Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting

Photo of Harper-Mercer

File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg
Adding a photo of Harper-Mercer to the article was bound to set off two arguments, a) is it fair use and b) is it glorifying the killer by giving him the publicity that he wanted? The Myspace image has been widely used in media coverage, and even if he is dead, he would still own the copyright on the image if he took it himself.[1] The fair use argument is open to debate as people have different views on how strictly this should be interpreted. On the issue of glorifying the killer, I think this is subjective. Most people are agreed that Harper-Mercer wanted to add his name to the history books by doing something disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not censored. Other thoughts welcome. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I added HTML link in the OP and wikilink of photo, just in case... George Ho (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose no need for fair use photo, should use free use. Hiwiki123 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved this vote from #Image in or out during the RfC. --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hiwiki123: There are no free use photos, and Mandruss has already explained why there are no copyright issues with using this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support using photo. We do so on other articles about the same subject matter where pictures of the perpetrator are available, Mandruss has addressed the copyright issues, it presents information that the reader is likely to be interested in, ect. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Sandy Hook shooting, Bath School disaster, Charles Whitman, Seung-Hui Cho, ect. all contain images of the spree killer - indeed, Seung-Hui Cho contains images of the killer posing with guns. Wikipedia does not engage in Damnatio memoriae. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support use of a photo We are not a community of news reporters, nor are we activists, this is a living encyclopedia. As such, the picture is warranted. It offers context, information and appears to follow the rules I am aware of. We should not be deciding on what the image causes a reader to derive, just that we are unbiased in our writing. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: arguments in this discussion seem to be composed of two types, those saying an encyclopaedia should include all relevant information, and those saying we should not glorify the perpetrator given he wished to gain notoriety. I'm afraid both of them are wrong. 1) Yes, we need to include encyclopaedic information (how encyclopaedic a photo is would be the matter for another discussion), however the proper venue for such a photo would be the perpetrator's biography, not the event's article. I can think of many other pictures which would better suit the article in question, such as one that clearly displays the location in detail, for example. 2) The question of glorification or not giving the evil-doer what they wanted is wholly irrelevant to Wikipedia. We are not to judge whether the encyclopaedia is granting the person their wish or whether we are glorifying anything. That is entirely outside our purview, and as such should not be part of this discussion. As for fair use, that's not determined via RfC. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• So, RfC seems like the wrong forum for the "fair use" portion of this discussion. WP:FFD is going to get better attention from editors experienced with our WP:NONFREE guideline. It makes sense to me to resolve that there, first, before having the discussion about whether use of the image is editorially favorable. If the image doesn't have a valid fair use justification, whether we want the image is moot. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ETA - I started a file discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Image in or out during the RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Image out during RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Image out during RfC I yield to process. I believe the picture can be used, but as long as there is a debate and no consensus , it should stay out until solved. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is method of perpetrator's suicide article-worthy?

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.

There is consensus to include that he shot himself in the head. The majority opinion is that it is a fact that is verifiable. The lone oppose says that the information is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. As a side note, the proposed inclusion of the majority, in the body, with a short sentence, appears to follow WP:WEIGHT. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the article state that the perpetrator shot himself in the head, or simply that he killed himself? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead already states that he "shot himself dead", so it is established that he committed suicide, and that he did so by gunshot. This RfC is not about that content, but whether we should specify later that he shot himself in the head. Perhaps it would make sense to put the less specific statement in the lead, but that can be kept separate from this RfC. The question to be answered here is whether the location of the suicide wound should be mentioned anywhere in the article.

1 - State that he shot himself in the head
2 - State that he killed himself

RfC survey: Method of perp's suicide

• 2 - Saying he shot himself in the head is unnecessary, irrelevant, gratuitous, and unencyclopedic.
  To me, it matters little to not at all that most other similar articles give such details. First, why assume that editors have given this question much thought in those other articles? Has it been examined closely in recent history? Furthermore, consensus can change, but not if we allow it to reinforce itself. Those were different cases and no two cases are exactly the same. Finally, I know of no policy, guideline, widely-supported essay, or RfC consensus that says we need to be consistent on things like this. These are the essential concepts behind WP:OTHER. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1 Nothing gratuitous here. Just answering the simple question of "How?" that saying someone killed himself begs. Our readers come in all intelligences. Rather than rely on trusting them to figure it out, let's just tell them, like we do for facts in general. This suicide was important, as it ended the entire event. Worthy of six plain words, like it was in the news and in those 23 similar shooting articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

