources and not here. If you look at the RfC above about the photo of Harper-Mercer, you won't find any arguments for inclusion based on the fact that the very same image is all over the web. I've never found that argument to carry much weight at Wikipedia.
Once again, no, I don't have to go fix those other articles. There is no requirement for consistency between articles on this, that is a very common misconception that causes much conflict. Those were different mixes of editors, who saw fit to treat different cases differently, and there is nothing wrong with that. If the community saw a need to be consistent on this, there would be a guideline. There is not. I might decide to go contest that content at those articles, but the fact that I don't doesn't require me to accept the content in this one. If you still disagree, a brief visit to WP:VPM will clear that up for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hyper-protective black mother

This is in reference to the Los Angeles Times quote
"Harper-Mercer, who, despite his allegedly white supremacist leanings, was mixed-race and lived with a hyper-protective black mother"
( http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-profile-20151003-story.html )
. This was the subject of this discussion at "Hyper-protective black mother" which as of 7:00 am UTC 9 October 2015 has been filed away. Now my question is: if the bot policy reads "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 2 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.", then how come the thread was filed away, if the most recent comment was at 04:58, October 8, 2015 (UTC) ? The last comment was InedibleHulk and it is the fourth comment from the bottom. From when I first logged in this morning, it may have been 25 hours and possibly less before the page was archived. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a side effect of my signature style. Miszabot doesn't count the date as a number. Yours was the last "real" post, over two days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your date is in between brackets. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"injured" section - following should be removed

WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Chris Mintz had no blood on him and didn't look injured at all. He was pointing at something in the picture I saw of him on a gurney. He had no distress in his face at all. In another picture he was seen with his friends laughing at America and giving the devil sign. This was a globalist hoax. Umqua was a complete hoax. No cell phones got any info. Very unusual for that generation. Very unusual. This is a hoax used by Everytown as the Sandy Hook Hoax was used to tighten gun control which is a globalist goal. --72.21.198.64 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The article doesn't mention whether he looked bloodied or whatever, so nothing needs to be corrected on that front. It's in any case not Wikipedia's place to go beyond what reliable sources report - and they report that Mintz was injured. So I'm sorry, but we can't include your theory. You'd need to get reliable sources for the above things, first. Darth Viller (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Umpqua. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, October 10, 2015 (UTC) This is not a forum for conspiracy theories. You're at the wrong place, my friend. Versus001 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed bolding, infoboc, birthday, etc, etc

The perpetrator is not particularly notable outside this event. His birth date is not relevant. His age at the time of his crime and death is enough. His name should not be bolded. The infobox contains only cruft so I removed it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Support, not a bio. DGAF about the bolding, despite some somewhat ambiguous support for it at WP:R#PLA (we currently have two CHM redirects to the Perpetrator section, that in my opinion should redirect to the article instead). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The infobox can go, but I don't see what the issue is about the bolding. Remember, WP:R#PLA. Also, Mandruss, would you care to address the other redirect links for the perpetrators of other mass shootings, since we're on that topic? Because what you're saying will have to apply to ALL OF THEM. Versus001 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Versus001: For my response, see my last comment at #Identify family. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't receive your ping above. This doesn't work because the ping and your signature have to be added in the same edit. If you forget the ping or the signature, you have to do both in a new edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about this editsum. What was sneaky about his edit? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

He did not explain he was removing the bolding as well (which was what he has been doing for a while). Versus001 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The bolding should remain, it has nothing to do with notability. It is a courtesy to readers who search for the perps name and land in this article. Bolding the name "explains" why they have landed here. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to bold all redirects, so this one certainly counts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects to Perpetrator section

Bolded or not, the guy's name should redirect to the section about the guy. What else could someone who clicks or types "Christopher Harper-Mercer" reasonably expect to find? It's not just the least astonishing place to send them, it's the only fitting place on this whole site. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Looking for the article about this shooting, I might very well use his name to find it (it's hard to remember "Umpqua"). That doesn't mean I'm only interested in the details of his life. Linking to the article provides the context first, and the Perpetrator section is then one click away (if that's in fact where I want to go). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not that hard. It just takes some getting used to. I had a hard time remembering it at first, but it's now easy to memorize. Versus001 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Just six letters, even if one's a Q. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

You just responded to a parenthetical and completely ignored the rest of the argument. Never mind that we're talking about average readers, not Wikipedia editors who have been working on this article for weeks. Great job, Versus. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I find that very offensive. Versus001 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooter is an inconsequential side note. It's a name with no recognition outside the topice. The redirect should be to the article, not the section on the shooter as there is nothing notable about the shooter. --DHeyward (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is notable. There is no consensus in censoring the names of perpetrators right now. As of now, this discussion is still not resolved. Go get a consensus there first. Versus001 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsequential people don't cause Wikipedia articles with 79 sources. Side notes don't appear in the leads of those articles or consistently throughout four pages of Talk. These are non-notable killers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree my argument was stronger. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching this page (and created the redirect Christopher Harper-Mercer), and I've got to say that I agree with InedibleHulk. Redirecting the name to the article as a whole, regardless of what one might think about what readers want to see, would be a tad bit misleading. If someone really isn't looking for the perpetrator, he/she can just scroll up slightly (I wrote this a few hours ago and forgot to save). Dustin (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

