Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting

Requested move 20 November 2022

Colorado Springs nightclub shooting → 2022 Colorado Springs nightclub shooting – Notable events, such as the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and the Columbine High School massacre, are typically treated without numbers, because their topic transcends years and is still referenced as those common names, regardless of if Parkland, Florida or Columbine, Colorado had or hadn't experienced prior mass shootings. Unless the death count rises, there's no reason for this article to not have a number, per WP:NCE. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Honorary ping: @Love of Corey. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per other articles about past mass shootings at nightclubs, e.g. Orlando nightclub shooting, Columbus nightclub shooting, etc. This is very clearly a notable event to occur in Colorado Springs, let alone at a local nightclub there, hence the name. Love of Corey (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• The 2022 Raleigh shooting, 2022 Oakland school shooting, 2022 Phoenix shooting, 2022 shooting of Kentucky police officers, 2022 Chattanooga shooting, 2022 Philadelphia shooting, 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting, 2022 Laguna Woods shooting, 2022 Buffalo shooting, 2022 Pittsburgh shooting, 2022 New York City Subway attack, and the 2022 Sacramento shooting were all notable to their community. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of those had to include the year in their titles as disambiguation. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice how none of the examples you provided have a specific location in the title. Just year, city, and shooting. The title for this article narrows down where this shooting happened, and there's no need for a year because there's no other event like this that occurred in a Colorado Springs nightclub. Love of Corey (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 Oakland school shooting doesn't. There's also the 2021 Orange, California office shooting and the 2020 Washington, D.C. block party shooting. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Our article names aren't consistent. Many of them unnecessarily have years in their titles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, those need to be renamed (I suspect that some of those counter-examples aren't even notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia articles), but that's another discussion for another time. Love of Corey (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because the current title is clear & unambiguous. Lengthening it to include the year is neither necessary nor an improvement. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Question: Have any other shootings of this magnitude happened at a nightclub in Colorado Springs? Silent-Rains (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Love of Corey (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOYEAR, not needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). There are clearly a number of shootings in this area, so noting the year in the title is in accordance with the guidance at WP:NCE. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  However WP:NOYEAR says "articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." This article fits the description. See Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting as an example. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that it is "easily described without it". As I already explained, there have been a number of shootings, and the traditional guidance for similar events is to include the When in the title for readers to quickly understand what they're looking at. Note the "historic perspective" mentioned as well. It's far too soon to know what kind of historical perspective there is on something that only happened less than a month ago. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom and others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because including the year in the name is unnecessary. If there is another notable nightclub shooting in Colorado Springs, then the article names can be updated appropriately. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't another event this could be confused with at present. 2022 Club Q shooting per Cbl62. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per other people, there isn't a need to add 2022 to the title since there has been no other significant Colorado Springs nightclub shootings. Kline | yes? 00:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:NCE. Also, there have been other nightclub shootings in Colorado Springs, for example: 2019, 2021. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But obviously those events weren't that notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia articles. I doubt anybody would be looking up "Colorado Springs nightclub shooting" on here to search for either of those events. Love of Corey (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure there's something in policy/guideline about article titles being for the reader, and deliberately obfuscating the event this article covers by not noting the year seems to be hostile to our readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Even though the date of the event is the very first thing mentioned in the first sentence of the lede? "On November 19–20, 2022, a mass shooting occurred at Club Q ..." I don't think there is any deliberate obfuscation, in my opinion. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede is not part of the article title, which is all readers would see if coming from a search result listing or a category listing where this page was included. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Per the naming conventions for events (WP:NCE), which states:In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the three descriptors: When the incident happened, Where the incident happened, What happened. WP:NOYEAR provides for omitting the year if the event has a common name that readily distinguishes the event from others similar events when viewed from a historical perspective. The examples given above where the year has been omitted are examples where it is unambiguous which event is being referred to. But I do not think enough time has passed to say that for this event. I think it is too soon to make that call. Perhaps reconsider this in a year. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. WP:NOYEAR says "articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." Above, Cameron Dewe says no year is needed if something "readily distinguishes the event from other similar events when viewed from a historical perspective." That is the case here. Looking back on previous articles as examples, we also have Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting without the year of 2015. This event and resulting name has similar dynamics because the location or target of the shooting gives it the context to make it distinguishable and historical. Planned Parenthood was attacked because it was the target of an anti-abortion gunman. Similarly, all indications are that this location was targeted because it was a well-known LGBTQ nightclub. Therefore, guideline-wise and in practice, the article does not need a date as long as "nightclub" is in the title. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - I also noted that the guideline indicated there should be an established common name for the event and this needs to be viewed from a historic perspective. So far, the name of this event is more of a formulaic one, devised by Wikipedia editors, consisting of Where and What, but without the When, which is set out in WP:NCE. The current name of the article is not the name most commonly or consistently used in the sources, which refer to the name of the nightclub or the nature of customers that the club catered for. If the name was the "Colorado Springs <name> nightclub shooting" where <name> was "Q" or even "LGBTQ", then the need for a year would be a lot less necessary. This is also about establishing a precise and unambiguous name. The year is one way to do this, including a name or description is another way to achieve the same ends, which your example of Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting achieves, because, I assume, there is no confusion over which "Planned Parenthood" in Colorado Springs is being talked about. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

