Jump to content

Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cobblebricks (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 28 October 2023 (→Introductory sentence is written like a news report: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

shooting/shootings

Police reports indicate only one shooter. Since it occurred at multiple locations media sources seem to be conflicted on whether this is one "shooting" or multiple (ABC reports former, CNN latter). Looking for consensus on which title is more correct Elijahr241 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple shootings. See 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the plural option, shootings, works better. @Elijahr241: what do you think? City of Silver 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plural works better because even if it is one guy, it's still seperate instances of mass murder in different locations
Most people will identify it as seperate shootings in different areas Marmorda (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit conflicted because to me, "shootings" implies multiple suspects. Maybe it could just be made clear in the lead that it was all one guy (at least, once we have more information) Elijahr241 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I changed it to singular but if anyone wants to change it back, go for it Marmorda (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that this should be plural because at least 3 places have been shot up. Clyde [trout needed] 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's one shooting spree consisting of two mass shootings. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect

Has (BLP violation removed) been identified as the suspect by police? Local Facebook (I know, so reliable) groups and people are identifying him as (redacted). Marmorda (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refresh yourself on the BLP policy, probably shouldnt be dropping names like this at such a preliminary stage. @Acroterion you may need to hide this discussion thread. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry! Marmorda (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed his name! Marmorda (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to at the start of your comment as well, also page revisions will need to be blanked. No worries but in the event it isn't who people are id-ing the picture, it can be real bad news bears. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see any official statements or news reports, only twitter and facebook. Elijahr241 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Acroterion. Just scrolling through the twitter thread there is so much conflicting information and I would be very hesitant to add anything to the article from any of those sources. Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bangor Daily News claims a Maine Department of Public Safety spokesperson has confirmed the name. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wait for a few more sources to add that info back. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the major news sources are reporting the same. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that was fast, yes CNN has identified him as a "person of interest" so I assume other outlets have this as well. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't anyone add the name for fucks sake? Baldur's Gate 3 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Admin warning Nobody has any business posting suspect names or links until it is amply reported by a consensus of major news outlets. I've already protected the aricle and warned editors about this. Please stop, and wait. This rush to post a name has potential for great harm to innocent individuals. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A significant number of remaining revisions have a name in them, the oldest I can find being revision 1181926587. — Greentryst TC 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back through, but it's looking like it's moot in any case. The notion that we must name somebody on the thinnest of references or rumors is a perennial concern. However, any descriptions of people's level of interest from law enforcement must stick closely to the way sources word it, and it must be well-sourced. The same goes for any mentions of possible victims. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would person of interest be appropriate to add?LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's how they're expressing it, and that's done for a lot of obvious legal and ethical reasons that editors should respect, and use the same terms. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Person of interest named

(BLP violation removed) is a person of interest. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna122249 2605:8D80:404:9D6:D9CC:757D:2060:A51A (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also named on NY Post and CentralMaine.com . Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The press and media are not bound by BLP. We are. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press is citing the name of the person of interest from the press conference and police bulletin reviewed. It’s worth noting especially as they are being reported as a firearms instructor. https://apnews.com/article/49da6d06a8b5a15d3b619b3927bc33ff
Coasterghost (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem and Acroterion really doing all the work out there. Y'all are awesome! Marmorda (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Can you please explain @ElijahPepe why you deleted the map with "Maps should not be done this way. Hold off on including one with three locations." Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox civilian attack includes map parameters already. I recommended holding off because there are three locations and pinpointing one to use is difficult; in theory, we could use Template:OSM Location map with specific points. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited dozens of breaking news (sadly) shooting articles over the years, and adding a map is standard practice. We can have a basic map now and get it more detailed as we go along. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is multiple location, a custom made map of each of the locations would likely be more helpful to the reader. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once things are clearer, sure, but for now this map provides a lot more context than none at all. I sure didn't know where Lewiston was before. — Greentryst TC 03:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made such a template but I'm busy gathering as much information as possible. If someone else could add additional pins, that would be great. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: active voice

Can someone with extended edit privileges please edit the opening section to use the active voice? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? Active voice is not always preferable if passive voice would be clearer. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"an individual shot and killed at least 22 people"
is much better than:
"a mass shooting occurred"
others sources have already concurred there is one shooter and editors have written that in, so there is no obstacle to eliminating the passive voice from the introduction Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is nothing wrong with well-written passive voice. The emphasis is on the mass shootings occurring. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just bad writing, but I guess it will stay for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect has been identified by NYT, CNN, and NBC

SUPERSEDED
An RfC has been opened at #RfC: Naming the suspect. Please discuss there to avoid fragmentation. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