He can't see the TOC at that point. How does he know to scroll up, rather than down? The only way to get a concise overview of the article structure is to go to the top. Which is where he would be if the redirect were to the article, not the section. See also: my other points. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone can't figure scrolling out, they likely struggle with typing or clicking, too, so wouldn't be there in the first place. Call me elitist, but I think we write for Internet users. And if they can navigate, they're probably where they wanted to be, which wasn't at a concise overview. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say they can't figure it out. The basis for this argument is, "it's easy to scroll", which is negated by my reply, "it's easy to click Perpetrator in the TOC". The two arguments cancel each other out, leaving us with the other arguments, and my strongest ones have yet to be countered. Again, redirecting to the section presumes that the reader is most likely to be interested in CHM's background information, not the shooting event. And saying that it's not that hard for him to find what he really wanted is not a counter for that argument. Can anyone honestly claim that the background is what is wanted a majority of the time? Really? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If people want to research him, then Wikipedia is obligated to give them that information, and with that come the policies in place. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED. Warner Sun (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that right, though? Warner Sun (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether to point two redirects to the Perpetrator section or to the article. It is not about whether to include or omit any content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't redirects count as content, though? It really seems like people are bugged about readers researching the perp, which is made possible by redirect links. Warner Sun (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anyone bugged about readers researching the perp. Certainly not me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering one of the users involved in this discussion previously had a supportive voice for here and here, I assume that's what's going on. Warner Sun (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's related at all. We're just talking about the best place to send two redirects, and I don't see how a redirect target could be related to censorship. No one is claiming, for example, that redirecting to Perpetrator glorifies the perp. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It REALLY sounds like that, at least from that guy's standpoint. Warner Sun (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you identified which guy in this thread you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward. Warner Sun (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot more arguments in this thread besides his. If your initial comment was directed only at him, you didn't say so. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

On anything in general or just this specific topic? Warner Sun (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There are lot more arguments in this thread besides about where to send these two redirects. That is the topic of this subsection. It's now clear that your opening comment was directed only at one participant, but it didn't immediately follow any of his comments and you didn't mention his username. Hence all the confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not aiming this at only one participant, nor was I intending to address a broader problem. I was giving a reason why the redirects should remain as what they are. Warner Sun (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well feel free to respond to my arguments on this topc, which have nothing to do with the issues you have brought up. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What the hell?! We ARE talking about redirects, aren't we? Warner Sun (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Two redirects in particular. As I've indicated, my arguments have nothing to do with glorifying anyone, encouraging copycats, or any of that other stuff outside this thread. They only have to do with what a reader is most likely to be seeking when they search for some form of CHM's name. They are about what is the most useful redirect for the reader. Full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then, they will obviously type CHM's name on the search if they want to search for him. The redirect link will take them to where they want to go. And if they somehow didn't want to go there and were searching for something else in the article, well, would it really kill them to use the scroll bar? Warner Sun (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That has been brought up, and responded to, above. One of the nice things about discussions in writing is that you don't have to keep repeating yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me where exactly this "response" is supposed to be? Warner Sun (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok.

I didn't say they can't figure it out. The basis for this argument is, "it's easy to scroll", which is negated by my reply, "it's easy to click Perpetrator in the TOC". The two arguments cancel each other out, leaving us with the other arguments, and my strongest ones have yet to be countered. Again, redirecting to the section presumes that the reader is most likely to be interested in CHM's background information, not the shooting event. And saying that it's not that hard for him to find what he really wanted is not a counter for that argument. Can anyone honestly claim that the background is what is wanted a majority of the time? Really?

―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then, hence why I said "Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If people want to research him, then Wikipedia is obligated to give them that information, and with that come the policies in place. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED." in the first place. If they want to find that information on Wikipedia, then yes, we should probably give it to them, as an encyclopedia. There's at least one person in the world who wants to know his history on WP. Besides, it's not like we're mentioning every single thing news sources (both reliable and unreliable) mention about him anyway. Warner Sun (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say you've totally lost me. Changing the redirect to the article instead of the section doesn't remove any information. It's still right there in the Perpetrator section. The question is, are readers searching using his name more likely to be seeking information about the shooting in general, or about the perp's background? I assert the former. If the former is true, there is no justification for going to the Perpetrator section first. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I said information, what I was thinking about was easy accessibility. "[A]re readers searching using his name more likely to be seeking information about the shooting in general, or about the perp's background?" Pretty sure it's the latter. Why else would they want to write out the guy's name? Warner Sun (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because they can't think of a better search argument, maybe? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds a bit improbable... Warner Sun (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I have no doubt that many people have trouble remembering "umpqua", since it's the first time in their lives they have seen that word. "christopher", "harper", and "mercer", not so much. They'll choose to remember that which is easiest to remember. The one hard data point on this that we have, the one thing beyond personal opinions, can be found in this thread above. Note the OP's mastery of the word "umpqua". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I will have to repeat what was being said above: it's not that hard to remember "Umpqua", especially if the news keeps mentioning it in every report about the event. That serves as no real excuse. Online searches for news stories will have the name spelled out for them. WP is most likely not the first place people will go to. As for that one example you provided, ONE, it's just one person. And we don't know if the spelling was accidental and he/she knew what she was typing. Warner Sun (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and, as I said, the rest is personal opinion. I have very little hard information, and you have none. My little beats your none. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't sound like a good excuse. Warner Sun (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Without an outside arbiter it comes down to mere numbers, and it's currently 4-to-2 against me. I will now retreat pending further participation. Thank you for the stimulating conversation. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Warner Sun (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I see I am being discussed without notice. First, the shooter is news. So are the victims. So is the vet that tried to stop the shooter. In the end, this a shooting with a common name and all searches will be related to the event of the shooting. Someone searching wikpedia for "Chris Mintz" should be sent to the same place as the shooter. They are both known for the same event. Should we bold every victims name and create a redirect? There isn't going to be a trial or further news. There is no censorship as many players will be searched but we shouldn't cater to such specific details that ignore the larger scope that made their actions notable (including a victims death). Both Mintz and Harper-Mercer should redirect to the event. It seems rather odd to believe there will be long term interest in the shooter that excludes the event except by psychopaths. We serve the reader and the vast majority of readers that come across the names will be interested in the notable event rather than the biographical details. This is true for the two police officers, Mintz, the other victims and shooter. The section should not be a hagiographic tribute that immortalizes an otherwise non-notable person. Nor should the redirect skip all the pieces that made a redirect meet the requirements for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Should we bold every victims name and create a redirect?" If necessary, yes.

"It seems rather odd to believe there will be long term interest in the shooter that excludes the event except by psychopaths." Well, since the guy committed suicide, investigators will now have to search the hard way for a motive behind it, and they'll keep giving out new information on the shooter once it's found. That should serve enough as notability.

"The section should not be a hagiographic tribute that immortalizes an otherwise non-notable person." See, it's this kind of diction that makes me think this is related to the ongoing discussions about Wikipedia glorifying mass murderers. This is not glorification, but the media will keep focusing more on the shooter, and Wikipedia will reflect that from the reliable sources given.