    One also has to read the other of the five points made in WP:CRITERIA for article titles, in addition to your point about precision. They all support the current title rather than a complex one like "Colorado Springs Club Q nightlcub shooting" or "Colorado Springs Club Q shooting" or "Club Q shooting." These points would be recognizability, naturalness, and concision. You could also say consistency as well, as we don't typically name specific venues that are not widely known. I'd encourage you to read over the five to see how they apply. Some examples may be useful:

    • Orlando nightclub shooting. "Pulse" nightclub is not well-known enough to be instantly known, and no other Orlando nightclubs had a significant shooting to require a date.
    • West Berlin discotheque bombing. "La Belle" is not famous enough to be instantly known, and the year is not needed because there are no other bombings of that type.
    • Istanbul nightclub shooting. Even a city as old as Istanbul has only had one notable nightclub shooting. No year or date needed.

    Sometimes events or venues are notable enough and reported on in reliable sources to have the venue in the title, but there are less common, or where the venue itself had some culpability (see Whiskey Au Go Go fire). - Fuzheado | Talk 16:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose until another shooting, God forbid, happens in Colorado Springs. The current title is descriptive enough, and the proposed move violates WP:NOYEAR as others (most recently Fuzheado) have previously mentioned. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment for closer: As the current title was the result of a move war where the page was repeatedly moved away from the original title of 2022 Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a determination of "no consensus" should result in the page being moved back to that title until an RM for Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is held and gains consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would not recommend that. I would hope the closer would determine the consensus from this move request to simply be the desired title. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't recommend rewarding edit warring, but here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) the year is the When, and there may be other Colorado Springs nightclub shootings in the future. The disambiguation at the top of the article is needed to refer the reader to other Colorado Springs shootings articles, and indicates the need for more specifics to a reader. I think adding the year 2022 makes the title more specific for a reader, and helpful, and does no harm to any reader. I do not read any violation of guideline WP:NOYEAR by adding a year, as no one knows if this event title will be unique. --98.11.252.45 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  You make a good point. For example, there are two foot hood shootings, one in 2003 and one in 2014. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's actually not a good point - there is no basis for pre-emptively putting the year in case there are future incidents. In fact, the guidelines say the opposite. WP:NOYEAR says "articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." We should not be getting into WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation about the future. If a second Colorado Springs nightclub shooting happens (heaven forbid) we can address it then. That's how we have always treated these titles. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Alternatively, we could propose to move/change the title of this article to something more specific, like Colorado Springs Club Q shooting, as this is how some media are reporting on the incident. That could both be close enough to a common name, and also specific enough that the year/date is rendered unnecessary for disambiguation etc. As an aside, I see the above post, arguing that the Club Q nightclub is not otherwise recognizable on its own, and should therefore not be in the article title name. I also realize that it is perhaps the more local media outlets who are referring to it specifically as a "shooting at Club Q" or whatever. Obviously in the Colorado Springs region, more folks are going to be aware of this nightclub, whereas nationally/internationally this is not the case. So I see this point as well. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the proposed title does not fit any of our regular naming conventions. See the above comment for similar articles like Orlando nightclub shooting, where we don't name the club. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• 2022 Club Q shooting. If we go by the WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be "2022 Club Q shooting". Google search hits are 11.6 million for "Club Q shooting" compared to only 476,000 for "Colorado Springs nightclub shooting". That's a ration of 23-to-1 in favor of "Club Q shooting?. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOYEAR says Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. It's a judgement call, hence this discussion. Agree with Fuzheado's comment above. If it were a generic "Colorado Springs shooting" then adding the year would make sense, but "nightclub" being in the title makes the year unnecessary imo. Also, Orlando nightclub shooting doesn't have a year in its article title either. I would also support a move to Club Q shooting (without the year). Some1 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC) added, Some1 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Other - change name to Colorado Springs gay nightclub shooting since the targets were all homosexuals and lesbians. Not certain it was a hate crime because the shooter was also claimed to be "gender neutral" or some other LGBTQ identifier, so I don't know if the hate crime monicker fits here. Title should be more precise than just "Colorado Springs nightclub shooting". OregonWeed (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: some of the people killed by the shooter were possibly "straight", and we don't know everyone's sexual orientation. We do know however that some of those who were targeted are transgender. The drag show attracted many people (families with kids even!), not just folks from the gay/lesbian & queer communities. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support (or also support a move to Club Q Shooting with or without year): While it's not ambiguous with any other articles, it is ambiguous with other events. This is not the first time someone has been shot in a nightclub in Colorado Springs, and it's not even the first time such an event has made the news. WP:NOYEAR only applies when in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. This is not one of those cases, because if you were to refer to this event to someone who wasn't familiar with it, they would be confused by the fact that other people must've been shot in nightclubs in Colorado Springs several times. If you were to refer to this event to a local who was extremely familiar with it, they may very well also be familiar with the other shootings. It's only for people who are in the middle (which unfortunately for this move includes most Wikipedia editors). Loki (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, and also move back to that title if there's no consensus. WP:NCE is clear that we only omit the year if in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it"; it's a sad situation, but shootings are fairly commonplace in the US, which means this is not a highly historic event and future readers are not particularly likely to know it was in 2022.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on birth name inclusion