• 1- State that he shot himself in the head does not complete the action that he died from the gunshot. He committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. The responding Roseburg detectives without bulletproof vests were able to rush in and wound the active shooter in the shooter's side, after which the shooter committed suicide with a self-inflicted bullet wound to the head. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 22:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Apologies, I failed to make the RfC statement clear, taking into account the statement in the lead that he "shot himself dead". I have modified the RfC's introduction to clarify this. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case my reply is that if we mention it in the lead we have to expand on it in the body. We cannot mention anything in the lead that is not mentioned in the body. The lead is required to be a nickel tour of the body, not a substitute for it. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's true that "killed himself" is less specific than "shot himself dead", so it would make sense to reverse the locations of the two. But, that question can be kept separate from the RfC, which is only about whether the location of the suicide gunshot wound should be mentioned. No need to complicate the RfC by expanding its scope unnecessarily. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting oddly complicated, but I'm Fine with a vaguer lead and a detailed body. That's standard summary stuff for all sorts of articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Then you're fine with my proposal below? If so, please say so there. The vaguer content is currently in the Shooting section, not the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And now it's currently fine. Then we wait for the RfC to finish. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents on all of this: saying that he killed himself after a shootout with responding officers is sufficient for the WP:LEAD. In the main body of the article, saying that he killed himself with a shot to the head is appropriate. I don't think that it is gratuitous detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1 - State that he shot himself in the head. There's no reason not to say so and it is done on numerous other articles. Details are not unencylopedic, nor is it unnecessarily graphic. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1 - Standard for inclusion of factoids in the body of an article is venerability. This factoid is verifiable, so onus is on the folks who want to exclude the information to justify their position. I don't think the "gratuitous" argument holds much water. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1 - If the sources state that's what happened, then so be it. I see no reason why the fact should be omitted if reliable sources discuss it thus. Wikipedia accounts for a full description of events in a neutral manner. There is nothing non-neutral and unencyclopaedic in relaying what the sources state in this case, the same as saying Kennedy was shot in the head or Jimi Hendrix died from asphyxiating in his own vomit. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

An acid-related aspiration, if you want to get flowery. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion: Method of perp's suicide

I don't mean to cause trouble or anything, but why does this need an RfC? Do you plan to make this into a formal RfC or is this a thread you happen to be calling an RfC without an RfC template? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Dustin (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it has been discussed at length with only two participants, who are stalemated. Obviously there is no other interest locally, and neither of the two parties is prepared to let it go, so RfC is the only remaining recourse. And I neglected the rfc template, thanx for pointing that out!!―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the 1 !votes to date have responded to the meat of my 2 !vote, and none even attemtpt to show real relevance for the location of the suicide wound. If RfCs are, in fact, about strength of arguments rather than raw numbers, I hope the closer will take this into account. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a description of his final shot, in a section about the shooting, in an article about a shooting. Note how everything else there also describes things he did, with various details. Why mention any of these details (the desk, Christians, wheelchair)? Because they illustrate facts, and encyclopedia articles relay factual information about their subjects. Killing himself with a shot to the head is simply what happened.

This is why other articles note it, not because other articles note it. We assume those editors thought about what they were adding before they added it because we assume good faith. If that's not the meat of your vote, I don't know what is. When I voted, it contained different meat. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for RfC restart

Actually, I can see that the RfC will continue to be confusing given the current state of the article. At this point, I'm in favor of the following course of action: (1) Modify the article to put the less specific content in the lead. Say "killed himself" there, and "shot himself dead" in the Shooting section. This should be uncontroversial per WP:LEAD and shouldn't need discussion let alone an RfC. This wouldn't change what we say, only where we say it. (2) Start the RfC again, asking whether the Shooting section should say, "shot himself dead" or something like "shot himself in the head, killing himself". I think this course of action would be more straightforward and less confusing. If we're going to do this, the sooner we do it, the better. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• No Starting and stopping just adds to the confusion. I think the question is pretty clear now. Of course, I thought it started that way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