Warner Sun (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Legally purchased vs. passed background check

All firearms sales through a dealer require Form 4473 and a background check. Do have any more information on his discharge related to a suicide attempt? Specifically, did an Army board find that he was a danger to himself or others? That's one of the mental health loopholes added by the "NICS imrovement act of 2007" that was created after the Virginia Tech shooting. That improvement act excluded findings by boards of federal government agencies. Prior to that act, the Army boards findings would have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm, just as the VT shooter was prohibited. NICS didn't catch it because hardly anyone reports mental health findings. It would be ironic if the VT shooting enabled the legislation that allowed Harper-Mercer to purchase a firearm. --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no Army board for his Entry Level Separation. The guy just could not cut the mustard. Claiming mental health or just refusal to train would have a person sent to 7West, the mental health section of the hospital at Jackson for evaluation, where people are pretty much rubber stamped at (1) getting recycled or (2) getting sent home with the second option more likely. During that time frame (2008) it was and still is quicker to separate the individual and send them home, with only paperwork releasing them from further commitment to the 8 year military service obligation contract they had signed; no DD214, no benefits, just sent home. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The article says it was for attempted suicide. ELS is easy but there is a reason given as well as a reenlistment code. ELS discharges do have a DD214 though the discharge is not characterized (i.e. it's not Honorable, General, Dishonorable, etc). but it's fair to say it's "other than honorable" --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless they changed the process again, ELS were just given paperwork and not a DD214, at least around 2007-8 when I was pulling my staff time at Benning and was stuck doing process review for legal. Someone should do a FOIA and get copies of his official paperwork vs an anonymous source from the Army because from my experience the Army will never willingly get involved in this story. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

They characterize it for reenlistment purposes. Some ELS discharges allow the applicant to reenlist (e.g. an enlistee with a dependent child that has inadequate care for the child will be given ELS but allowed to re-enlist if they rectify the problem. They have to be able to deploy after basic and if childcare is an issue in the first 90 days, they are separated.) Others, such as failing to adapt to culture or certain drug use, can get a ELS code that is ineligible for reenlistment. It's a small detail but it matters for future jobs such as "police officer." Some will reenlist only to clear the ELS discharge and replace with honorable. I believe now, even with a reenlistment code, ELS' personnel are no longer accepted but that seems to be the military saying "you're okay, but no thanks." Some discerning police departments will accept some ELS codes but not others. I guess the military could now be saying everyone is "eligible" but not take any of them. The closest the military is getting is when veterans are claiming a disability but then denying the disability when applying for civil service jobs. The next category is veterans that are prescribed medications that make them unfit to hold a pilots license and the VA is communicating with the FAA. Mental health, though, is a huge sticking point. A veteran commercial pilot being treated for depression or PTSD by a fed doctor is protected from having that diagnoses and treatment being sent to FAA even if it should ground him. GermanWings suicide was not enough to change rules. They are starting to pierce the non-mental health veils so pain medication might be reported bot not anti-depressants even though both ground pilots. OIG has started preparing and prosecuting disability claims that are denied on future applications. For gun sales, the Army is specifically prohibited (since 2007) from reporting mental health findings to NICs unless it was an insanity defense in a court martial. And no, they will not comment and FOIA won't pierce mental health treatment or findings. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the army declined to comment on the claim by law enforcement officials that it was a suicide attempt. This means that all we have to go on is what the law enforcement officials said. As the source in the article points out, he did not receive a dishonorable discharge in 2008, which might have affected his eligibility for a gun. Under current U.S. law, unless a person has been formally committed to a mental institution, they would not be barred from owning a gun.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. His discharge discussion is really about how an official with no connection to the military made a claim about the perp's military service but the Army cannot/will not comment on: thus pure speculation. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army would have barred him from owning a gun under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Since this did not happen, and he had not been formally committed to a mental institution, he would have been able to pass background checks for owning a gun (IANAL).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's correct for the dishonorable discharge. It's not correct that "formal commitment" is the only avenue that would prevent possession. The question is Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ver been committed to a mental institution?. Until 2007, an uncharacterized discharge due to "danger to oneself or others" by an Army review board would have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm. After the Virginia Tech shooting, they mandated reporting to NICS except for agencies of the federal government. Prior to 2007, he would have been a prohibited purchaser but still passed NICS because the Army (and many other agencies) weren't required to report their findings. In 2007 they sought to strengthen the reporting requirements of state courts but mental health lobbyists specifically exempted findings by federal agencies and the Veterans Administration that were not courts. The Virginia Tech shooter passed the background check because his previous committals were not reported but he was a prohibited purchaser and his purchase was illegal. The 2007 law to improve state reporting created a giant loophole that allows persons that are a danger and known to the federal government slip through the process. It's question 11f on the firearm transaction record which is required for every forearm purchased from a dealer.[3] The question wasn't modified by law, but the instructions for answering it were modified. Passing a NICS check does not make the transaction legal. If he's a prohibited possessor, it is illegal for him to purchase firearms and it is also illegal to lie on the form (straw purchasers pass NICs background check, they are prosecuted for lying on the form and the straw purchase). --DHeyward (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is all still basing it on the suicide attempt and not just an administrative issue. 5 weeks at basic=1 week in reception, 3 weeks in red phase, 1 week out processing. Since he continued on to some high school for problem children after the Army, I have doubts that it was just suicide attempt issues at play. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Too many sources, too little uniqueness.