Should the suspect (Anderson Lee Aldrich)'s birth name be included in the article? 22:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

@Chess: You cited WP:DEADNAME to remove Aldrich's birth name from the article, but that policy applies to trans and non-binary people who changed their birth names because they felt that they did not match with their gender identities, which doesn't [seem] to be the case. Aldrich changed it in 2016, apparently after being bullied, and they did it completely, I mean, even last name. You don't change your last name because of gender identity reasons.

My questions are: Should we re-add it? Should we keep the redirect pages or ask for deletion per that policy? 7szz (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You have no WP:RS to back you claim. You don’t know that the name change was unrelated to gender identity, and you cannot assume that someone’s last name change is unrelated to gender identity either. Perhaps someone who grew up in a transphobic family would not want to keep their last name because of their gender identity. So no, it should not be added back. 2605:B100:D01:324E:61C9:4925:3CC2:FA78 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The shooter has been referred to himself as a male for years after the name change, as did his mother and neighbors. In addition, Anderson is as masculine a name as Nick, so how could it be related to gender identity? There's no evidence the shooter has ever identified as non-binary before the shooting. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

When it becomes court records of the background of an alleged mass murder... WP:DEADNAME call is petty.

Honestly,law enforcement does not yet know the suspect well enough to know how many of them is in the container with the SSN.

The form below is highly recommended. It is all about clarity.

Lead with the name Change, because both names will be used in additional sentences, use only the known date up until the first resource on the name change. Two born on dates has already been hashed out decades ago with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (born Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor Jr.; April 16, 1947).

"Alcindor when playing for Coach John Robert Wooden (October 14, 1910 – June 4, 2010), the wizard of westwood, was hell of player at UCLA" is a statement of fact, absolutely no offence to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

These are the easy-to-use standards

Elvis Aaron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), or simply Elvis.

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948)

Betty Davis (born Betty Gray Mabry; July 26, 1944 – February 9, 2022)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (born Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor Jr.; April 16, 1947)

Prince Rogers Nelson (June 7, 1958 – April 21, 2016), more commonly known mononymously as Prince

Muhammad Ali (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016)

Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987)

