Jump to content

Talk:Midland–Odessa shootings: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 196: Line 196:
------
------
So the exclude side has [[WP:VL]] and the include side has [[WP:CASL]]? Seems a bit... forky. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
So the exclude side has [[WP:VL]] and the include side has [[WP:CASL]]? Seems a bit... forky. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
:Well, there were two issues: 1) I didn't want to try and take over an existing essay, that seems like a recipe for edit warring or just straight up conflict (which I am getting tired of as it is), and 2) victim lists implies the issue only applies to attack events (shootings) where casualties can apply to really any event where some people are killed (deliberately or not). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 23:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


== "Not on [[GPS]]" ==
== "Not on [[GPS]]" ==

Revision as of 23:19, 2 September 2019

Template:WPUS50


Requested move 1 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was page moved by User:Akandkur. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


2019 West Texas shooting → 2019 Midland-Odessa shooting – New title is more precise and avoids any ambiguous titles and confusion with other articles on recent mass shootings in the State of Texas as per WP:PRECISE. As per a disambiguation statement already listed at the top of the article is cited as example as to why a less precise article title would lead to confusion i.e. "Not to be confused with 2019 El Paso shooting." Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octoberwoodland, I started this article with "West Texas" because initial reports were describing activities in both Midland and Odessa. I have no problem with the article being moved based on new information and community consensus. Thanks for starting a discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the more-precise form 2019 Midland–Odessa, Texas shooting. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, support that name for the preciseness. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I would support Midland–Odessa shooting, per InedibleHulk and EDG 543, as sufficiently precise. No need for year or state identification since Wikipedia has an article with the main header, Midland–Odessa. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plain "shooting" titles have long described all sorts of shootings on Wikipedia, the leads convey the subclasses. And there's no prior such shooting to require forcing in a year. Too precise, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, September 1, 2019 (UTC)
Close it and move the page. When I created the first requested move, only Odessa had reported in the news as the location of the shootings. Shortly after I nominated this page, then news reports came in that the city of Midland also was involved. Close and move the page. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No capital in "shooting". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, September 1, 2019 (UTC)
Right. I also support closing this discussion and moving. No need for the tag to sit there for several more days. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we still mixed on whether to include the year, though? If we agree not to, that'd be quickest. But no pressure. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, September 1, 2019 (UTC)
I also see dashes versus hyphens. Mine is just hyphenated because I can't paste a dash. I support dashing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, September 1, 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bipartisan response / legislative consequence

Outlined in CNN news coverage is extensive coverage from various politicians for the sake of balance should this not be addressed. Notwitstanding the coincidence of lessening tx gun laws coming into force 1st September 2019. All outlined in ref 6. Perhaps a title outlining any legilislative improvements/erosion "efforts" (subjective) that result in the time period or the shootings, i.e. las vegas shooting led to "bump stock" legislation as a direct consequence. In general there is little recording of outcomes or investigative conclusions. Bodconn (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the perpetrator