There are 79 sources for this short article, and much overlap. Many are just AP stories. There's something to be said for well-sourced, especially in developing stories, but the mainstream narrative has been established. We don't need to have NBC repeat ABC repeat WSJ repeat WP repeat HP repeat CBS and so on. If someone wants to consolidate this heap, I'm offering 10,000 bonus points. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

I wish there were a tool that you could use to search only the web pages linked to in the article's existing references. That would make avoiding redundancy practical. Such a tool is eminently do-able, but I lack the specific programming skills and I've never gotten any traction for the idea. We usually just live with it, and bonus points don't buy what they used to. But knock yourself out. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to knock myself out, I wouldn't have offered the job. But yeah, if nobody else bites, I guess I'll have to eventually. I also suck at programming helpful bots. Just know a little BASIC, which is now worth less than points. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

This is the type of job which can't be automated. One must carefully examine every use of every ref to see exactly which content it supports. Another ref may appear to be about the same topic, but may contain other details or quotes which are needed, so deleting any ref is a risky proposal. There is no need to delete any source anyway. If you find one that you feel needs to be deleted, leave a very specific edit summary or your delete will just be reverted, and for good reason. This just happens to be a very well-sourced article. It speaks to the notability of the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the type of job which can't be automated. If you're referring to my mention of a tool, the only automating I'm talking about is the task of identifying a source already used in the article that serves your need for a new citation. This tool would not modify the article in any way. Where we currently start with Google and use the source we find there, we would start with this tool instead. If we couldn't find a suitable source already used in the article, we would then go to Google. Thus, far less overlap and redundancy, and a far shorter References section. But like I said, no one seems that concerned with the overlap and the length of the References section, which is why there has been no traction for the tool. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Obama's comment on UK and Australia

Hi everyone. Registered just to ask this question. I noticed there was very little on Obama's comments in the article. He made a point of singling out "friends of ours. Great Britain. Australia." In reference to tightening gun laws and the much lower death by firearms per capita in both countries than in the US..as seen here; List of countries by firearm-related death rate. Surely his comments should be included (and in brackets use the verified figures). I'm aware there will be pro gun editors but surely this is about reporting what Obama stated, and the figures for which he based his comments on. -- TerryPeters09 (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a "Gun Control" issue rather than anything related to this shooting. It's about as useful as comments about "gun-free zones." --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it does have some WP:TOPIC issues here. Obama made the comment above on 2 October 2015, the day after the shooting. He also told BBC News on 24 July 2015 that failure to tackle gun control was the biggest frustration of his presidency.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. That doesn't sound too neutral for Wikipedia's standards to me. Warner Sun (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Barack Obama article only has 402 sources. Might be wanted there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Which is more encyclopedic?

1

After two minutes of shooting, Harper-Mercer went back into the classroom, walked over to the front area of the room, lay down on the ground, and killed himself.

2

After two minutes of shooting, Harper-Mercer went back into the classroom and killed himself.

―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

2 - We don't need this level of play-by-play, only the basic facts. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have it changed. Warner Sun (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, 2 is better as 1 is too complicated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone knows where he shot himself (body-wise), that'd be good to add. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Not sure if it's in one of the too many sources we already have, but here it is if not. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

@Warner Sun: Is this much different from saying he was shot in the right side, or that he shot a woman in the leg? Details matter, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What does this even mean? Non-fatal wounds are less trivial than deadly ones? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I think the difference between a minor nonfatal would and a more serious nonfatal wound is relevant. For example, the leg wound was probably not life-threatening unless it severed the femoral artery. It's worth saying it was probably not life-threatening, I think. Fatal wounds are different, and they appeal more to the widespread preoccupation with violent death. I think a higher relevance bar is warranted for the fatal ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, regarding the cause of death, I personally feel like it depends. At this point, it would be a bit redundant to explicitly mention he shot himself in the head. A majority of suicides with firearms always involves a single gunshot wound to the head, because it seems to be the most effective (and probably painless) way to do it. Maybe if the guy shot himself in the heart (or somehow had a multiple gunshot suicide), then I think it would definitely be worth mentioning. Warner Sun (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

True, so it's not only irrelevant but also largely unnecessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't say it was non-life threatening, though. Just in the leg. Not sure how you see a preoccupation in the same simple detail for a head. It's not like I describe his splattered brain or anything. Cause of suicide seems relevant enough for inclusion in the Columbine, Jokela, Isla Vista, Kauhajoki, Westroads Mall, Johnson Space Center and École Polytechnique shootings. Probably many more. I don't love to play the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS card, but there's something to be said for precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

And there's no such thing as "a majority always". These three words simply confirm to readers that this guy was one of those, rather than the minority. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, precedent means little to nothing to me. Different mixes of editors and different cases often yield different results. It's human to sometimes see more commonality than exists, even if we have been intimately involved in both articles. I also believe that relevance is paramount, and any editor should be able to exclude any content they want on relevance grounds, unless there is a decent case for the content in policy or guideline. This does not mean that I have to challenge all irrelevant content, and I choose my battles. So it's pointless (and somewhat POINTy) to point to other irrelevant content and say, well what about that?? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Campus policy on guns

I added the following to the article:

• Umpqua Community College allows law abiding gun owners who have concealed carry permits to bring their guns to campus, but prohibits them from bringing their guns inside any of the buildings on the campus.

The school's gun policy is highly notable, and should be included in the article.

Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I'll oppose that without a stronger RS connection, but I won't remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How is the school's gun policy "highly notable"? That policy played no role in the massacre. I think the whole section should be removed unless there is strong support to keep. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you remove the sentence, you remove the whole section. It's a one-sentence section. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed that section on the basis of the discussions made here and here. It's not that notable. Warner Sun (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't strictly relevant as Harper-Mercer would have carried out the shooting regardless of what the policy was. Some people have argued that mass shootings would be prevented if more people carried guns for personal protection, but this is controversial as an average schoolteacher or professor would not be expected to prevent an attack by a well-armed person hell bent on killing as many people as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Weapons were on the campus - reuters arktimes. An FBI study found that unarmed citizens restraining a shooter was a more common resolution than armed citizens exchanging gunfire - page 11 ("Resolutions"). -- Callinus (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion that it's more common doesn't take into account that every shooting has unarmed victims while not every shooting has armed victims. The effectiveness of firearms in ending active shooters is reflected in the doctrine adopted by virtually every law enforcement agency: They immediately engage the shooter with firearms. That's why two plainclothes detectives immediately attacked instead of staging a perimeter and waiting for backup. That's a doctrinal change (just like 9/11 changed how airline pilots react to hijackings). Pre-Columbine, a SWAT team would secure the perimeter while a trained negotiator would try to contact the assailant and negotiate a surrender and release of any hostages (that's how they responded to Columbine). It became clear that attacking shooters using guns resulted in fewer casualties. For the statistics you cited, this ended in a "suicide" as a resolution but it would be very obtuse not to recognize that the police shooting Harper-Mercer ended further killings and accelerated his ultimate endgame. It's speculation that lifting the schools prohibition on firearms in the classroom would have changed the outcome as no one can be forced to carry or even use a firearm. But it's specious to imply that "unarmed" is more effective than "armed." This incident ended when two people with guns showed up. The faster people with guns respond, the sooner it ends. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, it's not clear to me whether you are advocating some content or merely in violation of NOTFORUM. Could you clear that up for me? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So...Callinus, DHeyward, do you both mean to say you're in support of the inclusion of such content?... Warner Sun (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Warner Sun I oppose the inclusion of this material. -- Callinus (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Just wanted to be clear on that. Warner Sun (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither the policy or gun laws are relevant to the shooting. It would be relevant if a student said they didn't carry due to the rule. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Warner Sun (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Myth of the "Autistic Shooter"