Dont fall into the tarpit that is

David John Matthews (born January 9, 1967) 2601:248:C000:3F:563:946D:7C84:F2A5 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm re-adding birth name per The Daily Beast. 7szz (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@7szz: It doesn't matter if there's a reliable source. The WP:DEADNAME policy states that we are not allowed to include deadnames of non-binary individuals unless the individual was notable under their prior name. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Anderson Lee Aldrich is not notable under their deadname, and so we cannot include their birth name even though reliable sourcing exists. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: Dead name: the birth name of a transgender [or non-binary] person who has changed their name as part of their gender transition (Oxford Languages). The reason why Aldrich changed their name: "Minor wishes to protect [themself] + [their] future from [their] birth father + [their] criminal history". This is not a dead name. 7szz (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@7szz: The policy is worded the way that it is because dead naming is extremely serious and we urge on the side of caution with ALL trans people. We don't go digging into people's past to see why they changed their name—this is not something that is up for debate. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Dead naming" doesn't apply here though. And no one is digging up anything; Aldrich's birth name and reasons for the name change (reasons which have nothing to do with gender identity) have been reported by multiple reliable sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Some1 (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I am against including the suspect's previous name because I think it's irrelevant, not because I think DEADNAME applies here. (As discussed above, I don't think it does.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Relevance is not one of the core content policies WP:CCPOL governing content's inclusion on Wikipedia. Kire1975 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Good point, it seems editors can refer to pretty much all of the accused's background without recourse to their prior name, which was changed before age 16 (and btw, news sources are quoting the name change court documents, which do use the pronoun "he"). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLPPRIVACY is and dead naming someone on a talk page flagrantly ignores said policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I'm in favor of the use of the birth name. I'm also in favor of restoring male pronouns for the accused. As the media investigates the killer's background, it's possible the public will get to learn he has never identified as non-binary prior to the shooting. Using the they/them pronouns at this stage is to prematurely side with what could be foul play on the part of defense attorneys. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include- Supported by sources. Encyclopedic. Not a deadname. Kire1975 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include. WP:DEADNAME is not relevant here. There is no evidence that the accused changed his name on account of his gender identity. People change their names for many reasons: marriage, anglicization, new identities, family estrangement, ... A name change like Chastity Bono to Chaz Bono is clearly related to gender identity. In the case of Brink/Aldrich, no such evidence exists. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  @WWGB: No, it is relevant. You need to affirmatively prove this change WASN'T related to gender identity before you can ignore WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:DEADNAME. Dead naming is a very serious offence and this precedent that we're asking trans or non-binary people to provide evidence that their name change is related to their status is dangerous. We should not be digging into the pasts of trans or non-binary people trying to find evidence of the circumstances name change; that's doxxing. I don't understand why editors here are so insistent on deadnaming someone and setting up this precedent that transgender people need to PROVE their name change was related to gender dysphoria. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  But we do know the Brink/Aldrich name change was not related to gender identity. A legal document tendered to support the name change stated "wishes to protect himself + his future from any connections to birth father + his criminal history." [8] No mention there of any gender identity issues, just wanting to escape any connection to an estranged criminal father. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Very confusing: the current version of this article says "They changed their name in May 2016," but does not say what they changed their name from or to. How is that encyclopedic in the least? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include DEADNAME is irrelevant here per WWGB, and as Kire1975 notes, the name is well reported in our sources so the notion that they aren't "known" under the other name is irrelevant even if they were trans, as they've been repeatedly named under both names. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Until there are reliable sources that doubt Aldrich's self-identification. Please let us not get ahead of the sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include WP:DEADNAME applies to dead names, and is not relevant in Aldrich's case. Aldrich's reason for the name change is: Minor wishes to protect himself and his future from any connections to birth father and his criminal history. Father has had no contact with minor for several years. The birth name/name change has been reported by multiple reliable sources: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Some1 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) added more sources, Some1 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  WP:DEADNAME applies to all names because non-binary individuals require more privacy protection than the average BLP. Reread the policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Chess: DEADNAME is not policy, it is style guideline. The individual did not make a claim of being non-binary until after the event, so the "dead name" is not a deadname for purposes of WP:DEADNAME as the name change was performed long ago. Beyond that, the name change has been widely reported in reliable sources, this is why we include it here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: The RfC isn't over yet. You're restoring disputed content prior to consensus being formed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Prior to me adding the RfC tag, there was already general consensus to include the birth name and that WP:DEADNAME does not apply. So there's really no other reason to exclude the birth name from the article while the RfC is running, when the birth name/name change is well sourced, widely reported, and wp:due. Some1 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Chess: 1) This wasn't an RFC until it was recently switched to one. 2) It's already in WP:SNOWCLOSE territory, especially if you look at the oppose !votes (you + one other editor) with any critical thinking whatsoever. Your arguments are nonsense, patent nonsense. Instead of responding to my criticism of your argument, you're trying to wikilawyer your way through this. If you don't come up with a good argument for exclusion, I'm inclined to close this myself because it's just being disruptive at this point. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: Let's WP:SNOWCLOSE this. We shouldn't keep this RFC open on account of one obstinate editor. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sadly two more opposes, even though they're based on the same faulty logic of most of the other opposes, has taken this out of SNOW territory. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: Deciding to WP:SNOWCLOSE an RfC in which three people disagree with including the birth name is a definitely a bold choice. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Chess: a bold choice Not at all. Arguments invoking WP:DEADNAME are irrelevant here, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. And the other "comment" against inclusion is based on relevancy, which is easily explained since the perpetrators' father has a different last name, and providing the birthname assists the reader with understanding the relation. At the end of the day we're writing for our readers, and making choices that lead to confusion is the antithesis of why we're supposed to be here. And this is before we even get back to how many sources are including both names or that the alleged "deadname" issue hinges on a post-incident claim unrelated to the name change from years ago... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that someone involved in expressing their opinion on an RfC really has the proper authority to initiate closing said RfC. Seems like that would likely go against policy? Let's please be patient and wait to allow for a proper close, thanks. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  There's a 20+ year old "rule" that helps here. Some1 had offered to remove the RFC tag, and I was mid-reply when they removed their comment. I had originally intended to state I was fine leaving this open to let it run its course (as consensus can change) but not if the discussion continuing was being weaponized to keep the name out of the article in the face of clear consensus for inclusion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: Go ahead and WP:SNOWCLOSE as a WP:INVOLVED editor then when you have a ton of oppose !voters. Many people disagree with your insistence on deadnaming non-binary persons. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