As we've seen, the current inappropriate relationship between lead and body is going to complicate the issue here. People are going to get a tangled up in that and it's going to be very hard to reach a consensus on the issue actually at hand. I'm proposing to eliminate that problem. There is nothing wrong with restarting an RfC, especially early on, when it's obvious that it will be largely a waste of time. This may be clear enough to you, since you were one of the primaries in this dispute, but I'm thinking about people who come to this cold. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The third line of your question makes it clear that the RfC's only about the body. I don't think that new distinction changes any current stances. Right now, the lead says he shot himself, and the body saids he shot himself in the head. That's not inappropriate, that's the broad end first. What would stopping this and restarting it with the same question do to eliminate whatever confusion you think exists with the current one? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

First, it says that only because you changed it to say that, violating the concept of status quo ante, which I had asserted in two previous edit summaries. If you don't understand an edit summary from an editor with more than a few months of experience, perhaps you should think twice before you revert it? Maybe iinquire on their talk page as to what the hell they're talking about? And, as I said above, the question would not be the same question, it would be a different one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We were talking above. We stalemated, and you proposed that if I (or anyone) include the material, you'll start an RfC about it. I got my end of the deal, and you got yours. Now you want to give both ends back, for some mysterious reason. Status quo ante doesn't explain anything, aside from what it means in English.

There's no way to say this without it sounding like I'm trying to silence you, but maybe you should take a break from this violent death stuff for at least the night. I say that as a casual Wikifriend. Jumpiness is a hard thing to get across in text, but you do seem a bit jumpy. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

I already explained to you on your talk page that I misspoke about what you're calling a "deal". You're right, I'm in need of a wikibreak, and more than one night. Y'all have fun here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We must be careful what we wish for. Anyway, it's not as bad as losing your soul to the Devil or anything. The RfC may still play out the way you want it to. Popular opinion is a bit of a rollercoaster, hard to know which way the wind will be blowing when you come back. In the meantime, can we count this part as resolved, and remove the note about withholding votes?

I'll take a long silence as a yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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.

Eight or nine wounded

Every section of the article says nine people are wounded except for the "Injured" section, which says eight. Which is supposed to be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.175.107 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just spent a half hour surveying current web sources. The same-day sources varied wildly on this as they usually do, and they can be disregarded. One said 20. Reports a few days later were almost always 7,8, or 9, with 9 being the most common. But The New York Times reported on the 17th, 16 days after the event, that seven were wounded. They have the resources and professionalism to usually get these details right after 16 days; still, I wouldn't consider that the last word on the count. I think the best (least bad) solution is to say 7 to 9, and it should be sufficient to cite that NYT article and one (NBC News, October 5) that says 9. I have requested that the current indefinite semi-protection be lifted, and I will make this change after that happens unless there is disagreement. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.175.107 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Will replace the NBC News with Chicago Tribune, October 7. Two days later, theoretically that much more accurate. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording in the WP:LEAD "Seven to nine others were injured" is ideal. It shows that there was some discrepancy in media reports, which is normal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: What would you suggest? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a think about this and couldn't come up with an ideal wording. The number of dead isn't in dispute but the number of wounded is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If we could find one other late, high quality source like the above NYT source, I wouldn't have a problem with "7". I didn't look at every last thing out there, but I didn't find that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been reported that he didn't shoot every last student in the classroom, only most of them. It's possible different sources (or their sources) are using different criteria. Some might be counting non-gunshot injuries, others not. If there were two people with non-gunshot injuries, that would explain the discrepancy between 7 and 9. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion was that the original reports from the scene had eight dead and nine "wounded," i.e., possibly entirely taken away for treatment. However, one of those hospitalized died rather quickly, but the number of "wounded" wasn't reduced by one. The problem also is that every reporter involved does not do original research, so original errors often tend to be persistent. Activist (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the nine wounded may be accurate: I found the names of six wounded, Chris Mintz (many wounds), Julie Woodworth (the worst injured, including bullet in brain), Cheyeanne Fitzgerald (lost a kidney), Anastasia Boylan (bullet near spine), Amber McMurphy (shot eight times) and Rand McGowan (hand). All those had GoFundMe accounts. The story with all those names said three other victims did not have "Go Fund Me" accounts. Activist (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Activist: First, you mention only one source and apparently give it more weight than others because it named six wounded. That's not enough in my opinion. If there are, say, three fairly late, relatively high-quality sources that explicitly say nine, I have no objection to nine; if not, I'm more comfortable with 7 to 9 given the NYT article and others. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm:@72.198.26.61:The source of the names of the wounded, http://www.nrtoday.com/news/18553022-113/ucc-shooting-survivors-turn-to-go-fund-me mentioned that all but three victims had go fund me accounts, but that seemed to include one of the deceased. It was written 11 days after the killings and the only one that I found after an exhaustive search that even remotely nailed it down. Its language was somewhat ambiguous. So there were certainly eight who survived their injuries, the only question is, was there a ninth? So 8 or 9 would work for me. Activist (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're giving more credence to a single source because it was more specific and gave details about gofundme. It's quite possible to be both specific and incorrect; precision and accuracy are not the same thing. I also think (less confidently) that you're verging on WP:SYN, making an inference not explicitly stated in the source. In any case, are not both 8 and 9 within the 7-to-9 range currently stated? Is that little bit of added precision worth the risk of getting it wrong? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a big deal, since 7-9 covers it, but the state regional publication I quoted said all the dead victims save one, the professor, had GoFundMe accounts to pay for their funeral expenses, etc., and hyperlinked to the accounts of the deceased. It separately said that three victims didn't have accounts, but it wasn't completely clear if "three" was three wounded or two plus the professor. Activist (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Worst mass shooting

