Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting

Naming Willeford in the opening paragraph

I am opening this thread because the editor Mandruss has fought me repeatedly on this, going so far as to engage in a mutual edit war over it. So, here's an opportunity for anyone else to weigh in. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Willeford ought to be identified by name in the opening paragraph as he was the second most important and noteworthy individual involved in this event -- second only to the active shooter himself.

Stephen's role in this shooting was critically important. He singlehandedly stopped the shooter from committing further murders and he singlehandedly pinned the shooter down after he had crashed his car so that he couldn't escape before law enforcement arrived. Naming him does not violate any clause in WP:BLPNAME; in fact, WP:BLPNAME seems to support the idea that Stephen should be named early on in the article given that Stephen isn't low-profile and was such a critical component to the event.

Mandruss does not want this hero to be named in the opening paragraph because, according to him, Stephen's name is already mentioned in the body of the article and it would be redundant. His reasoning for this does not extend to any other names mentioned in this article that are repeated -- only Stephen, for some reason. The second reason Mandruss gave for this is he felt that Stephen's name has no place in the opening paragraph, given that the open is just a basic summary of the event. If the name of the hero who singlehandedly stopped the active shooter isn't worthy of mention in the summary of the event, then neither is the name of the shooter himself because Stephen's role is essentially a co-starring role.

In fact, I would argue that the name of the shooter should be struck from the article entirely because naming mass shooters gives them notoriety and fame -- something that would-be shooters find attractive. There's a solid argument to be made here that refusing to immortalize active shooters by withholding their names from publication would go a long way towards reducing these kinds of crimes. But that isn't an argument I'm going to make today. Right now I'm only interested in getting Stephen's name in the opening paragraph.

Mandruss has not presented a sufficient case as to why Stephen should not be named in the opening paragraph. Referring to a person by name twice in an article is not "redundant." In fact, if you didn't refer to the person you're writing about by name at least a few times, readers will likely get confused as to who you're referring to. That's why the shooter's name is everywhere in this article.

Beyond that, even if it was necessary to identify a person only once in an article where they are referred to multiple times, standard writing practice tells us that you should identify the name of the individual the first time that person is referenced. Standard writing practice also tells us that if you're going to refer to that person again later, it is best to refer to them by last name alone for sake of brevity. So standard writing practice doesn't even support Mandruss's assertion that IDing Stephen in the open would be "redundant."

It is interesting to me that this article almost seems like more of a bio on the perp than an article on the event. It is interesting because Mandruss (and also Ian, the Admin -- you can find the related dispute where Ian weighs in on the admin complaint board) is trying to make the case that since this article is about an event and not a bio on an individual, Stephen's name should not be included in the open. There's a -lot- of illogical reasoning going on here for such a supposedly minor detail. I don't think it is a minor detail but Ian has said it was. Makes me wonder why there's been such fuss about it in the first place.

I support the previous commenter's ( ) assertion that there is way too much about the perp himself in this article. As either Ian or Mandruss has already pointed out (they're pretty much a united front in this issue and I forget which said it -- important bit is that one of them did) this is not a bio. Yet this article is mostly about the perp and not the event.

I will wait until tomorrow to revise the article again so that Mandruss (or any others) have time to weigh in. Know that for this issue to not be elevated further to Admin review, a good case needs to be made based on either a syntax/grammatical defense, a Wikipedia Terms of Use argument, or some other argument that shows how naming Stephen in the first paragraph would explicitly break a Wikipedia rule. Not wanting his name in the first paragraph for political reasons is not sufficient cause.

Finally, I would like to point out that if I do make another revision before a resolution is had, it's because Wiki told me to.