First, not a deadname. Second, nobody here actually buys Anderson's lawyer's assertion that he's non-binary (well, except you). Third, this wasn't an RFC originally. Fourth, there's an overwhelming consensus to include except for you and like two other editors, you said so yourself. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Since this is contentious, can we just ask an uninvolved admin to please take a look and do the close then, to avoid further conflict? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bowler the Carmine: Unfortunately for you, most reliable sources are using "they/them" pronouns. Your perseveration on misgendering someone against the consensus of reliable sources is definitely not a good look. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: Thank you for clarifying that in addition to not knowing what deadnaming is, you also don't know what misgendering is. It's definitely not a good look to not know what you're talking about when you're this passionate about something. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: When someone identifies as non-binary, and you don't respect their pronouns, that's misgendering them. I see you feel very strongly about whether people should be allowed to identify as non-binary so I won't participate further in this chain. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: I see you also don't know what pronouns are. I'm starting to wonder if you're competent to participate here. As it's either that, or a severe case of WP:IDHT. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: It's a real shame you don't know what a deadname is. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: As much as I disagree with WP:DEADNAME, the gist of it is that if the person was not notable under prior names, those names should not be included. Any notability related to the previous name only came about through coverage of their background after they already became notable under their current name, similar to Fallon Fox and others that have only had sources dig into their history to find their birth name after they became notable.Nerfdart (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with this logic. We routinely include the maiden name (i.e., birth name) of married women (Jill Biden, for instance]]). Likewise of actors and musicians who perform under a stage name (John Denver, for instance). It doesn't matter that they were not notable under their birth name; it is part of their biography and we include it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include WP:DEADNAME is not relevant in Aldrich's case. Multiple RS document this, so we do too. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include 'deadname', as a general rule, because exorcizing previous names is babyish behaviour. (Caitlyn Jenner: “I liked Bruce. He was a good person. He did a lot in his life. Oh, ‘he didn’t even exist’. Yes he did exist! He worked his butt off.") Marrakech (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  Excluding deadnames, in general, is a matter of respect. We should strive to treat our subjects with respect, especially those marginalized and discriminated against. That said, we do include deadnames if the person was notable under the deadname (such as the example you used, Caitlyn Jenner), and the deadname policy does not cover this particular case. I agree with you in this specific situation, but not in general. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps we should update the policy page on WP:DEADNAME as a result of this discussion to make the wording more clear. Theheezy (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include: From a reasonable reading of WP:DEADNAME, and MOS:GENDERID, this situation is definitely not a "deadname" situation, as far as Spirit of the policy is concerned. I think a WP:TENDENTIOUS reading of these policies is not advisable. Theheezy (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per DEADNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  DEADNAME does not apply here, as explained above. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  It does, as explained above. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  Show me where exactly it is explained that DEADNAME does apply. I'll go first and provide quotes from this discussion that back up my assertion:

  WP:DEADNAME is not relevant here. There is no evidence that the accused changed his name on account of his gender identity. People change their names for many reasons: marriage, anglicization, new identities, family estrangement, ... A name change like Chastity Bono to Chaz Bono is clearly related to gender identity. In the case of Brink/Aldrich, no such evidence exists.
  — User:WWGB

  WP:DEADNAME applies to dead names, and is not relevant in Aldrich's case. Aldrich's reason for the name change is: Minor wishes to protect himself and his future from any connections to birth father and his criminal history. Father has had no contact with minor for several years. The birth name/name change has been reported by multiple reliable sources: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
  — User:Some1

  From a reasonable reading of WP:DEADNAME, and MOS:GENDERID, this situation is definitely not a "deadname" situation, as far as Spirit of the policy is concerned. I think a WP:TENDENTIOUS reading of these policies is not advisable.
  — User:Theheezy

  Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  From WP:DEADNAME:

  Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.