The result of the discussion was include the name per WP:SNOW. El_C 02:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The perpetrator is not notable, the event is notable. Please discuss here before adding to the article. Please see WP:ONUS. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL as we don't want to memorialize someone who is not notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly believe perpetrators are always named in the shooting articles, at least in the infobox. In every shooting article. But do whatever the consensus is, it won't afffect my sleep. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to understand the event without naming the perpetrator. The name adds nothing except memorializing the perp and proving them (and others in the future that might copy the behavior) the added benefit of being made perpetually famous. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Images of the perp would likewise need consensus prior to being added. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: I didn't add the pictures which I am against by the way. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I outdented the other reply to myself. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that there was a discussion about naming the shooter which is why I added to the "Perpetrator" section that had named him prior to my edits as had the infobox. Most of the other events such as this that I have edited, even when there was hesitation to name the shooter; as seen in this case, have included the name of the shooter or a perpetrator section. This may be in an effort to discuss the legal case of a living perpetrator or to discuss motive or the investigation of the incident. In general outside of mimicking other mass shooting articles, I would vote for at least having a perpetrator section highlighting the desire to not name them as was done by the Odessa Police. Leaky.Solar (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include Name - Every article on a civilian attack has the name of the attacker on it, whether it be in the infobox or in a section about the suspect. I thought the not memorial aspect only applies to list of victims and not the killer. How exactly are we memorializing the killer and why do we need a consensus for every new article now? just have his name in a section under the title suspect, and don't tell me that the no notoriety campaign is the reason why this is a discussion, because Wikipedia is not a censored source. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What does the name of the shooter provide to the reader? The event is the notable part here, not the individual. WP:1E as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Name - An article about an event is not authoritative or complete without naming the perp who committed the offense. The article refers to a mass murder and omitting the name of the perp who committed the crime makes the article inferior and incomplete, particularly since all the sources name the perp. The perp is named in numerous articles and new stories related to the event and more than meets the threshold of notability related to the event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the name enhance the understanding of the event for the reader? Wikipedia articles are not authoritative, they are a tertiary collection of notable and relevant information on the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the shooting and the event, not the name of the individual that did it. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name While not literally essential to understanding the topic, it's traditionally helpful in understanding who the shooter was. Same for his victims, when officially identified. Censorship just begs questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, September 1, 2019 (UTC)
    How do you think the name helps (for the victims or the shooter)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concisely and precisely reveals whodunnit (or who's done now). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Include Name - But not in the infobox and not in the lead nor really in the description of the incident. The name should be mentioned in the context of it is the name the police released. This would be in a section after the incident description. It is not for Wikipedia at this time to say who did what, only who said what about it. Later, maybe even in a day or two but possibly later, when it is an accepted he was the perpetrator can it be directly presented as so, but not so soon. I do not think the name should ever be in the lead, this guy is not notable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a reasonable compromise, though I hope people will understand how irrelevant a name is in this context. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name and a section about the perpetrator. We are not creating a separate article about the perpetrator -- that would certainly not be appropriate. However, the perpetrator name and info are always included in these kinds of articles, essentially per WP:DUEWEIGHT requirements, since this info represents a significant aspect of the story and receives significant news coverage. The info about the perpetrator's background, prior criminal and psychological history, where and how he got the gun, etc, needs to go into that section. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We can talk about the perpetrator without naming them. How does the name add value for the reader? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole, come in from the snow. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that we have always included the name in the past is absolutely a good reason to do it here as well. The practice of including the names of the perpetrators reflects the de facto community consensus regarding this issue. This consensus should not be overturned without good reasons, and cetainly not because of some sort of an ideological crusade. Nsk92 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just add the name of the shooter. Who keeps getting rid of the name edits? It's stupid to keep his name off when you can read it literally anywhere and the shooters named of other shootings are posted. Stop trying to be moral by not naming him, you all just look inept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130C:C7CA:487A:14B7:452E:6AF3 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Comment (after the above discussion was closed):

Leaving the name of the shooter out of a shooting article? Yeah, right. Now, I've seen it all. Wow. Just, wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Image to Article

File:Seth Aaron Ator.png

Support adding image of perpetrator to article. Image is located at File:Seth Aaron Ator.png Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an accurate statement. The event is notable and the perp is identified BY NAME in the article. Adding a photo to identify the shooter seems to make sense particularly since they are named in the article. If they are not notable then you should remove their name from the article. Also, you do not WP:OWN this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can surely do better than that. Simply saying my statement is not accurate will not suffice. They are not presently named in the article (see section above). And I never said I did, but we will follow Wikipedia policy on adding disputed content. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did not notice that you removed the perp from the article. You are correct that if they are not listed in the article then adding the photo makes no sense. As to whether or not the perp is notable is another discussion that must be resolved before a photo is added. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he was arrested in Waco 10 years earlier then there should be a mugshot photo around somewhere, I doubt he will be smiling in that photo. I will look around and see if I can locate his mugshot from that arrest event. It may be less morbid. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I do oppose (so don't support) his sour puss in the infobox. Just in his section, scaled to fit. A car with bullet holes in it is ideal for an overall first glimpse up top, nothing personal (I'd avoid similar models, but a photo of the actual murder weapon could work, in theory). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
There is a photo online of one of the cars all shot up with bullet holes from his rampage. Are you saying we should include that photo in the infobox? Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figured there'd be multiple photos online. As long as it's a shot-up car, it should do for illustrative purposes. But a car shot that day, no stock crap. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
I added an image of a truck from the Odessa Furniture Exchange that was shot up by the perp. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should add a photo to the info box at all, but maybe somewhere else in the article. What is typical of other articles? Sgerbic (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue related to this page. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the victims