From Wikipedia Notices: "You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!" ;) AllSidesMatter (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss does not want this hero to be named in the opening paragraph because, according to him, Stephen's name is already mentioned in the body of the article and it would be redundant. - A misstatement of my rationale, clearly stated in this edit summary. The OP is free to disagree, but I don't think anybody but the perpetrator needs to be named in the lead. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidance on this either way, except the general WP:LEAD principle that lead should summarize body and minimize unnecessary details. OP believes, as seen in their statements elsewhere, that there is some nefarious agenda behind my position, and that is simply false and fails WP:AGF. If there is a consensus to include the name, I oppose anything about his NRA connection per Ianmacm's edit summary here. I'm not going to be involved in a long debate on either question; in fact this will likely be my last comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, if you are bowing out at this point without defending your revert based on rules or guidelines, then you'll have no reason to revert my edit when I add his name in the intro again. I've made a very strong case for why his name should appear there. I haven't seen anything in wiki rules stating a multi-editor consensus must be reached among editors not involved in the dispute. Of course I welcome others opinions and such but to uphold a revert you need to defend it. Saying his name doesn't add to the story is false -- if people hear that a lone gunman stopped a mass shooter, their first question is going to be "who?!". Adding his name in the intro is giving the readers pertinent information they will certainly want to know. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I will wait until tomorrow to revise the article again so that Mandruss (or any others) have time to weigh in. OP is advised that any article changes in this area without consensus in this thread will be seen as a continuation of the disruption that resulted in today's ANI complaint. I strongly suggest they don't do that, as they will be less likely to escape without a block the second time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I also did not mischaracterize your rationale. Your rationale, according to the edit log, is quote: "anyway this person is named in the body and his name is excessive detail for the lead - lead is summary/overview)". "This person is named in the body..." suggests your rationale is one of redundancy. As in, He's already named in the body, it would be redundant. Beyond that, naming the hero is not excessive detail. That's a silly argument. Like I mentioned above, the first question on anyone's mind when they hear a lone private citizen singlehandedly stopped a mass shooter, the first question on everyone's mind is "who?" Naming him is -just the right amount- of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"OP is advised that any article changes in this area without consensus in this thread will be seen as a continuation of the disruption that resulted in today's ANI complaint." the complain has already been resolved, there is no continuation. Interesting, you seem to be speaking on behalf of the admin here. Just because you don't like an edit doesn't mean it is disruptive editing. I am attempting to DISCUSS this issue with you to come to a consensus here, between us. You are electing, voluntarily, to refuse that discussion based on your statement "I'm not going to be involved in a long debate on either question; in fact this will likely be my last comment here." If you choose not to discuss this with me and reach a compromise, you will be seen as the party who caused the breakdown in communication. I will be seen as the one trying to follow the BOLD, Revert, Discuss guidelines because that is what I am doing. At this point, there is no disruptive editing going on and it won't be disruptive editing to go ahead with an edit that you've failed to appropriately revert. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy not to name the civilian in the lede. The perpetratorwas already outside the church when the civilian started shooting at him. It is unclear if the civilian saved any lives, but is clear that he helped end the life of the perp in a wild west use of an assault rifle. Perhaps some called him a hero, but that is not sourced, and he could also be termed a vigilante with an AR-15. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose him being named in the lead. I think it is unnecessary. We do not name police officers who shoot perpetrators, so why name civilians. Also, the name should not go in the lead until consensus is gained. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose naming him in the WP:LEAD because it is a summary of what happened, although I wouldn't argue about naming him later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No need for a mention in the lead. I also strongly oppose Willeford being listed as a defender in the infobox, he was clearly responding to the events of the church shooting. He should however be mentioned later in the article where appropriate.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yea, I also oppose him being mentioned in the info box. Wikipedia is not a place to glorify people. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose his name in the lead FTR, for the sake of anybody who doesn't care to read the wall-of-text. I'll also oppose his name in the infobox, per others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lead and infobox. The name of the civilian adds nothing to the understanding of the event. I would even support its removal from the article unless there is some follow-on ie covered court cases addressing his behavior etc which gives context to why this named individual in particular is relevant to the understanding of the event. Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lead and infobox. Nom said: Mandruss has not presented a sufficient case as to why Stephen should not be named in the opening paragraph - other way around, as a low-profile individual, per WP:BLP, the responsibility is on you to make a case for inclusion. I have no problem with a single mention in the text body, he certainly should be named. If there are sufficient number of sources that called him a hero, that might also be mentioned in context, like "Many sources later identified Stephen's actions as heroic", assuming it's a majority of sources including mainstream national. -- GreenC 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nom I already have made a solid case, you must not have read it. Also, Stephen is not low-profile. He made national headlines in all major news outlets. Tell me how that is low-profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

