Talk:2019 El Paso Walmart shooting

Include or exclude victim names

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

General considerations pertaining to this close are similar to these. On a raw count, there is no consensus for listing the victims' names. Many of the comments are simple statements of opinion or refer to subjective criteria, which amounts to being little more than an opinion - ... the names are important ... does not establish why they are important and should therefore be included (ie it is an incomplete arguement). Comments to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are not valid in this case. Five Ws does not mandate naming. Arguements to honouring or personalising the victims are contrary to what is encyclopedic/encyclopedic style. Consequently, there is at least a weak consensus against including a list of victims names.

On the matter of this RfC being preemptive. It is clear, ipso facto, that any edit to add such a list would be challenged almost immediately, regardless of verifiability and IAW WP:ONUS. Consequently, there is also no question that the status quo would be for the article without such a list. It may be unusual but not unreasonable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the article include a list of dead victims' names? El_C 23:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include – This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. I believe that victim names should be included in this article. They are a pertinent part of the story / event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude with the same reasoning from multiple other articles where we had this debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include of course, the vast majority of articles on mass shootings include a listing of the dead. When we only sensationalize the perpetrator, we provide undue weight on them over the victims of their crime. Articles must have a neutral point of view, and that includes providing information about the victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The alternative solution to the conundrum you describe would of course be not to sensationalize perpetrators. You seem to be arguing for a "two wrongs make a right" kind of solution. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I guess Wikipedia believes two wrongs make a right in general... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't see how WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV support your position that balancing excessive information about perpetrators with excessive information about victims is an appropriate course of action. It's a very counterintuitive argument to make, really, that making an article worse in the opposite way to the way it is already bad would somehow improve it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
        • TompaDompa—the problem that those have that wish to see the victim names omitted is that no Wikipedia policy supports that. You are doing it on your own. Your impetus to omit victim names is a concoction that you are creating out of thin air. It has no basis in policy and it is at odds with standard practice. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I would refer you to WP:NOT: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I would even go so far as to say you're looking at the whole thing backwards. We don't need reasons to omit information; omitting information is the default. We need reasons to include information. See WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include dead Mentioned in almost every lead sentence and headline, including our own, silly not to elaborate later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk: Are you saying that the names of the victims are appearing in lead sentences and/or headlines? Can you offer an example? That is what we are discussing here, not numbers. General Ization ^Talk 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  No, their deaths lead. This begs the question of who they were. That is answered later/lower. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  And can be answered quite thoroughly by clicking a link in our article to review our sources; hardly a case of suppression. General Ization ^Talk 19:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  "And can be answered quite thoroughly by clicking a link in our article to review our sources; hardly a case of suppression." You are not answering the question—why should our article omit the names of the victims? You are suggesting that there are workarounds. A "workaround" would be that a reader could click on a link to a source. But why shouldn't the names of the victims be included in the article? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 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.[1] 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 ☎ 19:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  All dead have no human rights. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Then why are desecrating a corpse, theft from a body, and organ theft illegal? Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Offends the living. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Not quite what WP:BDP has to say about it, and the families of the dead certainly do. General Ization ^Talk 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, don't name relatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Non sequitur. I haven't voiced a human rights argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Said they hadn't waived privacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

• Include per User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include per Nice4What. The victim names are an important part of this event. Davey2116 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude as the OP of this Talk section; while probably clear from my comments, adding for convenient !vote assessment. General Ization ^Talk 19:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per Mandruss Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. The names of people none of us had heard of before the shooting do not add anything to the readers' understanding of the topic, which is the shooting itself. Lists of victims further impede the readability of the article and detract from the visual appeal by taking up a large amount of visual space. I do not find the arguments for inclusion particularly persuasive; they tend to boil down to either (1) we usually include the names or (2) the names are reported by WP:Reliable sources. The first I consider irrelevant, because I think this is an instance where quality is more important than consistency. The second seems to me to be rooted in a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work; the fact that some piece of information can be found in reliable sources does not in and of itself constitute a reason to add it to Wikipedia, let alone any specific article (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.), or to put it another way: verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being included. I think everyone understands this intuitively—the weather is mentioned in WP:Reliable sources every day, but I don't believe anybody thinks that that means that we should add each day's weather to Wikipedia—but some people fail to apply this in some instances.
  In the absence of good reasons to include the information, we should refrain from including it. The existence of reasons to exclude the information gives further weight to the case for not including the information.