  If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists.

  Not notable under their prior name, ergo it should not be included. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is the main biographical article, since a standalone article does not exist yet. The name change has been reported by multiple RS, and the vast majority of other editors see it as worthy of conclusion. I trust their judgement. Bowler the Carmine | talk 04:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  How convenient it is that you left out the preceding paragraph. As I said: this is the main biographical article, the name change has been reported on by multiple reliable sources, and the name change is indeed pertinent. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  even if reliable sourcing exists. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Chess: generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name So that's gotta go, or literally any standard biography where someone changes their name (for example, from marriage, or when joining a royal family, or when taking on an official title/office) would run afoul of that. The name change here long preceded the claim of being non-binary. And the event that thrust the perpetrator into public view occurred before the claim of being non-binary. Ergo, their prior names are just formalities, not "deadnaming" as you continually incorrectly claim. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  You don't discuss changes when someone is non-binary. It's a simple solution that prevents doxxing and dead naming. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DEADNAME. Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The guideline here seems clear. Nemov (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  DEADNAME does not apply in this case. See my reply above. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  It does, as explained above. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing becomes applicable by being labeled so. Show your work. Kire1975 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include The birth name. The potential harm of spreading anti-LGBTQ propaganda outweighs the potential harm of deadnaming. Should more evidence arise that the shooter's nb claim is in good faith, the pronouns can change. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't about his pronouns, it's about whether we should include his birth name and details about his name change in the article. Pronouns are being discussed, just elsewhere on this talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I meant the name/pronouns could change if evidence comes out that this declaration is in good faith. I still think the potential harm of spreading anti-queer propaganda is worse than the potential harm of deadnaming.This sort of trolling is obvious to people familiar with how the right has been attacking lgbt people. Is wikipedia going to respoect the first mass shooter to identify as an attack helicopter? Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include much like Tucker Carlson's fraudulent use of gender neutral pronouns, we do not cater to people who are obviously mocking the LGBT community. Aldrich is cisgender, therefore WP:DEADNAME does not apply. Zaathras (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think the Tucker Carlson discussion is informative and extremely relevant. This sort of trolling is so common from the far right. Trolls always claim to identify as an attack helicopter. Wikipedia shouldn't respect that identity any more than Tucker's she/her, or Aldrich's claim here. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – This wikipedia article states:

"Aldrich's attorneys have said in court documents that their client is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, preferring to be addressed as Mx. Aldrich."

Aldrich identifies as non-binary; therefore, per guideline MOS:NON-BINARY, which states:

"If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists."

Aldrich's birth name should not be included. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include His birthname, and his change to a different name while in high school, had nothing to do with gender identity, so DEADNAME does not apply. A trans person may want to remove their birthname if it leads to confusion about the person's gender, or calls attention to their change. That is not the case with this guy, who changed his name as a teenager, "citing a desire to remove associations with Aaron Brink, who by that point had multiple criminal convictions". In other words the name change had nothing to do with gender identity. We routinely list birthnames with other biographical information; there is no reason not to do so here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include: not a deadname.--GRuban (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include: if multiple reliable sources use the name, then I don't see why we shouldn't. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include - not irrelevant. Once convicted, it should certainly be included. Skyerise (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include. Any name which is WP:NOTEWORTHY must be included per WP:NPOV, a nonnegotiable policy which cannot be overridden by consensus. Aldrich's birth name is widely reported. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

How does the guideline WP:NOTEWORTHY (which is a subsection of WP:NOTABILITY) apply to the content of an article. The linked guideline states: "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles". --Guest2625 (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include: per others, especially MelanieN, DEADNAME, clearly doesn't apply here. Pincrete (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support MSM is beginning to doubt Aldrich's identification; Denver Post et al have taken an editorial decision to refer to Aldrich in the masculine. We follow. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Non-binary identity as a bad-faith-claim

I understand the stakes involved but we cannot use marginally reliable sources (TMZ, Daily Dot etc.) to put forward such contentious claims. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We can include TMZ, as long as we explicitly attribute the claim to TMZ. According to WP:TMZ, ...it is recommended to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. Considering the debate over the non-binary claim, I believe it's due. Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What you have skipped from WP:TMZ is TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources. The article in question has

Some [of his friends] believe they're saying this to avoid being hit with hate crimes in addition to murder and other charges.