We are writing an encyclopedia article here, not a news story. The dispute occurred over naming him in the WP:LEAD, and the WP:CONSENSUS seems to be against naming him in the lead, but it would be OK later on in the text of the article. Please read WP:STICK, as we are moving in this direction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Noting that the OP has been indefinitely blocked for disruption, their access to their own user talk page has been revoked, and they have exhausted the appeal process. One can't be much more gone than this. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support First, just because an Editor has been "made gone" doesn't mean his suggestion(s) aren't/weren't meritorious, and second just because a handful of editors agreed in March 2018 (possibly whipped-up into fighting frenzy by extraneous conflicts with the now-banished Editor) does not mean the Titanic could not/should not reverse itself. For me, it has to do with the fusion of the connotations of the word "lede" with the word "narrative". I think the lede should give a rough outline of the story, and then flesh-out the details in the body of the Article. If I remember the Wikipedia guidelines on the Lede, it is supposed to "invite the Reader to continue reading". Bogging down the Lede with "technical details" while omitting the gross details is less inviting than the reverse, IMO. Not fighting with anyone over this; just offering my perspective FWIW.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Several Minor Issues

1) In the Infobox, the "Weapon" field is crafted "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle (Ruger AR-556)". This appears backwards to people who are familiar with firearms. Technically the weapon was a "Ruger AR-556", and one would expect to see the "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" part mentioned parenthetically, as an informative afterthought to those that do not know this. The Wikipedia Article on the JFK Assassination formats it:

"Weapons 6.5×52mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle" with "bolt action rifle" being a class-describer, which is what "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" is.

The mass media puts a lot of effort into demonizing the supposedly controversial "assault rifles" and so that is why the class of the weapon ("AR-15 style...") is widely reported vs. the more precise technical name of the weapon. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not news. Meaning that the information should be presented as an encyclopedia would present it, and not necessarily exactly as it was reported by "reliable sources".

2) The Article states that Kelley had lost his right to purchase and/or possess weapons, but in the Shooting Section, it says:

"Two handguns were found in the vehicle: a Glock 9 mm and a Ruger .22-caliber, both of which Kelley had purchased."

I think the sentence should include the idea that those weapons were purchased illegally, for purpose of "internal consistency", to remind people of this "theme". Also the illegal nature of the purchases is very relevant to the whole story.

3) Investigation Section: As a Reader I'm interested in the nature of the "dispute with Kelley's mother-in-law". As a Reader, it feels very wrong, like there's a big huge hole titled "WHY?" that is not answered. If the information (or more information) is available, it should be included. The only source for Kelley's motivations is Law Enforcement, and given the highly-charged and political nature of the crime, and Law Enforcement's recent history with regard to "fake news" it's possible this information is false. If available, I'd like to see a non-Law Enforcement opinion (or report) on Kelly's motivation, particularly if it is inconsistent with Law Enforcement. The idea that someone would go from being angry with their Mother in Law to killing a whole church full of people seems highly suspicious to me. People that hate their Mother in Law kill their Mother in Law, and Law Enforcement may have some (political) motivation to obfuscate the truth. If corroborating or contradicting information exists, it should be included. If there is some connection between the Mother in Law and the Church, I'd like to know about that.

4) In the "Military service and violent behavior" Section, one sentence reads:

"In June 2012, Kelley escaped from Peak Behavioral Health Services but was soon apprehended ten miles away at a bus terminal in El Paso, Texas.".

One does not "escape" from a mental health hospital unless one has been involuntarily committed, and the Article does not mention this legal term. Instead it uses the word "admitted" which leaves open the possibility that he could have voluntarily admitted himself. If Kelley was involuntarily committed, the Article should say so, so that the word "escape" used later on makes sense. If Kelley voluntarily admitted himself, then the Article needs to either explain how his departure was an "escape", or dispense with the word. I also wonder if it's possible that his admission was initially voluntary, and then became "not voluntary" at some point. My primary point is that the idea of "admitted" needs to reconcile with the word "escape". HOW was he "admitted" and how did that admission later turn into an "escape"?

5) In the Ability to purchase and carry firearms Section, one sentence reads:

"The State of Texas denied his application for a license to carry a handgun, although a license is not required to purchase firearms under Texas state law."

My issues centers on the use of the word "although". It seems to be tying two very different ideas together, and the only reason I can see is expediency. "Open Carry" and "Firearms Purchase" are both separate and distinct topics under the larger umbrella term "Firearms Possession". One is about how you acquire a firearm, and the other is about how you carry a firearm, and the association between the two ideas seems forced, and uninformed. "Although" implies irony, where no irony exists, since the law only regulates the "open carry" of handguns. These are two very different topics, and very different issues, forced together in a single sentence, and held together only by the use of the word "although" which implies irony where no irony exists. The two ideas could be presented as separate, standalone facts by dropping the word "although", and splitting the single sentence into two separate sentences. It wouldn't be elegant, but it would be brief, factual, and much clearer. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

1) I think this is fixed now; 2) meh, main point communicated is that the guns weren't stolen. There is already enough discussion of his legal eligibility elsewhere in the article. 3) if RS for the info is available then sure, go for it. 4) I agree, clarification is needed. 5) I don't see irony, sentence seems ok to me. It just de-confuses that someone can be allowed to buy a gun without being allowed to carry it.

