Talk:2019 Saugus High School shooting

Notable?

How does this event stack up against List of school shootings in the United States#2015 to 2019? There was a school shooting on August 30, 2019 that injured 10 people with no article. I know WP:OSE, but some in depth coverage is going to be needed other than the usual coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There's one death, but it probably won't be enough; at least, it seems that way right now. Probably best to redirect to the school article once the furor dies down, like the Forest High School shooting. ansh.666 18:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is gaining notability as it is gaining heavy coverage not to mention some foreign news picking it up: BBC and El Pais (with more likely to follow). Plus a student died with others under critical care. While yes school shootings are common (just shots fired and an injury here), students dying as a result are rare if not merits some notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Must we have this argument right this minute? Why can't we wait a day or two before having this discussion? Is a notability tag really helping build a great encyclopedia? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well in my opinion the decision to make this article was a bit rushed. Sadly school shootings in America have become routine coverage as shown by the linked list. As an encyclopedia we should try to avoid breaking news stories with unclear potential notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Any followup stories or side effects of that August one yet? If so, maybe it's time. If not, let's just see if this one is as forgotten in February. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

I think this is notable enough for an article now it's known that 2 of the victims were killed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Two teenagers are killed and another is brain-damaged in all sorts of ways every day. Car crashes, suicide pacts, getting too high. Death is the end of being killed, but being shot by a minor for going to public school has a lasting impact on people who might one day be old enough to vote or legally drop out of public school. Nine survivors learned about "the problem" firsthand back in August, which is three times more than in today's school shooting. We're basically telling people who can still read Wikipedia that their life-changing experience isn't as important to learn from as it would be if any two schoolmates or staff happened to die, if we treat death as a measuring stick. Let significant secondary coverage guide you, not body count. Same as any other event, even non-violent. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

Do you think this shooting is notable enough to have an article? Jim Michael (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Too soon to tell. But coverage past this first spike will let us know, not more wounded dying. The fewer survivors, the less likely follow-up stories become, though we've kept briefer blips before. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

Super-notable in view of comments that the perp. had been regarded a normal, likeable young person. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Photo Removal

[[File:Saugus_High_School_Shooting_Location.png|thumb|right]] The above photo was removed as per WP:BRD based on a claim it is not fair use because a free image is available.

The photo is a picture of the event which is the subject of the article in question. Contexual significance? It depicts an active crime scene which is central to the subject of the article and not just a photo of a building. Free equivalent available? Not without a time machine. The photo clearly states that is depicts abandoned backpacks and is an active crime scene. The photo even states what it contains. So I object to the claim it is not fair use. Show me a free equivalent of the active crime scene I can upload and use if there is a free replacement. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the photo in the infobox. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose [1] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding crime scene details to the photo you provided would be WP:OR. The photo you have provided is not a photo of the active crime scene with abandoned backpacks and police tape. Adding those sorts of details to this photo is clearly out of bounds and runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:RS. The photo you have offered is not a WP:RS since it does not contain the details of a photo of the crime scene following the event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying we should steal from Google. I am saying, since the photo does not show the actual crime scene on the actual date, it is replaceable. We can send a helicopter and take a photo and recreate the image. Just because it is difficult to recreate, it does not mean it is irreplaceable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, what you just said was "We don't have a free replacement since we cannot steal from google" -- then why suggest a another non-free image from somewhere else? Flying over in a helicopter and taking our own photos then misrepresenting the image to be of the actual crime scene would most certainly be WP:OR. So where does that leave us - free image is not available (your words) :-). Octoberwoodland (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The photograph you want to add is not from yesterday. It is from Google Maps. A free image can be created to represent the location of the incident. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are this obtuse. It is a photo of a live crime scene, and is labeled as such. It's a photo taken from a police helicopter. Either admit you were wrong and improperly removed the image or tag the image at files for discussion, or I am going to reinstate it. While it is reinstated I will tag the image at file for discussion. You are not allowed to remove the image until the discussion concludes. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Compare the two and look at the cars in the parking lot. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I compared the two images and the cars along Centurian Way are different and in different locations. Sorry, but your statement is inaccurate. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please compare the Google Maps Image [2] and the crime scene image [3]. You will note that in the Google Maps image the parking spaces next to the three trees off of Centurian Way are mostly empty, where in the crime scene image they are filled with vehicles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Title issue

I just want to point out that there is a Saugus High School in Massachusetts. We should change the article's title to reflect what state this took place in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. We have not (yet?) had a shooting at another Saugus High School. TheHoax (talk)

"Berhow school shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Berhow school shooting. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Victims' names

Should the article include the names of the dead victims? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Victims' names

• Omit - 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 – Wikipedia is not a democracy – and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[4] 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 ☎ 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Process: Victims' names

The dead victims' names were in the article for less than five hours before being challenged, not nearly long enough to establish status quo ante.[5][6] Therefore that content should remain out pending consensus to include it. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)