This is a textbook case of using one source for the very purpose it was declared to be of suspect reliability. Anyways, if "the debate over the non-binary claim" is DUE, I expect to see some coverage in MSM. Care to link a few sources from, say, NYT/WaPo/CNN/The Gazette/...? Thanks. (In my personal opinion, I do feel that Aldrich is lying about his identity to avoid hate-crime charges. However, reliable sources are yet to be in my favor.) TrangaBellam (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And you have skipped that WP doesn't recommend banning TMZ as a source when other sourcing isn't available; it only recommend[s] to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used, which is exactly what the section that has now been removed had done. In addition, the section explicitly attributed the view that TMZ reported to the shooter's friends. It did not present skepticism of the shooter's identity as an objective fact. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Dot in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also says that it's "fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact." I don't believe: The Daily Dot reported that some have questioned the sincerity of Aldrich’s assertion of being non-binary, and noted that "In a video of a 2021 arrest that was obtained by CNN, Aldrich referred to himself as 'boy.'" is anything contentious. It also says "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." I believe it's DUE since the article currently presents one side of the non-binary debate (of the defense attorneys' assertion) without presenting the other side, which is the skepticism surrounding such assertion. Some1 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right about the unbalanced coverage. I'll go ahead and place a {{unbalanced section}} until we get this sorted out. Bowler the Carmine | talk 08:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

DUE is not determined by whether, we as editors, feel that all sides to a debate are represented. The very existence of a debate must be proved using high quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The daily dot is not the only source reporting that Aldrich's assertion of being non binary is in bad faith. CNN also reported as such. So did every reliable outlet. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That's great! Can you provide a link to the CNN article? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the IP, but I found one from CNN which I've just added to the article. [16] Some1 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice! I offer no opposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that's the original source for the claim that TMZ reported. This only goes to show that WP:TMZ has it exactly right when it determines that, rather than outright banning TMZ as a source, it's better instead to use it with attribution when better sourcing isn't available. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• In comparison to the coverage from fringe contentious sources, The Gazette profiles Aldrich's identity from a different vantage; it does not doubt for a single time that Aldrich has been lying with some nefarious motive. Maybe, Some1 and others can appreciate what is DUE and what is not. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  That article by The Gazette is a missed opportunity. There's been significant skepticism of the shooter's identity within the LGBT community, and LGBT activists have gone on TV calling the shooter's identity a stunt; they should have interviewed more people than just those who take the shooter at face value. In any case, the Denver Post did interview someone, a former Denver’s district attorney called Mitch Morrissey, who briefly touched on the possibility of the NB claim being a stunt by the shooter or his attorneys:

  “I don’t know if this is a stunt or not,” Morrissey said. “Obviously, there would need to be some evidence one way or another of what his orientation was, but just because you have the same orientation doesn’t mean you can’t have a bias against the group. And (the LGBTQ community) is a very, very broad group.”

  Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  We are beholden to reliable sources; not to any community at-least until their views are covered in MSM. As and when mainstream reliable sources won't "miss" opportunities, I will support re-incorporating doubts about Aldrich's self-identification. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus against including this. Restored. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, Thats not how it works. You need consensus for inclusion of material, not the other way around. Until there is consensus for inclusion, it should be left out. I don't have an opinion on if it should be in or not, just the process. --Malerooster (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It was definitely inappropriate to remove the TMZ reference the way it was done, but since a better reference (CNN) has been found for the same assertion about the shooter's probably fraudulent non-binary identity and it has already been included in the article, the TMZ discussion is just a moot point now. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the non-binary claims are true or not - present coverage seems excessively gossip-y. Anonymous (and often ill-informed), so called 'friends' and/or 'neighbours' can always be found to speculate on any aspect of an accused person. Their opinion is largely valueless evidentially. His lawyer has made the claim, it has been disputed, what else is there to know? Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an obvious lack of consensus and I have reverted the restoration; Zaathras, if you restore, I will take this to a noticeboard. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Have added a better source; maybe, you all will finally decide that the current coverage, excluding controversial sources, is good. There is really no need to thrust down a reader's throat that Aldrich is pretending to be a non-binary as a legal tactic; at least until sources get so explicit. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Reactionaries under "reactions"

The reactions section contains an overabundance of far right figures inciting hatred against the LGBTQ+ community, yet the article does not contain a single mention of stochastic terrorism, despite multiple reliable sources using the term when describing how the incendiary rethoric they now double down on has played a role in provoking this attack in the first place. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources, you say? Kire1975 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Way too much space devoted to criticizing Republicans for their views about LGBTQ+