Hi,

I'd like to get a discussion started on whether the names of the victims should be included. Some of their names have been released: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion we have to have for every fatal attack, per [2]. WWGB (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Readers' understanding of the event is not enhanced by the inclusion of a list of unremarkable deceased. It is sufficient to include age ranges, gender or ethnicity where such details are relevant to motive. I now await the arrival of LC, BS and IH to argue otherwise! WWGB (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - Agree with the User:WWGB above. The victims have relatives and other survivors of the event, and it may run afoul of WP:BLP to name the victims since doing so may lead to BLP issues with their close relatives. One example is the young female postal carrier who was murdered when the perp hijacked her US Postal Office delivery truck. She is survived by her twin sister who was on the phone with her when her twin sister was killed. There are all sorts of ways that naming victims can adversely affect the survivors or their family members and we need to be sensitive to these issues. Unless the victims are notable of their own right they should not be mentioned BY NAME in such an article out of respect for the privacy rights of those survivors of the event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. – They are pertinent to the story. They have reliable sources. They are included in all other reporting sources. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include forever all who die to make a death article and are officially IDed after kin notification to every mainstream English outlet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously include. We are writing an article, aren't we? Why would we write an article and leave out a key component of it, such as the names of victims? If there is any doubt as to whether inclusion of victim names contributes to the quality of articles, one must do the obvious thing—look at articles that contain victim names. Would Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Virginia Tech shooting or Pittsburgh synagogue shooting or 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting be improved if the names of the victims were removed? Obviously not. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Good grief, here we go again. Of course, the names should be included, per WP:DUEWEIGHT considerations. The names are widely reported by all the WP:RS covering the story, and they represent a basic factual component of the story. We should do what the sources do and include the names in the WP article as well. Nsk92 (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. All details appearing in WP:RELIABLESOURCES, including names of victims, should be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia articles that delineate news events. There should be no censorship, other than WP:COMMONSENSE regarding length of lists or WP:UNDUEWEIGHT given to specific names or details. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.
    Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.
    For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing, and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[3] It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per all of the various arguments that are usually given for not having to include the names purely on the basis of them appearing in news reports.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - they're of no use to the vast majority of readers, aren't useful info & don't help readers to understand the event. The names being included in some media articles about a shooting doesn't mean that we have to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for a change of discussion since you all seem to have the same conversation after each shooting. Seems there should be a policy discussion on this as these are becoming so common that pretty soon we won't be writing a Wikipedia page for each event, they will become non-notable. After the El Paso shootings my adult son posted on social media that if he is ever involved in a mass shooting he wants photos of his bullet ridden body on a billboard in the hopes that it might help get gun laws changed. It seems that if a family speaks out in the media - naming their loved one then I can see that it might be appropriate to include names, but not if it is just mentioned in a RS. I don't have the wisdom to know the best answer, we want to be sensitive but then again it isn't our job to be sensitive, but to state the facts. The family knows their loved one is dead, it's not as if this will be surprise, a Google search for the name will turn up whether or not we mention it on Wikipedia. I say list the names that are made public by the family. The others can be descriptive as in 15-year old high school student, 25-year old father of one ... Sgerbic (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, of course, just like we do with 90% of similar articles. WP:ONUS does not apply here (in so much as it's an irrelevant reason to exclude), and a lengthier counter argument can be seen at Wikipedia:Casualty lists. I'd also direct everyones attention to the debate directly above about including the name of the perpetrator: you can't have even coverage of an event when you go out of your way to name and detail one side of it at the cost of the other. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS note