  Describing the demographic characteristics of the victims as a group is of course a completely different story. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  The good reason is they are the "who". The story is about them. Same plain crucial goodness as when and where (about which we could also be purposely vague). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  That seems to me to be a reason to describe them as a group, not to list their names. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Groups are too nebulous. Who were they all? Non-Canadian North Americans of mixed gender, 2 to 82? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  You won't learn that ("who" they all were) from their names and ages, and this article will not contain biographies of each and every victim. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)w

  Better than nothing, or even less. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Also: this is not a "story" (in the sense of a news story or a magazine article), and this article is not "about them", but about an event (a horrific one, but an event just the same). This is an encyclopedic article. The distinction is crucial. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  What makes it horrific beside the characters, plot and setting? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  See above. Sorry if you don't think the article will fulfill your entertainment goals without names of the victims. General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Story doesn't mean fun, or fake or scripted. I am not amused. Just trying to inform. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Then give meaningful information. Names are data, and this is not an almanac. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  What is precise Mountain Daylight Time doing here, then? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  False equivalence and whataboutism. You know better than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bullshit. Stories have Five Ws. They all matter the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. We disagree on the definition of "who" as it pertains to Wikipedia content. And we always will. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We make a great team. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, August 4, 2019 (UTC) Yeah. Jane, you ignorant slut. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Classic Tony, ladies and gentlemen! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, August 4, 2019 (UTC) And now I finally have a code name for you, although you may not like its gender. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Get off the stage! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

• Include as victim names are on-topic for this article and no Wikipedia policy suggests that we should omit such information. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. The deceased were not notable in life. Their names will add nothing to readers' understanding of the event. Listing age/race/gender is sufficient to convey the impact of the crime. WWGB (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The deceased were not notable in life." Notability of decedents would be irrelevant to the question we are addressing. Names of decedents would be "content" in this article. WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude the names, but include information about the victims. The names of the victims do not add any useful information to the reader. Descriptions of the victims, however, would. How many children, how many old people, their races, occupations, these sorts of details tell the reader what was lost–the damage that was done–in El Paso, Texas on August 3, 2019. A list of names is empty trivia factoids; instead, tell the reader the important information. Per WP:SUMMARY. – Levivich 01:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know if you are aware of it, Levivich, but you haven't provided a reason that we should omit the victim names. You are saying that "[t]he names of the victims do not add any useful information to the reader". You certainly do not know that, as you are but one reader. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Let's engage in a hypothetical. What "useful information" do you, as another reader, expect to learn as a result of including the victims' names, other than their names, and how would the names be useful to you? General Ization ^Talk 01:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  You are engaging in fiction-writing. The deliberate omission of material that is squarely on the topic of the article results in fiction. We aim for the whole picture. We're not interested in creative writing. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bus stop, one reason to omit the victim names is so that this article doesn't become the top google result for their names. Another reason is that if I tell you "John Smith was a victim", that doesn't really tell you anything unless you know who John Smith is. If I tell you "a mom and dad died while shielding their child from gunfire", that tells you something about the victims, and it doesn't matter what their names are. If I tell you the names of that mom, dad, and child, it won't add anything to your understanding of the topic unless you know who they are. Meanwhile, the child will grow up with their top google hit being how their parents died, and that's sad. Let's not do that to this kid, for example. Don't martyr the victims, I say; let them have their privacy. Nobody wants to be known for having died in a mass shooting. Anyway, those are my reasons. – Levivich 19:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good point - including the names is violating the privacy of the victims' families. Media sources stating the names doesn't justify us doing so - we'd be pushing their names higher up searches on Google. Jim Michael (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - the who part of the five Ws in regard to the victims of this mass shooting is people in Walmart in El Paso. If there's proof that the shooter targeted a particular demographic there, we should add that as well. The names are meaningless to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Jim Michael, what's with the "if" in "If there's proof that the shooter targeted a particular demographic"? The shooter stated that he targeted "Mexicans". That's about as clear as can be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The names are meaningless to over 99% of readers." You are only one reader. That's what I call extrapolation! Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  It's clear that the names are meaningless to over 99% of readers - they're people whom they've never previously heard of whose names are only in the media due to them having been unlucky enough to be victims of a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh God, it's those two guys from the Virginia Beach massacre marathon! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - per Mandruss, TompaDompa and Levivich. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Some articles include victim names, and some don't. Recent school shooting articles do include victim names, while aircraft accident articles typically only include people who have Wikipedia articles and flight crew. Will this have implications for the victim lists in say Columbine, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, etc? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  @WhisperToMe: The short answer is "no". As I stated above: This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. So, by consensus, each article is decided independently. That's the consensus at this point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  WhisperToMe—you say "Will this have implications for the victim lists in say Columbine, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, etc?" I don't think it could possibly have implications for good quality articles such as the ones you name. This present discussion is taking place at an article at its inception, and that is the only place a discussion like this could take place, in my opinion. At an article's inception, arcana such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE can seem to have relevance. That is because at an article's inception we are discussing these ideas in the abstract. But when we look at already-existing, good quality articles containing victim lists, it becomes readily apparent that the victim lists are contributing to the overall quality of such articles, and at such articles no one would ever argue, in my opinion, that the victim list should be removed. I have actually never seen any attempt to remove a victim list from an already-existing article. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong about that. An argument that removing the victim lists would improve an article with an already-existing victim list would receive no support. (In my opinion.) We can look at articles such as Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, and 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting to see that the victim lists are an important factor contributing to the overall quality of those articles. It is only obvious that victim lists are integral parts of articles by looking at actual examples. So I think the answer to your question is "no". An argument to remove a victim list from an already-existing article would gain no traction. I think such an initiative would be emphatically rejected by those defending the already-existing quality to be found in those articles. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include per Bus stop. Also, the dead are important subjects of this event, obviously, they were the most affected by the event. They should be given top billing along with the perpetrator. 20 is not a huge number of names. I'd like to see more detail (prose) beyond names, as long as the names, and the other details, are covered in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include Instead of doing a throughout description of the victims, consider adding the following image as a thumb to the article , its relevat to the readers and simple enough to not compromise privacies. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  File:El Paso shooting victims.png