I wasn't aware of the issue discussed in this new NYT op-ed. To my mind, this makes the Asperger's mention the same as the mother's race: an irrelevant factoid likely to be exploited by ignorant bigots. It's different in that there also appears to be an emerging stigma associating the autism spectrum with mass murders. Should we be contributing to this by mentioning Asperger's here, or would it be censorship to omit it? I have opposed "social activism" at Wikipedia; would I be being inconsisent to oppose this content? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is like Groundhog Day with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Groups representing autistic people resented the condition being mentioned in the context of the shooting, and one of the questions in the FAQ at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting looks at this. I am not against mentioning autism/Asperger's as long as a) it was diagnosed by a medical professional rather relying on hearsay and b) the article makes clear that these conditions are not linked to violence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you oppose for lack of diagnosis, I take it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem for this article because it appears to be Christopher Harper-Mercer's mother making the Asperger's claim rather than medical professionals.[5] In the case of Adam Lanza, the report published in November 2014 said that he had received a diagnosis of Asperger's from medical professionals (page 41 and others). The only way that this article could mention Asperger's is by pointing out that it was his mother that made the claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well I'll continue to oppose since his mother's amateur diagnosis is meaningless at best and potentially damaging per the above myth. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, anything said about the shooter's mental health in a Wikipedia article should meet WP:MEDRS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That could be problematic, since that page doesn't contain the word "diagnosis". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this due to the concerns raised. WP:MEDRS is mostly designed to prevent people from adding material about alternative health in an uncritical way. There is a more subtle problem here, because it is possible that Christopher Harper-Mercer did receive a diagnosis of Asperger's at some point, but at the moment the article is relying on hearsay to introduce it. Perhaps when the law enforcement investigation is complete there will be a fuller picture of his mental health backed up by medical records from the relevant sources. At the moment there is too much material along the lines of "media reports said x" in the article, which is not ideal in this situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the Facebook page mentioned, https://www.facebook.com/autismkills , says "Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment" so maybe it has been removed. I've archived the page here so that people can see for themselves what the fuss is about.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I agree with the removal of folk-diagnosed autism from the article, as long as amateur diagnosis seems the "best" source for any condition. Darth Viller (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between the autism speculation and the speculation about "overly protective black mother" or speculation about white supremacist. If we're keeping that stuff, we should keep the autism stuff. We do know he attended a special needs school and had psychiatric issues. If his mom said he was autistic, we have nothing to dispute it or believe it wasn't a diagnosis. Special needs schools require professional assessments and she obviously had one. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Case for restoration of deleted material and exploration of issues

Now split into subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a number of edits to this article yesterday that I believed to be germane. USER:Warner_Sun, who began editing Wikipedia this month, removed them, but the reason given was that it was too much information. No one has restored them subsequently. I'm not disputing anything here, but am simply commenting on the appropriateness for article content and handling of issues. Hopefully this can contribute to the resolution of some of the questions that have been raised. Here's the URL (also hopefully) that shows those deletions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894 Here's a deleted citation that covers much of the material and issues I'm discussing below: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html For instance: 1.) In the lede I noted that the first target of the shooter was the assistant professor and that eight other students were killed, and nine students wounded. WS removed that info. 2.) I added CHM's father's name, and his mother's name, her profession, and clarified existing vague details about the parents' separation and divorce, all from a New York Times article. WS removed them. 3.) I added details about his mother involuntarily committing CHM to a named mental institution in Torrance and the circumstances of why she did so, again from the cited NYT article. WS removed them. 4.) I clarified imprecise existing descriptions that are important to this narrative. The text I deleted i.e., asserted that 14 weapons were in the house. My edit noted that the weapons were rather kept in the apartment. So, why were those elements germane? 1.) The professor may have been the prime target, with the other students rather collateral damage. The other dead and wounded were students, not people, as in passersby, etc. While the shooter had a persistent and pervasive morbid fascination with mass shootings, his interaction with that teacher may have precipitated and triggered the event. 2.) I clarified a previously vague timeline, drawing from the RSS, that there had been a separation in the marriage for years before the divorce, the age of the shooter at the time of the divorce, and that the mother was the prime caretaker subsequent to it, and that she was a medical professional. 3.) The commitment(s?) was germane, because it was involuntary. At the time he was institutionalized, CHM was either a minor, or his mother was his legal guardian, for her to be able to institutionalize him, with the concurrence of a treatment professional and possibly subject to legal review. California has a statute 5150 which allows a process for involuntary commitment. The reason she took that action, according to her friend who was also a medical professional, was that he was not compliant with his prescribed medications and it caused behavioral difficulties. Now I'm not familiar with the form used by a firearms buyer in California or Oregon, but if those applications ask if there was a commitment as a disqualifying factor, I'm not sure if would have to have been court ordered. The case of the Virginia Tech shooter was not disqualifying because he had been court ordered for evaluation and outpatient treatment, not inpatient treatment. 4.) This is germane because the weapons were not "in the house," because he had half the weapons that were available to him with him at the time of the shooting. The neighbors in Winchester knew he had problems because they could hear him pacing throughout the night in the apartment upstairs, and he overreacted to trivial behaviors of their neighbors, i.e., their smoking, their children playing, music, etc. Descriptions of CHM's mother's behavior is not inconsistent with autism (and paranoia) or what has until recently been described as Asperger's Syndrome. There is no reason to believe that she unilaterally diagnosed her son or herself, rather than accepting a professional psychiatric diagnosis and further communicating that opinion to others. I submit that censoring these elements of the narrative does a disservice to it, just as ignoring Jack Ruby's prior behavior, background, connections, etc., would do a disservice to an article on Lee Harvey Oswald's murder. I am specifically not maintaining that being autistic equates to being dangerous. I have extensive personal and clinical experience with the condition, including living and working with rather remarkable autistic savants. I also have considerable clinical experience with those suffering from psychoses. I think that providing the latter with deadly weapons or facilitating their acquisition for them, is an extremely bad idea. I've got to get to an appointment, but I hope these comments are helpful. Activist (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Discussing this many separate questions in one thread is usually unmanageable. At least, it is for my ADD brain. It's unlikely we'll reach a consensus on the entire package as a unit. Could you possibly split them? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Per above: Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistant professor as first target