Not an editor here but I am not sure this qualifies as the worst mass shooting in Oregon history. See the 1887 massacre of Chinese miners in Wallowa County. 207.55.106.139 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD did say at one point "the worst mass shooting in Oregon's modern history". The Deep Creek incident led to around 34 deaths, but it was a planned piece of racial extremism by a group of people rather than a rogue lone gunman in the typical modern sense of a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here about the history mass shootings. The Deep Creek incident in 1887 was one of many racial massacres that took place in the 19th century USA, but it is not how the modern media would define a mass shooting incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the removal of "modern" was discussed, so it could be restored per WP:BRD. I'd support that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass Murder in Infobox

I believe that "mass murder" should be preserved as it is a much more accurate descriptive than the substitute, so I have reverted. The Wikipedia article's lede contains:

The FBI defines mass murder as murdering three or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others.[2][3][4] Many acts of mass murder end with the perpetrator(s) dying by suicide or suicide by cop.[5]

This is precisely the description of what happened at UCC. Activist (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the edit summary, I'm guessing Winkelvi's revert has less to do with content than a general dislike for drive-by, low-experience IPs (only one edit under this IP address, at least) who modify high-visibility things like infobox content without edit summaries. I'm not opposed to "mass murder" or "murder-suicide". Does Winkelvi have a comment? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is 'mass murder' supported by reliable sources? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's your answer. In any case, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. If the undisputed facts of the shooting match the common definition of "mass murder" "mass murder" (as defined in our own article, above), we can say "mass murder". That's not original research, it's common sense. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw no answer, just a link to a Google search. Do the sources (reliable sources) call the incident "mass murder"? If they do not, then we don't add it in just because we think the label applies. That's original research and it's against policy and guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable sources in the Google results that call it mass murder. As I said, that's largely beside the point, and I'll await further comments on that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sources support mass murder to a certain degree. Have you run a search to see how many hits come up for "mass shooting" in relation to the incident? Also, what argument do you have that shows mass murder is a better descriptor than what was already there (mass shooting)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason we should have to choose between "mass shooting" and "mass murder". We already have three entries, why would four (or five) present a problem? If both terms are accurate, we can include both terms. Granted, that's not what the IP's edit did, but it's probably the best solution. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass shooting is better IMHO, because mass murder could involve any method. As that article points out, "Mass shootings can be a form of mass murder, which is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could have a mass shooting without killing anyone. Thus, both terms are justifiable. Note that the current three terms say nothing about fatality. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I also support Mass shooting for the same reasons mentioned by ianmacm. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some response to my preceding points (17:14), which I feel are significant. ianmacm may not have read them yet; you simply ignored them. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall I start the RFC on this? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably premature for a discussion that's nine hours old and didn't have its first reply until three hours ago. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everything needs an RfC, George Ho. They often muddy the waters, are long and drawn out (can take up to the full 30 days to close), and make a simple decision more difficult. Why don't we wait a couple of days and continue this discussion and see where it goes consensus-wise before going for something more bureaucratic and official in nature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There can be a "mass shooting" without killing anyone. However, in the U.S., it's difficult to have a "mass murder" without shooting anyone...exceptions are rare. There have been 30 or so mass murders (four or more deaths) by shooting in the U.S. in the last 20 years, and none by any other means except the 9/11 hijackings and the anthrax attacks, a week later. However, internationally, bombings have taken a considerable number of lives, rivaling mass shootings, in the Near East in particular, though the train bombing in Spain took more lives than the Oklahoma City bombing. Mass shootings have included the French concert last week, the Kenya Mall massacre, the tourists in Tunisia, etc. Given this discussion, I would think that we should retain both "mass murder" and "mass shooting" in the infobox. This would eliminate the need for an RFC. Activist (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I see any reason for both. The article has been stable for some time with just "mass shooting". What is the point of having both? It may come down to seeing which one was used most by reliable sources and continues to be used. In the immediate aftermath of such incidents, incorrect terminology is frequently used when there is a rush to "scoop" other news sources. What sticks and is used by reliable sources consistently could be the answer. Or, if this continues after a few days, an RfC. Personally, I find "mass murder" to be sensationalistic and not honestly and accurately descriptive of the incident. Mass murder is what happened at Jonestown in the 70s, not at UCC a few months ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What you personally find is not what the FBI, as repeated in Wikipedia finds:

Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering several or more people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time.[1] The FBI defines mass murder as murdering three or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others.[2][3][4] Many acts of mass murder end with the perpetrator(s) dying by suicide or suicide by cop.[5]

Any cutoff point is going to be arbitrary, of course. However there is obviously a consensus here and in the public eye that it doesn't have to be Jamestown's 900+. Activist (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't interpret, nor do we make judgements about events. We write into prose what reliable sources say. As well, we don't use Wikipedia non-policy articles as references or to interpret. I note that you are having difficulty understanding what referencing and reliable sources are at another article as well as this one. Perhaps you should stop Wikilawyering and read up on WP:REF and WP:OR to have a better understanding of policy on both issues, Activist. Both concepts appear to be hanging you up. As far as clear consensus goes: No, there is no clear consensus. While you are reading the other two policy articles, also read WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop with the imperious, condescending pontificating. You have made your case and multiple editors disagree with it. We will now await a consensus. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WV You wrote: "I note that you are having difficulty understanding what referencing and reliable sources are..." I would urge you to refrain from personal attacks upon me or any other member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Activist (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My comments weren't intended to, nor did they actually contain, any personal attacks. The above comments by the anon IP above did, and an appropriately and accurately placed personal attack warning was placed on his talk page. Please stop being so over-sensitive. It's not helping this discussion nor your argument in any way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, IP's comments were meant for Activist. Bad indention made responses confusing. George Ho (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, they were not. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your superior tone and combative language, not your character, not you. Your warning was appropriately and accurately rejected. But I have been warned, so you have now laid the necessary foundation for an ANI complaint against me. Take it there if you wish, but kindly leave it off this talk page.
I would still like to see Ianmacm's response to these critical questions/points:

• Must we get wrapped up in what terms RS uses for this (some of them do say "mass murder" anyway). Does WP:NOR preclude simply applying our own article's (and the FBI's) definition of the term?
• Must we choose between mass shooting and mass murder, or can we include both?
• None of the three terms currently used say anything about fatality. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "superior tone". My comments were quite matter-of-fact. If you think there is a "superior tone" in what I've said, then you are reading into what I've written rather than exercising WP:AGF first. As far as setting a foundation for going to AN/I, I avoid AN/I like the plague these days. Productive or beneficial results rarely come out of discussions there -- they usually turn into bloodletting and barbaric limb amputations. If you push me, though, I may take this all further -- but only if necessary. Now, can we please start concentrating on edits and the content dispute and stop commenting on editors? That would be both productive and beneficial. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Absolutely. However, if you continue to be combative, I'll continue to call you on it and you are free to "take this all further". Note that no one else on this page is using the condescending tone you are. I'm very sorry if you can't see that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I maintain that "mass murder" does not apply while "mass shooting" does. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