  This is a clear COPYVIO. Each of the images is owned by a copyright holder. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude – As in many of these discussions, those in favor of inclusion lob comments that claim the names "are pertinent" and "important" but fail to adequately explain why. Some also like to refer to established precedence in other articles, but Mandruss' comment above exposes flaws in this assertion. Listing the names does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of what happened, and until a convincing argument demonstrates otherwise, these comments will do little to sway the opposition. Pointing out that the perpetrator's name is mentioned doesn't help that argument either. Comparing the perpetrator's role to the victims' as if both were of the same logical equivalence is a form of false equivalence. One is voluntary, while the other is involuntary. Too much detail involving random victims can easily cross into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. That's a path best avoided. Inclusionists should instead focus on why the names hold encyclopedic relevance, backing claims with secondary, academic sources as opposed to breaking news stories. It's the best chance to advance a rather flawed (if not weak) position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include - relative and sourceable information about the shooting, and does not go against any Wikipedia policy, which has been explained before. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude – random victims so particularly WHO is not relevant to the sequence of events. Also the coverage does not usually do this so a list is bad WEIGHT. If a person had no active role or unusual part in the sequence of events, there seems no narrative part to go with the name, it’s just a pointless list of words. I think numbers should be included, as both indicating the scope of it and as WEIGHT mention of number is common, but that’s all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include, obviously, same as for the Dayton shooting and for the same reasons. The names of the victims must always be included unless there are some sort of special and unusual circumstances that require exclusion. The victims names and their stories are extensively covered by multiple RS sources covering this event, and they represent a significant aspect of the story. Excluding the names would be a highly artificial and ideological decision defying both common decency and common sense and violating WP:WEIGHT. None of the sources are suppressing the names and neither should we. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude listing non-notable people, that is anybody that has not or would not qualify for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include the event is notable because of the basic fact that many people were murdered, and made more notable by there being a racist motive. The basic fact is that people were killed, and therefore it matters who it was that was killed. They were individual pepole, not an impersonal group of objects. Since we're not a memorial , we shouldn't go into the details of their life, but it is rational, and encyclopedic to include the basics about each individual to the extent there are reliable sources. That's what makes killing people encyclopedia - worthy , as distinct from killing unnamed animals. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• 