An issue I would add: lede says shooter killed 26 people "including an unborn baby", but of course whether fetuses are people is a polarizing political dispute in its own right. So I'd look for more neutral phrasing. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the article: whether this is a white or black church. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't really relevant, as no reliable source has suggested that racism was a motive, unlike the Charleston church shooting. Most of the victims were white.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statistics in the lead

@Bbb23: Seeing as how you immediately reverted the change, it might help if I point out what was problematic with previous wording. Kelley fatally shot 25 people, one of whom was pregnant. How do we correct that in the lead, given that it currently (incorrectly) says he fatally shot 26 people? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead says he shot "26 people (including an unborn baby)". The body says, "The dead comprised ten women, seven men, seven girls, one boy, and an unborn child." The infobox says, "27 (including the perpetrator and an unborn child)". All of those statements are consistent with each other, so I don't see how you can say the lead is "incorrect".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead says he shot 26 people. He didn't shoot 26 people, he shot 25. One of the 25 was pregnant, and the fetus ended up expiring when the mother's body no longer sustained it, but he didn't shoot the fetus. So it's incorrect for the lead to say he "shot 26 people." Is that more clear? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's clear now. I don't want to get into a debate about whether a fetus is a person, but the article has been treating the fetus as a person for quite a long time. If you believe the fetus should not be treated as a person, then the lead, the body, and the infobox need to be changed. You'd need a consensus, though, to make such a change.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are in a hurry today, and have not looked very closely at what the changes were. My edit kept the death toll at 27, both in the lead and the infobox. It did not try to change the status of the unborn child with regard to whether or not a fetus should be treated as a person; instead my version explained that 25 people were shot by the perpetrator, the perpetrator was shot by somebody else, and that 27 people died in total (including the perpetrator and an unborn child). Do you see that now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop loading your comments ("immediately reverted" and "perhaps you are in a hurry"). I didn't undo your changes because they were inaccurate. My edit summary was clear. They were wordy/awkward and unnecessary; what the article said before was accurate, clear, and consistent. You're more than welcome to try to obtain a consensus for your changes. And for the moment I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My comments were sincere and written from the perception that you haven't been investing much time in looking at the edits or what we've been discussing. If you're actually putting a lot of thought into this, my apologies. I won't make any more references to what I have perceived to be a rush to judgment here. Nonetheless, it's an indisputable fact that the article is incorrect and inaccurate when the very first sentence says the perpetrator shot 26 people. He shot 25 people. If he had actually shot the unborn child in the womb, then it would be accurate and correct to say that he shot 26 people. But he shot 25, and 27 people ended up dying in this mess. There has got to be a better way to phrase the text so that the lead stops being incorrect. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "indisputable". It's demeaning to those who dispute what you're saying. I've looked back at various wordings of the lead all the way back to March, and although they vary, all those I looked at say he shot 26 people. Nonetheless, I've tried to come up with a simple wording that accommodates your views without (a) being excessively wordy and (b) is consistent with the article as a whole, and have been unable to. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, as is the infobox, and that's precisely what it does as it is presently worded. We need to hear from other editors (Mitch's suggestion below is not a satisfactory resolution in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::::How about you word it as he shot "26 people/victims ~ according to Unborn Victims of Violence Act" ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC) & I respect Bb's view ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

For Mitch: Appreciate what you were trying to do there. Technically, the UVVA didn't apply in this case because the killings were state crimes as opposed to federal crimes, but Texas is one of 38 states that has it's own fetal homicide law that would have been used if the shooter had been taken alive (I'm an attorney in civilian life).

For Bbb23: If we corrected the number shot, we could add a sentence like "An unborn child of one of the victims brought the death toll to 27" at the end of the first paragraph and it would fix the problem. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Just curious why the unborn are being counted as victims? When mommy decides to go get an abortion, we celebrate the death of the unborn and shout it to the world like it's a triumph, but when it's politically convenient we want to add it to the death toll now? 98.213.170.3 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)