You know how it goes. In case there's edit warring over this, there needs to be consensus for inclusion for the names to be added. No big surprises there, right? El_C 03:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When there's no consensus to include, there is no consensus to exclude. In that case, victim names will never be added. So, it would become a de facto policy to never list victim names. All of the "discussions" will just be "for show" and will be pointless and futile. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:ONUS can be a harsh mistress. El_C 04:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why have these discussions? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an answer to that. El_C 05:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a sweet proposition on how we could "take care of" the sidebroad and our faithful battleaxe both, but it turned whimsical and tonedeaf in Act III. Still a good yarn, though. Perhaps another day, for another page. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
Sun-struck, stuck in mid tropic strut, it sometimes stands. El_C 11:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro—you say "In that case, victim names will never be added." Do you mean to this article? Or do you mean to Wikipedia? I don't know what "will never be added" is in reference to. Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: These discussions pop up every time we have a mass shooting article. If there are several "supports" and also several "opposes", then that will always yield "no consensus". According to an editor above, that means "no consensus to include the names". (I'd argue, why can't it mean "no consensus to exclude the names"?) So, if this pattern continues repeatedly, there will always be "no consensus to include". Which means that that "no consensus rule" will never allow any victim names to be added. Which means that the "no consensus" rule will become a de facto rule of never allowing victim names. My point is that we should not allow this to happen. That is, for a de facto policy to be implemented, when there has been no consensus outright for a policy to always omit victim names. Hope my explanation makes sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why have these discussions? As opposed to a rule to omit the lists at every new article, which the community has consistently declined to support? We have these discussions because the community has told us to have these discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: See my reply above to Bus stop. These discussions are futile. The same arguments are always put forth, by both sides ... and usually by the same editors. It's a waste of everyone's time. And we repeat the process every time there is a new article. It is futile. And the "system" is "rigged" if "no consensus" will always mean "exclude victim names". So, I encapsulated all of that by simply saying "why bother to have these discussions at all?". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On some talk pages of articles about mass killings there has been a consensus to include victims' names & on some others there's been a consensus to exclude them (depending primarily on who the participants in the discussion are). There have also been some in which no consensus has been reached. It's long been the case that in regard to contentious info, a consensus in required to include it, not a consensus required to exclude it. Hence no consensus means exclude. Jim Michael (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael—you don't think the system is rigged? Do you ever attempt to remove victim lists from already-existing articles? There are plenty to choose from. No, you do not. You only attempt to prevent the inclusion of victim names at articles at their inception. No one is going over to Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and saying "remove the victim list". Can you guess why not? They would stand a snowball's chance in hell at succeeding at that fool's errand. What we are discussing is quality. An article containing a victim list would be reduced in quality if a victim list were removed from it. And that would be evident to all involved editors at that article. That is why you do not attempt to remove victim lists. Your modus operandi is to go to articles at their inception to prevent information from ever entering an article where it would be evident that this information was contributory to the overall article's quality. If your argument in opposition to victim lists is to have any credibility with me, I would like to see you cause a victim list to be removed from an already-existing article. I would like to see you even attempt to do that. So far I have not seen even one instance of anyone attempting to remove a victim list from an article. On a separate but related note El C is on record as saying "But I've been on record of generally being against using victims' names in mass shootings — are you sure you want me to the one who closes?" I've had to bring this unfortunate point up before, but here they are overseeing a similar situation, in which an RfC really serves no purpose: if anyone voices any objection, however trivial and not based in policy, there is "no consensus to include". That is not in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with everything that Bus stop said. This "rigged system" needs to be addressed. In these discussions, one can always go out and gather a few "opposed" votes. Thereby, insuring a "no consensus". Thereby, insuring the final desired goal ... to exclude victim lists. This is against the spirit of the consensus policies. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have another proposal? Because WP:ONUS seems to apply here. El_C 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." This RfC addresses the need for arriving at consensus. What is consensus? "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote." WP:CONSENSUS further tells us "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Bus stop well knows, this was already addressed here. But feel free to keep bringing it up again and again. And again, I will not be closing this RfC discussion, but I will enforce WP:ONUS — if you have an alternative to it, feel free to propose it. Briefly, please. El_C 18:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are on record as saying you are "against" victim names in shootings and I think your above posts contain that bias if not explicitly then implicitly. Have you considered summoning an uninvolved admin to replace you at this page? Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't even think it makes that much of a difference if we have the names or not, since the names are already out there by media outlets. What I am concerned about is aimless edit warring, which I am nipping at the bud. Yes, feel free to find another uninvolved admin, I have no objection to that, and it will in fact, be a relief. El_C 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the exclude side has WP:VL and the include side has WP:CASL? Seems a bit... forky. El_C 22:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were two issues: 1) I didn't want to try and take over an existing essay, that seems like a recipe for edit warring or just straight up conflict (which I am getting tired of as it is), and 2) victim lists implies the issue only applies to attack events (shootings) where casualties can apply to really any event where some people are killed (deliberately or not). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not on GPS"

The article states: the shooter's home was not on GPS. Does that mean something? 85.76.74.244 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN source says "Alonzo said she called police after the incident last month, but that they had never responded because the location of the property does not show up on GPS and is difficult to find." I'm not quite sure what this means, maybe it should be clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... no. The GPS satellite constellation encircles the Earth, and has no concept of, knowledge of, or ability to detect a "rural area".
Popular media editors who write gunk like "not on GPS" are likely a medieval French poetry majors, with no STEM classes on top of that. "House is not on GPS" really truly is not a real thing.
This is so funny. 85.76.74.244 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is most likely associating the address with coordinates the GPS can target a route to. Even in less rural areas GPS can send you to the wrong place to gain access to an address. You have to hunt around a bit to find the driveway. Why they could not just call the woman and get directions I do not know. That is what they did before GPS. It is a lame excuse.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the "home was not on GPS". Please tell us more about how that phrase describes reality. 85.76.74.244 (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It means the location's address doesn't appear on GPS receiving devices capable of showing the desired location on a self-contained map display, likely due to the location not being in the map creator's database. However, since the comment is a direct quote and uses language most people understand there is no good reason to change it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midland–Odessa_shootings&oldid=913744046"