  Wikipedians !vote the finer points of policy

  Exclude I do not care to rehash all the policy mentioned above. If policy was clear cut then there would not be this wall of !votes every time this comes up. Ultimately it will always be a matter of judgement if the pros outweigh the cons. In this case I do not see inclusion as better. Per WP:ONUS not every detail gets included. The information will always be available elsewhere on the internet. These people will not be forgotten. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per the reasons Mandruss stated. ~mitch~ (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

adder ~ plus they are already mentioned in the source of User:Nsk92's edit here, with out searching the internet. ~mitch~ (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. Indiscriminately including victims does not improve the article and goes against the principle of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also note that contrary to the mistaken arguments above, WP:NOT, including WP:NOTMEMORIAL, do indeed apply to all article content, and not merely to whether we should or shouldn't have an entire article on the topic; I could understand being mistaken on that point once or twice due to the fact that WP:NOT is most commonly cited in deletion discussions, but somehow editors determined to memorialize the dead in shooting articles have convinced themselves that WP:NOT doesn't apply to article content, which is not the case. Trying to insert a list of victims into an article is trying to make them subjects of the article, which WP:NOTMEMORIAL clearly forbids. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include I agree that the names are an important and encyclopedic component to the article. Comatmebro (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include. Ghosting the victims is just wrong. What's happening is the opposite of "indiscriminate". It's an an active denial and dishonoring of the victims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  The opposite of "indiscriminate" is what we want, per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The rest of your argument is a moral/altruistic one ("just wrong", "dishonoring"), which, while understandable and commendable, is effectively an "I just don't like it" argument. With necessary limits that don't disprove the point, the encyclopedia is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  The idea of victim names being indiscriminate information is a misapplication of policy. No surprise there—it is done with wp:memorial too. Policy has areas of applicability and areas of inapplicability. If we were discussing the inclusion, for instance, of shoe sizes, that would clearly be indiscriminate information, and policy would exclude it. But you can't say that about victim names. You are pretending that policy is endlessly stretchable. You are pretending that policy supports the position that you are maintaining when it does not. Furthermore you are saying "there are arguable privacy concerns". That is something that really should be expanded on rather than just hinted at because if there were privacy concerns I would argue to omit victim names from articles. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Third option. I'd like to propose a policy of listing victims' names but only for a fixed period of time. It strikes me that one purpose of listing victims is to inform the people who knew them (in the hundreds for most people) and to reassure those who know someone living in the same area. However, as many point out, the value of this information drops dramatically over time. So, after it can be presumed that they will not be useful to anyone (some period between a few weeks and a year), they should be removed unless otherwise noteworthy. Though unusual, this would allow us to be consistent with both early and later reports, which tend to differ on this issue. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude: per Mandruss, other discussions, lack of inherent notability, etc. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• the event is notable because of the basic fact that many people were murdered, and made more notable by there being a racist motive. The basic fact is that people were killed, and therefore it matters who it was that was killed. They were individual pepole, not an impersonal group of objects. Since we're not a memorial , we shouldn't go into the details of their life, but it is rational, and encyclopedic to include the basics about each individual to the extent there are reliable sources. That's what makes killing people encyclopedia - worthy , as distinct from killing unnamed animals. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• DGG—do you care to weigh in to the above RfC with an "Include" or "Exclude" vote? Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thought I was clearly saying 'Include' . It seems it should go above., so I will put it there DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Imagine readers coming here in ten years time. Do you imagine that they will be eager to find out the names of the ordinary people who were shot dead at random? Do you imagine the names to be of use to those readers? If it's decided during this month or next that the names should be included, do you think many of this year's readers of this article will remember any of the names of the victims a month later? The answer to those questions is clearly no. They were ordinary people - knowing their names is of no use - they weren't Benazir Bhutto or Rafic Hariri. Try (without doing research beforehand) naming any of the many people killed along with Bhutto or Hariri. Jim Michael (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: The very same argument can be made for: the name of the city; the date of the shooting; the name of the perpetrator; the name of the Wal-Mart store. No? Those details constitute the "story". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the case. The date, place & location are important things which define this event - the names of the victims are not. This shooting is important enough for its location & date (year at least) to be remembered for years by millions of people. It's important enough that it will be listed in On this day columns on 3 Aug each year. The victims names' (let alone funeral details for one of them) will be quickly forgotten, even if they're included in this article. That's because they're not a historically important part of the event - although the number of victims is relevant. Millions of people know of Martin Bryant, solely because of a mass shooting he did 23 y ago. Likewise, millions know of Michael Ryan because of the mass shooting he did 32 y ago. Their victims names were forgotten (except by the people who personally knew them) soon after they were killed. Many mass killers become known to millions for years - few of their ordinary victims do. Killing many people in one incident makes the perpetrator actively the centre of an event which gains a great deal of media coverage. An event, which, if not for his actions, wouldn't have happened. In comparison, the victims are in most cases simply very unlucky to be at that place at that time. Being shot is not actively taking part in such an event. Jim Michael (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael—we follow sources:

NPR: "Stories Of El Paso Shooting Victims Show Acts Of Self-Sacrifice Amid Massacre"

CNN: "Police believe the El Paso shooter targeted Latinos. These are the victims' stories"

Time (magazine): "25-Year-Old Mom 'Gave Her Life' to Shield Her 2-Month-Old. These Are the El Paso Shooting Victims"

The Washington Post: "The lives lost in El Paso. A young mother and a devoted husband are among the dead."

Wikipedia is not an exercise in creative writing. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't blindly follow & copy them - we select info to include which is relevant & important enough. That which is helpful & informative to our readers rather than trivial. Being in RS doesn't mandate its inclusion in our articles. That's common sense. It's good judgement & good writing - rather than creative writing. Many RS - including those you've linked to here - give quite a lot of biographical details of the victims. They focus more on some victims than others, so by your reasoning we should include such details & focus on some victims more than others - because that's what the media did.

Can you imagine readers coming here in 2029 wanting &/or needing to know the names of the victims? Even a university student writing a dissertation on it wouldn't need that info. Jim Michael (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael—correct me if I am wrong, but neither you nor anyone else involved in this relatively recent initiative to abolish victim lists, have ever attempted to remove a victim list from an already-existing article containing a victim list. Many articles contain victim lists. In fact most articles for which sources provide this information, contain victim lists. Why are you seemingly only focussed on preventing victim lists from entering newly-created articles, articles at their inception? Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't regard it as having started recently. There have been many discussions on this matter during the past couple of years on many talk pages. The reason for the increase in these discussions is a response by many editors (including me) to the large increase in the number of articles about mass killings which have had lists of victims names (& in some cases other info) added to them. I didn't contribute to the earlier discussions, nor did I start any of the discussions.

The problem with attempting to have the victim lists removed from those on which they have been on for months is that in most cases a consensus for its inclusion on that article has already been established. Of course, the consensus (or lack of it) in regard to this matter depends on which editors are involved in the discussion on the talk page in question. Articles about mass killings are significantly more likely to have lists of victim names if the method was shooting & if it happened in the US. That's an inconsistency - fuelled by the (especially US) media - which we shouldn't be following; we should be consistent. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael—you say "The problem with attempting to have the victim lists removed from those on which they have been on for months is that in most cases a consensus for its inclusion on that article has already been established." Surely you are aware that consensus can change. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am, but there's no indication that consensus on those talk pages is changing or is likely to change. My position remains that I don't agree with such lists being on articles about mass killings. Jim Michael (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Important (procedural) question about this discussion and !vote

Let's say that this discussion and !vote ends in "no consensus". (Which actually seems very likely.) What does that mean? That the names are included or excluded? If I recall correctly, a "no consensus" results means that the article stays as is, status quo, with no changes allowed. However, this discussion was brought before the list of names was ever released by reliable sources, etc. And before names were added to the article. In other words, it was "pre-emptive". (In other words, perhaps it was brought prematurely?) If that's the case, then victim names will never be allowed to be added, if a pre-emptive discussion is opened. (That is, if a discussion ensues before reliable sources publish victim lists and, therefore, before victim lists even get added to the article. Controversially or not.) If the end result of a "no consensus" discussion maintains the article at status quo, that seems like an unfair procedure. And a contravention to the "consensus" paradigm. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

See Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting. I think it pretty clearly explains what will happen if there is no consensus. General Ization ^Talk 17:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. And, in fact, avoids / side-steps the over-arching question. That page talks about what happens if you make changes (add a list) before consensus is reached. I am talking about after consensus is reached (i.e., after the discussion closes); where said consensus is "no consensus". In that case, you have altogether ignored the thrust of my question. Which is an unfair process if pre-emptive discussions are held. And lists will never be allowed, as a result. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. What happens to the DS currently applied to this article is generally up to the admin who imposed it, and/or others they may consult. As a courtesy to them, I will not attempt to answer for them. I will address, however, the question of whether the discussion was "pre-emptive". I posted the original comment in this section just after the list of victims was released in the Dayton event and just after I posted a very similar comment on that article's Talk page. The El Paso victims list was released and the first attempt to add it to this article occurred less than 90 minutes a little over two hours later. Both events were prior to the beginning of the structured RfC. So no, it wasn't pre-emptive; it was appropriate anticipation of a decision that would ultimately need to be made. Since you are the editor who began the structured RfC, you could have expressed any thought that it was pre-emptive when you did so. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, "no consensus" is not a consensus; it is the absence of consensus. General Ization ^Talk 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point, entirely. And I am not going to argue with you. Also, what difference does it make if I bring up the topic now, or when I first started the RfC? No difference. "Gaming the system" will not work, in the long run. If that's the case, then these pre-emptive discussions will become "policy" de facto. And that is not how policy is created. Nor how consensus is reached. Particularly this one ("policy"), that has consistently held that there is no policy; and each article is determined, case-by-case. And, if my memory serves correctly, these discussions (this and the Dayton one) were certainly held before reliable sources started to post victim names. We can argue about what exact reliable sources released names at what exact date and time. But, when these discussions started -- I believe, by you -- those lists had not really been published yet (where I come from). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As I already explained (and as you can see for yourself if you care to), I posted my comment at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting (and here) after the first attempt was made to add a list of victims to the Dayton article. You're entitled to your opinions about discretionary sanctions otherwise, but those who must enforce them (or not) will need to comment on whether they are appropriate (or not), or whether my having raised the question was somehow inappropriate as a matter of policy (I don't think so). General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You posted in the section above entitled "Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#List of victim names". You stated: "'When the victim names are released ...", we will need to respect privacy, etc. You posted that before any victim names were published by any reliable sources. Your exact quote: When the names are released, and even though they will have been, we must respect the WP:BLPPRIVACY of the victims and their families.. You used the "future" word "when names are released". And you even used "future perfect" tense (even though they will have been released). You posted all of that before -- and in anticipation of -- names being released. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're under a mistaken impression, that the list would become status quo ante immediately upon being added. It is universally accepted that content must be in the article for some amount of time to acquire status quo ante status. Editors' opinions vary, but all will agree that it's a lot more than "immediately". The one time I've seen an admin get specific, it was NeilN who said about six weeks. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying. That is why I asked my question. However, I think that that is your subjective interpretation. That is not grounded in any Wikipedia policy, etc. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on WP:ONUS, which reads: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Not to be tautological, but if the result is no consensus to include a list of victim names, then a list of victim names will not be included. My suggestions, again, would be to turn to WP:VL and mold it into policy, one way or the other. It seems counterproductive to do this over and over again, from one mass shooting article to the next. El_C 18:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe you'll be around the next time this comes up at Village Pump, where the chorus of "needs to be evaluated case-by-case" has been deafening. Maybe your persuasive commentary will make a difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. So, why can't we frame the question as "no consensus to exclude the list"? It's all semantics. It can work both ways. My point is that if a pre-emptive argument is posted, it offers no chance of a list being added. Controversially or otherwise. In that case, why have any policies at all? The pre-emptive poster then decides for all. Actually, in spite of policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The principle is that controversial content should not be included without consensus. Not that controversial content should not be excluded without consensus. No, it's not "all semantics". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I really don't get all this about "pre-emptive". There are two ways this can go down.