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"1.) In the lede I noted that the first target of the shooter was the assistant professor and that eight other students were killed, and nine students wounded."

Quote 2:

"1.) The professor may have been the prime target, with the other students--- rather collateral damage. The other dead and wounded were students, not people, as in passersby, etc. While the shooter had a persistent and pervasive morbid fascination with mass shootings, his interaction with that teacher may have precipitated and triggered the event."

---

Comment: I think that's too detailed for the lead. The sequence isn't really important for that part and it's made clear under the heading "Shooting". Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WAY too detailed for the lead, I agree with Darth Viller and Mandruss. Also, the professor being the prime target is purely speculative. Eyewitness reports just corroborate on Harper-Mercer shooting the professor first, and no real information has come up in support of your theory (what I read about Harper-Mercer's interaction with the professor was that he corrected his answer (or something along those lines)). Harper-Mercer's act of shooting the professor first doesn't indicate he specifically targeted him and the other victims were collateral damage. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Family background, separation and divorce

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"2.) I added CHM's father's name, and his mother's name, her profession, and clarified existing vague details about the parents' separation and divorce, all from a New York Times article."

Quote 2:

"2.) I clarified a previously vague timeline, drawing from the RSS, that there had been a separation in the marriage for years before the divorce, the age of the shooter at the time of the divorce, and that the mother was the prime caretaker subsequent to it, and that she was a medical professional."

---

Comment: That she was the primary caregiver is clear from the context anyway. No opinion on clarifying the timeline on separation and divorce. Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would want to see relevance for any of this, but especially the parents' names. See Identify family (permalink). Remember, this is not a bio of CHM. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Mandruss. The inclusion of the parents' names was already discussed and it was ruled that they weren't important. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary commitment

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"3.) I added details about his mother involuntarily committing CHM to a named mental institution in Torrance and the circumstances of why she did so, again from the cited NYT article."

Quote 2:

"3.) The commitment(s?) was germane, because it was involuntary. At the time he was institutionalized, CHM was either a minor, or his mother was his legal guardian, for her to be able to institutionalize him, with the concurrence of a treatment professional and possibly subject to legal review. California has a statute 5150 which allows a process for involuntary commitment. The reason she took that action, according to her friend who was also a medical professional, was that he was not compliant with his prescribed medications and it caused behavioral difficulties. Now I'm not familiar with the form used by a firearms buyer in California or Oregon, but if those applications ask if there was a commitment as a disqualifying factor, I'm not sure if would have to have been court ordered. The case of the Virginia Tech shooter was not disqualifying because he had been court ordered for evaluation and outpatient treatment, not inpatient treatment."

---

That seems relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For factual reference, the VT shooter's court ordered treatment was disqualifying. Inpatient or outpatient makes no difference. The issue was that it wasn't reported to NICs so it wasn't denied when they ran the background check. A clean background check doesn't make the transaction legal or make the purchaser eligible. Mental health reporting is spotty mainly due to laws protecting mental health records being reported (they are the most protected health records). The form for purchasing a firearm from a store is a federal form that is the same for every state and is retained for 20 years. --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That actually sounds relevant. My bad in reverting it; I didn't have the time and patience at the moment to revert certain edits and I just encompassed the entire contribution. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My bad in reverting it Not in my opinion. If I choose to edit en masse, I should expect to be reverted en masse. Saving space in the page history should not be a primary goal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"In the house" vs. "Kept in the apartment"

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"4.) I clarified imprecise existing descriptions that are important to this narrative. The text I deleted i.e., asserted that 14 weapons were in the house. My edit noted that the weapons were rather kept in the apartment."

Quote 2:

"4.) This is germane because the weapons were not "in the house," because he had half the weapons that were available to him with him at the time of the shooting. The neighbors in Winchester knew he had problems because they could hear him pacing throughout the night in the apartment upstairs, and he overreacted to trivial behaviors of their neighbors, i.e., their smoking, their children playing, music, etc."

---

Comment: I think the difference is trivial. It's clear from context that "in the house" didn't refer to the time of shooting. I'm fine either way, it hardly increases concision to leave it out. Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

State what he had with him. Then state what LE later found in the apartment. No need to refer to either twice, in two different ways, if that was being done. This is how it was at one point, I guess someone improved it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a proper wording. 14 weapons being in the house implies that authorities found more than what was reported, which is obviously not true. And the two of them obviously didn't live in a house; they lived in an apartment. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Warner Sun: What's a proper wording? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say that was the best way to say it. Warner Sun (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning, that this incident caused a new Meme?

3 days after the shooting this meme was created: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/some-of-you-guys-are-alright . The meme is maybe also worth mentioning because it probably led to closing the University of Lund (Sweden) for one day: http://www.thelocal.se/20151012/swedish-university-shut-after-anonymous-threat . Just an idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by K!r!93 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The content about the 4chan thing was removed yesterday as circumstantial speculation. If we can't justify that content, we certainly can't justify content about a meme arising from that. Even if it's proven that the 4chan was CHM, and that is added back, the meme will still be dubious. We have to draw a line somewhere. My opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, until firm evidence emerges that CHM did post on 4chan, it should not be mentioned at all. The article is gradually getting rid of the early media reports which are too speculative, and the 4chan post is one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - firstly WP:NOTNEWS, and secondly, I'd argue it belongs on bomb threat as an example of disruption by hoax threats, and is only tangentially related to this article. -- Callinus (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

911 is what they called

"I heard more shooting," Ms. Welding said. "It was horrific. My whole body was shaking. A chill was going down my spine. We called 911."