To reply to the questions above, the UCC shooting has been seen primarily in the context of a spate of incidents during Barack Obama's term as President which has called into question how gun laws operate in the United States. Yes, the people were murdered so it was a mass murder, but being the United States it involved the use of guns. For me (regardless of what sources x, y or z say), this is first and foremost a mass shooting incident. It is typical for this type of incident to result in both deaths and injuries. We could argue endlessly about whether mass murder of mass shooting is the more accurate description, but I don't think that is worth doing this over an infobox description. Purely at random, I looked at San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and it has got both of them in the infobox. Problem solved?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's solved in my opinion. It looks like a consensus for including both, with WV as the lone dissenter. Does WV wish to open an RfC? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Allow me or WV? George Ho (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you disagree with this consensus? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way. This has involved editors, so I wouldn't call it a consensus... yet. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Three editors are in agreement with one opposed. On a minor point like this, that's enough consensus. But no one can stop you from starting an RfC if you're determined to do so. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are two favoring "mass shooting", one favoring "mass murder", and you favoring both. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. The last statement from Ianmacm was: Purely at random, I looked at San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and it has got both of them in the infobox. Problem solved?. Activist's comments also strongly imply that they support both. I have made the edit and we can now seek a consensus about whether there is a consensus. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Activist: Please clarify whether you support both or not. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.... Why not? The horse needs medical attention after horrendous beatings. *Neighs* Seriously, let's have both and get this over with. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Because there's not a consensus for it. Time for an RfC and get other eyes on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

x-year-old as noun

Re: [2]

I'll dispute this. x-year-old is often used as a noun in casual speech, but this is an encyclopedia and I think that should be avoided here. (With such a minor thing, under normal circumstances, I probably would simply re-revert with that explanation. But I had a very hard time getting this article unprotected the other day—almost a week with the protecting admin and WP:RFPP, then finally getting some relief at WP:ANI after being ignored and resisted there—and I'm not going to risk losing that.) 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

From the AP stylebook: "For ages, always use figures. If the age is used as an adjective or as a substitute for a noun, then it should be hyphenated. Don’t use apostrophes when describing an age range. Examples: A 21-year-old student. The student is 21 years old. The girl, 8, has a brother, 11. The contest is for 18-year-olds. He is in his 20s." Activist (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia Manual of Style say? That is our guideline for writing Wikipedia articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to say anything about this question. WP:NUMNOTES refers to "8-year-old child"; if this were answered in MOS, it would be there, or somewhere on that page. If it's good enough for the Associated Press, I guess it's good enough for me. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Mass shooting

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

Both

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

"I've gone to RfC several times in almost three years" A very interesting comment considering your editing history shows your first edit was just two weeks ago. I hope you aren't a block-evader, anon IP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This, mere minutes after "Your total lack of good faith is, sadly, noted", below, and "Please keep your comments focused on edits, not editors", above. Winkelvi, I've seen chronic hypocrisy at Wikipedia, but you take it to a whole new level. You have made an art of correcting and criticizing others while being completely unable to examine your own behavior. Stunning. Save your false righteous indignation. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You just admitted to having edited under another account or other IPs. If you are socking -- and because of your own words it seems very possible you are -- then it's on you to disclose that fact. There's no bad faith here, just observing and pointing out what you, yourself, so obviously stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I "admitted" to editing under something other than this IP address, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. Registered editors can edit logged out, and IP addresses can change. There are editors whose IPv6 addresses change at least daily. Despite the fact that they can start over with a new block log at least once a day, the community has seen no problem with this, as evidenced in discussions at WP:ANI. Socking refers to using such things for illicit purposes, such as pretending to be multiple editors to gain advantage in a discussion. If you wish to accuse me of that, this is not the place to do it. You have been around more than long enough to know these things. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you came clean, Mandruss. I knew something was quite familiar in your writing and communication style as the IP. Anyway, this RfC isn't the place to discuss further. At least now we know the truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't come clean. I intended to post that logged out, but I logged in to check something and then forgot to log out again. There was nothing to "come clean" about. You're right, this isn't the place, which is why you were out of line to being it up here. Stop breaking the rules and then correcting others for doing the same, please. It's unseemly. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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