1. The names are published and somebody adds a list. The list is immediately challenged by reversion, and a consensus to include is required to re-add it. Or,
2. We have the discussion in anticipation of the publishing of the names, which we know will happen, and a consensus to include is required to add the list once they are published.

Exactly the same result, except that #2 may get the list into the article earlier in the case of a consensus to include, since we didn't wait to start the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And when you get "split votes", you never get consensus. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to learn about consensus, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i found this list of the victims on the el paso times [2] see if you can do something with that YatesTucker00090 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think this RfC should be taking place at all for the simple reason that no one has added the victim names to this article. I don't think we should be having an RfC "on principle" and yet at a specific article. It is logical that someone will eventually add the victim names but I don't think we should be having an RfC prematurely because the facts are not even in—how well-supported is this in sources? What is the quality of those sources? Is it presented merely in a "sensationalistic" sort of way and only in tabloid publications? Or can we deduce from the manner of presentation and the quality of sources that the names of the victims are regarded as standard components of this subject? I would abort this RfC until such time that it has applicability specific to this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Be aware that, as has already been explained above, if there is no RfC, there is no consensus; if there is no consensus, a list of names of victims may not be added, and discretionary sanctions may be leveled at anyone who does. Please see (most likely again) Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

From where do you derive that "if there is no consensus, a list of names of victims may not be added"? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, try clicking that blue link, just above ... no, a little to the right ... yeah, that one. General Ization ^Talk 23:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am seeing this for the first time. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. What is the logic behind it? Why would consensus be needed before adding victim names to this article? Has this been discussed elsewhere? Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is discussed (and linked) extensively, including by the uninvolved admin who imposed the DS on this page, in the discussion above. Could I ask you to take a little time out from writing to read it? General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Although I support exclusion of the list, starting a pre-emptive !vote on the issue in order to establish exclusion as the status quo in the event of no consensus seems like a pretty silly example of WP:wikilawyering. 114.124.243.121 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to reread WP:WIKILAWYERING. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. General Ization ^Talk 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Manifesto

Instead of presenting excerpt(s) from the manifesto, I think we should rely on the in-depth evaluation, interpretation, and analysis provided by published secondary sources to describe its contents. Not only should we avoid indiscriminate and unduly weighted soundbites, quoting them without appropriate context is arguably promotional. As terrorism expert Peter R. Neumann told The Washington Post recently, these manifestos are propaganda meant to inspire similar attacks. It should go without saying that's not what an encyclopedia is for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming silence, I've removed the quote box from the top of the section, which had just such an indiscriminate excerpt. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently edited the § Manifesto section to read:

Expressing support for the Christchurch mosque shooter, [the manifesto] conveys similar grievances, alluding to a Hispanic "invasion", military imperialism, automation, large corporations, and environmental degradation.

I also added a reliable source in a recent Washington Post article. I think my wording uses better sourcing, is more factual (especially regarding the purported "invasion", which we shouldn't describe in Wikipedia's voice), and offers important context (comparing the El Paso and Christchurch manifestos). Is there a specific reason these changes should be reverted? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (edit: struck text removed from article, 14:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC))

In the above excerpt, the word "invasion" seems exactly like the kind of "emotive opinion" mentioned under MOS:QUOTEPOV that shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Regarding the comparison between the two manifestos, Luke Darby in The Telegraph also describes them as "similar". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the quotes around "invasion". Feels like we're telling people Wikipedia itself finds this word itself worthy of contempt, not the whole idea (of shooting Mexicans who do it for purportedly political reasons). If there was an actual problem, some neutral or inverted version would exist, like they do for imperialism, automation and degradation. But it doesn't, so ordinary people use "invasion" when describing infestations, infections or infiltrations, rather than imply the invaders are like vermin, disease or secret agents. Humans have been invading territory since Day One, there's no shame in it anymore. We just still don't like being thought of rats, scum and tools, because of our (generally) common feeling of mastery and dominion over those "things". Unless you can paraphrase it without making it "stronger", I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's voice is sufficient for this wholly innocent word that's just been sometimes used and repeated by the wrong people for irrelevant reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, September 23, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "ordinary people" say, but according to Webster's, "invasion" means either an incursion by an armed force ("the D-Day invasion") or the entry of something harmful ("invasion of privacy"). Since #1 doesn't apply, and #2 is highly opinionated, there's no neutral way to use "invasion" in Wikipedia's voice.