...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki name for the service is 9-1-1, and that's all that matters here. Besides, Ms Welding did not necessarily "say" 911, it could also have been written as 9/1/1, 9,1,1, 9-1-1 or numerous other variations. WWGB (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion about this? The freaking FCC and CRTC, the controlling agencies in the U.S. and Canada, both say the correct form is 9-1-1. Links to those pages are in the discussion. Are you actually asserting that anything is more authoritative than those government sources? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When Ms. Welding poked the phone she poked 9 1 1, she did not poke nine hyphen one hyphen one, nor did she poke nine slash one slash one, or nine comma one comma one. The only option on a phone is to dial 9 1 1 which she states she did. There is no hyphen, slash, or comma on a (standard) touchtone telephone. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am truly not believing this. You have been disruptive on this since day one, bringing nothing but remarkably lame arguments. I'm done trying to communicate with you, maybe others would like to. If you try to insert this change again without consensus, I will see you at WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Mandruss. The bullshit you're spreading over this is getting pretty deep, Checkingfax. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. Since day one? Everybody is working hard to make this a good article. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh...just because dialing 9 1 1 is the only option on the phone doesn't necessarily mean we must label the number as "911" over "9-1-1". Warner Sun (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, 9 9 9 works, too, on cell phones even in the U.S. However, as this is a quote, the press is just being lazy. She undoubtedly said "nine one one" but any shorthand, 911 or 9-1-1 is fine. No one thinks sh said "nine eleven" or "nine hundred eleven." We link to the service so using the wikipdia article name is fine. It's not confusing anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the Los Angeles Times, unnamed law enforcement sources said he was a "hate-filled" man with antireligious and white supremacist leanings, and with long-term mental health issues.

This is not a statement that law enforcement sources said he was a hate hyphen filled man, or that he had long hyphen term mental health issues. Hyphens are generally silent. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's piped in case anybody needs the full 411 on 911. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My cable TV service went down, so I pulled out the latest bill to get their customer service number. It said it was 800-235-1414. I went to dial that, but I couldn't find a hyphen on my telephone. I've been without TV ever since! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You can just fix it yourself. I did. I just used a marker to draw a little hyphen button on the side of my phone so I can dial the hyphen and now it works fine. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

More of the body could be in the lead

The current lead is:

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. Christopher Harper-Mercer, a 26-year-old student, fatally shot nine people and injured nine others on the campus. The first two responding police officers engaged Harper-Mercer from outside wounding Harper-Mercer once . He retreated further inside and committed suicide.

But the lead could summarize more body details. There is room for another paragraph (or two). Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what else there is we can mention in the header. Everything we have right now has just been about the shooting. Warner Sun (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found something. Warner Sun (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the reference gun control. Not much of that debate is mentioned in the article, however, just Obama's response. Darth Viller (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, not just that. It was just about every other thing I contributed to the header as well. But those were by a long shot, not sure if it'll be acceptable as header material or not. Still unsure about this whole expanding-the-header thing; the original version looked just fine. Warner Sun (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD has been lengthened, but this still a fairly short article and it should not repeat material verbatim from the main body of the article simply to make it longer, as the lead is only a summary of what follows. As for gun control, it was inevitable that there were calls for new laws after this shooting, but it has become routine. The last major attempt at changing gun law in the USA was the Feinstein Bill after Sandy Hook, but this was rejected within months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying. But apparently, the reasoning for the lead lengthening is stuff like "IMHO, the lead of this article could use another paragraph if anybody has the time", "Yes the number is important as it is 'active shooter' doctrine", "Actively seeking out the shooter upon arrival is very important. They rushed in wearing plain clothes and outgunned. They were first arrival facing unknown number of shooters, casualties and weapons", and "No, it's not and its's very relevant" (the last one in response to my message "The header describes the basic overview of the event only. This is too specific."). Warner Sun (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: simpler is better in the WP:LEAD. Saying that responding officers immediately engaged Harper-Mercer is unnecessary. It is unlikely that the responding officers said "OK, let's make a cup of tea before engaging him in a shootout."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I really don't know why we need this much detail in the lead. Warner Sun (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand why it is a necessary detail or what police normally do, please refrain from commenting on detail. It's as different as whether they used a bow and arrows or guns. It is not a trivial detail or an unnecessary one - nor does it require many words. This is a specific response to a specific threat that is unique to "active shooters." --DHeyward (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But do we REALLY need to mention all of this in the lead when it's more suited to the "Shooting" section? Remember, a header serves as only a basic summary of the events, which does not require specifics. Warner Sun (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The first two responding officers engaged and wounded Mercer-Harper is about the same amount of words as saying the police shot him. This provides leaps and bounds of information for those familiar with police response while taking nothing away from average readers. This isn't complicated details such as whether the detectives had ballistic gear or rifles or raid jackets. It's a simple account that relays a basic understanding of what the officers knew without going into detail. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No matter how minor it seems, "the first two" is still a specific detail that can be covered in the "Shooting" section without anyone missing it in the header. Warner Sun (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct. Many people will miss it in the header because they are familiar with police responses. It's not overly detailed, it's a general observation of the police response. Your argument is like saying we could eliminate "police" and replace it with "armed men" because "police" is "too detailed" and can be covered in the shooting section. That is nonsense. The fact that the "The first two" means nothing to you is an indication of just your experience but it is not a detail that should be omitted from the lead, it's a broad description of the police response to an active shooter and means quite a lot to those that study such phenomena. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're making a VERY poor argument. I am not saying anything about replacing "police" with "armed men" because it's nothing like that. "The first two" is extremely trivial to point out in the first place and it doesn't have to be mentioned in the header at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: headers are basic summaries of the event. A police response is a police response, regardless of the number of officers involved. "The first two" can be mentioned in the "Shooting" section (where it fits more) and I doubt it would make much of a difference. @Ianmacm: can concur to that. Warner Sun (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Killer issues in lead

I'd prefer to keep killer issues out of the lead. The killer was half black but possibly sympathised with white supremacists, not Irish but possibly sympathised with the IRA. Note that School shooting#Injustice collectors shows that mass killers aren't rational people, and they often violently punish other people for failures in their life they refuse to admit responsibility for.