Under the section "political reactions", only one paragraph is devoted to actual political reactions. The other three paragraphs are devoted to quoting various right-wing and religious figures, apparently just to highlight their anti-gay views. The entire "Focus on the Family" paragraph is not even about anything FOTF said; it points out that the organization was vandalized and then devotes several sentences to its anti-LGBTQ attitudes. IMO this stuff does not have much or anything to do with the shooting and should all be deleted; it seems to be here only to make right-wing commentators look bad. At best we might trim it down to a summary about a concerted right-wing attempt to blame the shooting on "grooming children" for pedophilia and worse, as described by the ISD reference. (Recent article history: The three paragraphs used to be in a separate subsection called "Controversy", but somebody deleted whole section; somebody else immediately restored it; it was briefly moved to a separate "controversy" section; but it wound up back under "political reactions" without the "controversy" heading.) For that matter I don't think the "celebrity reactions" paragraph adds any value to the article and I would favor deleting it too. Comments? MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The graffiti left on the Focus on the Family wall makes it clear that whoever was behind it was thinking about the shooting's victims, so the incident belongs in the article, in my view; I wouldn't object to a more succinct way of explaining FoF's hard-right views on LGBTQ people, however. As for the other right-wingers mentioned in the section, they not only continued to agitate against the LGBTQ community at large in the hours following the massacre, but also, as in the case of Tim Pool, against the people who were at the bar specifically, so evidently it is appropriate to keep content referring to them in this article, as well. The section doesn't bring up any right-wingers other than those who have been mentioned in reliable sources in connection with the massacre and the general mood of anti-LGBTQ unrest in the days that followed; so it is unnecessarily defensive to interpret the section as generally critical of the right. But I also think that a controversy section should be opened and content that refers to reactions from the right should be moved there. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The material on far-right commentary is excessive and WP:UNDUE. It needs significant pruning. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The article has exclusive coverage of the fringe anti-LGBTQ views republicans have been voicing in response to this incident. Criticism of these views that sometimes border on outright justification of the shooting are notable however, and SHOULD be included. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but that section is written pretty poorly. I'm not sure so many quotes are needed.

And I also completely agree with user:MelanieN on the celebrity section. That's cool Wayne Brady did that, but IDK if he really needs to be mentioned in this article. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've reworked the section. i deleted some gratuitous, redundant quotes. I removed subject headings, since there's no clear political/controversy distinction. I tried to group subjects together more cohesively into paragraphs. I added another source reflecting the LGBTQ response. I deleted the celebrities section, no disrespect to Wayne Brady.

I think I made it more concise, though it's still pretty clunky. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is an improvement, although I still think it gives too much coverage to the haters. And IMO there is too much about Lauren Boebert, who after all did make a comment appropriate to the occasion, but was criticized for other positions she has taken at other times. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought about deleting or trimming the Boebert part, but she's a sitting congresswoman in Colorado, so removing it entirely would be wrong. I agree it's a little out of place, but both her statement and the reaction to the statement are significant. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but this one from Politifact may be good for something:No, the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs was not a false flag Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Red flag laws in Background section

The paragraph describing red flag laws in as long as the one describing the shooting (the actual topic of the article). It's UNDUE. I will WP:BOLDly trim it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some of that content could be moved over to Red flag law#Colorado, perhaps? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Prior Incidents

Around this time in San Antonio (c. 2016-1017), Aldricht punched Jonathan Pullen in the face, relatives say. Pullen, who suffered a concussion, told emergency room personnel that he fell down the stairs according to family sources.
— https://denvergazette.com/continuing-coverage/club-q-shooting/anderson-lee-aldrich-a-history-of-family-travail-personal-violence/article_f668d004-728d-11ed-8ae6-eb5e9062514f.html

What do fellow editors feel on adding this? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I say go for it, perhaps also something about the other incident in which Pullen was said to have expressed "fear for his life" etc. Pullen is Aldrich's grandfather, correct? That should probably be made clear. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bomb threat

After a three hour negotiation, Aldrich surrenders. Deputies then search of the Rubicon Drive home and find items “consistent with bomb-making materials.” Aldrich was jailed that evening and given an elevated bond of $1,000,000 by Judge Michael McHenry.
— https://denvergazette.com/continuing-coverage/club-q-shooting/anderson-lee-aldrich-a-history-of-family-travail-personal-violence/article_f668d004-728d-11ed-8ae6-eb5e9062514f.html

Have added this to our article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

The responses section in particular appears to be a political 'soapbox' violation, rather than NPOV. All parties condemned this shooting and should include representative examples from all sides. The attempt to suggest 'bad faith' for those who condemned this heinous crime is political POV bias and not in conformance with Wiki policy.Ryoung122 16:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)