The "innocence" of the word is not the issue; language doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the reasons people talk of immigrant "invasions" – namely, to spread fear and promote a nativist political agenda – are therefore very relevant.

What if we put the exact phrase "Hispanic invasion" in quotes? That should remove any suggestion of "contempt". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, I think; a phrase in quotes seems less "suspicious", even if it is just two words. I don't disagree with the idea that speaking of invasions is a solid way to sow fear of them and create a sense of "united states" between politicians and voters, but so it goes with speaking of the looming threat of military-industrial complex interloping with rich women to build killer robots that don't mind taking dead-end jobs more efficiently than any man could, rapidly devaluing money in favour of "radical" pursuits, like reintroducing bats, frogs, porcupines, cougars and petroleum-based lubricants into our own backyards, with "callous disregard" for the continual loyalty of our twelve thousand varieties of "dog specially bred and altered to lack attributes necessary for survival beyond slavery" and one species of lawn grass.

In brief, everything is harmful if you spin it that way for long enough. That's the ordinary, mundane essence of promising to protect a group from overall anguish if they give you the power over security. If there's nothing to fear, there's no power. For the moment, the guy with the power is a more popular villain than Hitler, which foggies up the "national debate" a bit, but trust me, fear of invasion is normal, fear of "invasion" is not.

Part of me doesn't want to be the guy to remind you that there are good and bad people on both sides, because "that's racist", but it's true. Sometimes Mexicans enter something harmful (a historically trigger-happy and white male-dominated state), sometimes they facilitate the entry of something harmful (cocaine, history of violence and machismo, cars). Either way you look at it, it's pretty scary. Scary enough to help drive a native stupid enough to harm himself and others, in this case. Even "realer" than the manifesto's other four fears (I see you've "neutralized" two), for being legitimately and straightforwardly self-fulfilling.

Highly emotional processes, these delusional waking nightmares, but can be described without any connotation whatsoever if we simply accept the fact that a number of Hispanics entered a place and were harmed, following decades of reports of other Hispanics entering that place with harmful intent and/or actions, spreading harmful fear and harmful responses alike, where before there was nothing to fear but everything and everyone except Hispanic invasion. Again, I am not blaming the victims for entering while Hispanic; that's all on Crusius for not confronting his irrational fear of the unknown the decent American way; staying inside with the door locked and "the tube" on. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, September 24, 2019 (UTC)

All soapboxing aside, we seem to have a rough consensus on the phrase "Hispanic invasion" in quotes, so I'll edit the article accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It was more sloppy elucidation on the meaning of real harm and perceived threat coinciding (to Hispanics and Crusius, respectively) than straight soapboxing, but yeah, "philosophy" aside, I think we both don't hate the compromise. Since we're down to three concerns, after casually dismissing the military-industrial complex under the rug, I can't help but notice environmental degradation is now the odd duck out, in a "real word" sense. I'll change it to "destruction of our planet", unless you mind terribly; more reflective of the actual "manifesto" and might (subjectively) look less "naked". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, September 27, 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph is repetitive and contains trivia. The weapon and his name can be included in the intro. The sentence providing obvious political cover does not need to be repeated by WP. IP75 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Watkins manifesto comments

The owner of 8chan [Jim Watkins] said that the shooter's alleged manifesto was not posted first to 8chan, but was copied from somewhere else, and that the killer did not make the post on 8chan. The owner suggested that the manifesto was instead posted on Instagram. Facebook, the owner of Instagram, said that the suspect's Instagram account had not been active in over a year.

I've removed this from the article; besides being a pretty egregious example of burying the lead (putting Facebook's rebuttal second, phrased less forcefully than the allegation itself), the allegation is textbook WP:FRINGE. Even the cited source says bluntly that "Watkins offered no evidence to support his statement". But the true test probably lies not in breaking news sources like this one, but in later coverage offering retrospective evaluation and analysis. Later stories by The Washington Post (Aug. 14 & Sep. 12), The Hill (Aug. 14 & Sep. 5), The Verge (Sep. 5), and NBC (Sep. 5), while discussing 8chan in connection with the massacre, don't mention the above allegation at all. So it hardly seems worth including even with additional context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)