Summing up a killer's "grievances" in the lead section shouldn't present them though they were rational. -- Callinus (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, Dave. "Inside the Warped Mind of Vester Flanagan and Other Shooters". The New Republic. Retrieved 2015-09-23.

I agree with this to some extent, as the motives of mass shooters are rarely rational. However, there is a risk of supporting the "deny recognition" theory by doing this. The WP:LEAD in its current form is OK, as there is no need to give detail about his manifesto or online presence, which are discussed later.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of these killer issues are also excluded from the body of the article - he was half English, as his father was English, but he had material showing identification with the IRA and a Nazi-affiliated group. As I have said before on this Talk page, these elements were covered by the reputable British press, but have been removed in this article. Why is white supremacy assumed to be more important than the others in showing his state of mind? He seemed to have absorbed hostility from many sources.Parkwells (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The IRA material was on his Myspace profile [6]. This could be mentioned by saying something like "His Myspace profile had material related to the IRA" as this is factual and does not glorify the shooter. Statements like "he supported the IRA and was anti-British" are harder to justify, as they involve placing an interpretation on the material. CHM clearly found some aspects of the IRA interesting enough to post them on his Myspace profile page, but why he did this is unclear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

CHM clearly found some aspects of the IRA interesting enough to post them on his Myspace profile page, but why he did this is unclear. It's not clear it has anything to do with the shooting. SYNTHing his white supremacist vs. mixed race and IRA vs. UK passport are all synthesized connections. What sources are relating these things to the shooting? We aren't doing a biographical background that isn't relevant to the shooting so facts that haven't been connected to the shooting should not be in the article. In contrast, the press does lots of background stuff that is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. It's not sufficient that it was reported. If we don't know "why" he linked to the IRA, it's really hard to make the case that it's relevant to the shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Refocus on developing lead content - here was our progress:

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. Christopher Harper-Mercer, a 26-year-old student, fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students inside a classroom where he took classes. Nine other students were injured.

The first two police officers responding to the incident engaged Harper-Mercer in a two-minute shootout. After being wounded, he shot himself dead.

Prior to committing the shooting, Harper-Mercer handed a survivor several writings, which detailed his views and frustrations of life.

The mass shooting, which was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history,[3][4] reignited the national debate about gun control and U.S. gun politics.

Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to mention specific details like that. It's essentially repeating what's being said in the full body of the article, which is not what WP:LEAD requires. Warner Sun (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

lead regarding police

It is a relevant and succinct point that the first two responding officers immediately engaged and shot Harper-mercer. It's not more wordy than "responding officers" and gives an accurate portrayal of how police react to active shooters. There is no detail in that statements, just the first two officers immediately sought, found and shot Harper-Mercer. Details would be that they were plain-clothes or that they used rifles or pistols, etc. Just saying "first two" is the same level of detail as the number of killed and wounded. Is the number of killed and woundd too much detail for the lead too? --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When police arrived at the campus, their goal would have been to find and disable Harper-Mercer as soon as possible. It is unclear whether CHM opened fire on the officers, although he may have done. Responding officers would usually shout a warning to drop a gun rather than opening fire without warning, to avoid possible controversies afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, only in active shooters is that ever done. The first goal is a perimeter. In no other scenarios do police rush in and engage except if they are implementing an "active shooter" doctrine. They contain first, then assess, then search and negotiate. If it had been a bank robbery, they would not have entered the bank.. If it was fleeing homicide suspect from a house, they would contain and search. Only in this one case would 2 plainclothes detectives rush in because it's an active shooter hot tone. After the shooter was stopped, you saw more of what police normally do: search every person for a an accomplish, search buildings for explosives, set up a perimeter so no one avoids the search or gets out without being accounted for, etc, etc. Read the response to Columbine as that is when new strategies emerged. --DHeyward (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still unclear who opened fire in the shootout first, CHM or the responding officers. The police were clearly in no mood to mess around, but more detail is needed about what happened when the officers arrived at the scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't advocate putting who shot first. It's irrelevant. That two, non-uniformed police officers even entering the grounds while knowing there would be a multi-agency and massive response is the only information necessary. Police have SWAT teams and there are very few instances of barricaded subjects where they don't contain and wait for SWAT and negotitations. In the fog, they don't know how many shooters, weapons, bombs, etc. The risk of being shot by other police, shot by the gunman/gunmen or shooting other police officers or civilians is very great so it's rarely done. "Active shooter" is one of them and stating the event as it was relayed tells those aware of such things what the police knew and what was dispatched. If we had a source that said they engaged their active shooter protocol, that would be acceptable for the lead, too, but absent that source, describing how the first two responding officers behaved is important in setting up the scene. It's not overly-detailed. We put in "wounded" and "committed suicide" rather than just "died" because it sets up the scene without overt details. --DHeyward (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm not an expert, here is a paper looking at active shooter responses. My main concern is not who fired first, but whether officers would have shot him without warning if the opportunity presented itself. This incident is similar to the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, where Wade Page opened fire on the responding officers, giving them no choice but to fire back. This may be what CHM did, but the information is still sketchy at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The notable thing is that they were employing "active shooter" tactics. It would be too much detail in the lead (and possibly unknown details) to discuss who shot first, whether the wounds inflicted were fatal, rifles or pistols, ballistic vests or not, etc. However, the facts of immediately entering and engaging shooters give insight into the tactics being employed. Had it been a "Hostage/barricade" instead of "active shooter", the response would have been very different. The little bit of knowledge that the first two officers entered and sought out the shooter is "active shooter". Whether they shoot or not is not relevant to the information conveyed by the first two officers immediately entering the grounds without concern for a perimeter, backup, command and control, SWAT, K9, etc, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)