{{Is it now safe to include his name in the article @Acroterion:? Di (they-them) (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have since been added. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also add some information about him. His DOB is April 4, 1983 and lived in neighboring Bowdoin at the time of the shootings, as this was all according to The Maine Wire. It was unknown where he was born or any early info on him, but all I know is that he was once part of the military and was divorced twice. 2600:1702:5225:C010:40C8:CE30:D97F:2B6A (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is there a source for this in more than one news outlet? Marmorda (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is information that appears to be from the police and appears in CNN, though I urge all editors to exercise caution at the moment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources, even CNN did tell some info about him. I am still investigating on his backstory as well. 2600:1702:5225:C010:40C8:CE30:D97F:2B6A (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it out. See WP:OR and WP:BLP. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This all sounds like personal information that's not directly relevant to the shootings themselves (which is what the article is about). Di (they-them) (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Reliable Source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a quote where providing a suspect's name is not allowed given several reliable sources and police confirmation? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just did. See the link. That said, if this person is actually arrested and formally indicted, I think at that point it would be permissible to post their name. But as of right now this individual does not even appear to be in custody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting case as a very large majority of mass shooters die at the scene and hence are not subject to the BLP policy - in this instance shooter is at large. Did editors wait for Nikolas Cruz to be convicted before adding his info to the Parkland page as a suspect? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the specifics, but I believe that once a suspect in an event of this nature is actually indicted, that commonsense might allow us to name that person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUSPECT seems pretty clear that the criteria is conviction, not indictment or the issuance of an arrest warrant, but that is not in my experience the common practice here, at least for white collar crimes. Sandizer (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, in an incident like this, the suspect will become well-known enough to fall under the WP:PUBLICFIGURE exemption of WP:SUSPECT. That would likely be well before a conviction. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we are there at this point in time. Sandizer (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you and @Valjean below, we're well past the point of BLP being a concern here. We've gone from "person of interest", to "wanted suspect" who is well-named in numerous WP:RS. BLP (in so far as WP:BLPCRIME is concerned) is no longer relevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per @Ad Orientem - I'm uncomfortable putting the name into the article in any significant way, much less the lead paragraph. I've removed it from there. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to here, but this has taught me to not jump the gun so quickly! thanks guys :) Marmorda (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Learning and growing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this, now that he has been named in quite a few RS. Clyde [trout needed] 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, per Ad Orientem. Clyde [trout needed] 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I asked was the editors wait until that kind of consensus emerges among major news organizations. The rush to name a name at all costs on thin sourcing or rumor is unseemly, and editors really need to remember BLP at all times. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Police have confirmed his name. That is as far as I'm willing to go here, and I have created a custom label in the infobox to that extent. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Police only have this as a named person of interest, but that doesn't make his the suspect. Do not add any names until they say they have actually caught the shooter and identified him. Masem (t) 03:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair they have named him and described him as "armed and dangerous" but yes conservative approach is good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - a "person of interest" is not necessarily a suspect, and does not need to be named here unless that status changes. We stick to what the sources say. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The police now refer to him as a suspect. From the transcript at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/maine-state-police-hold-press-conference-after-shootings-transcript: I think we used person of interest last night for half of the room that was here for that press event. As the colonel had mentioned, there is now arrest warrants for murder for this particular individual, Mr. ████. So he’s viewed as a suspect and there is a full court press by all of our partners to bring him into custody. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add any names until they say they have actually caught the shooter and identified him Do you have a WP:PAG for this? Because the name of the suspect is well sourced and easily verifiable, and being on the front-page of various widely read sources is more than enough to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Only two locations

Can someone with edit privileges add that there was no shooting at the Walmart location? See the Sun Journal article quoting a Walmart spokesperson - Kefr4000 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify it a bit more, but suggested prose is welcome. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about:
Initially, there were reports of shots at a nearby Walmart distribution center. The company later reported, however, that after police had searched the facility and all associates on the clock had been accounted for, the company was confident no shooting had occurred on Walmart property.
I think it is more precise. Kefr4000 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

auburn mayor reaction

Mayor of Lewiston's sister city Auburn gave NBC a statement that could be added to the Reactions section Elijahr241 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them) It's Auburn, Maine (lewiston's neighboring city), not Washington. I'd change it myself but I'm not extended-confirmed Elijahr241 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm not sure why I made that mistake. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

SUPERSEDED
This discussion has been superseded by another discussion: See #Celtics section for details. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The Celtics had made a post on X that stated “our thoughts are with everyone in Lewiston, Maine.” With a picture attached of the final score of their game that night which got controversial feedback and was deleted and reposted without the picture.

[1] [2] Puppy20love (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide an archived source for this (other than screenshots, which I have found), I will add it. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source and I have added it. Di (they-them) (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page before I did my edit but missed this section. Apologies. I think it is important that prayers and the game score scoreboard portion of the image be included if you are going to include the controversial parts. It's leaving part of the controversy out. As it is, it doesn't tell what the controversy was. Personally, I think the controversial part should be left out and it just mention they tweeted their thoughts. If the controversy portion is that important to document, add it to the controversy section of their own page. Once again, sorry about not bringing my edit here first. P37307 (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source still seemingly just relies on a couple twitter accounts sharing what looks like the same screenshot. Maybe that's enough to warrant inclusion. Actually, I too personally believe it did happen. It's just I know how quickly a false claim can be perpetuated if it's outrageous enough, and adding information with such poor sourcing feels rash to an article as relevant as this. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 11:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm certainly not a reliable source, I definitely saw that post and I don't think its validity is questionable. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the template? The validity *is* being disputed. "I saw it with my own eyes" is certainly not grounds for a definitive case closed Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source Di provided certainly seems to reliable, and the controversy on social media seems to back up the claim. If you disagree you can revert my edit. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are much bigger problems than disputes over a Celtics tweet here. I digress. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very true... ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

22 have been confirmed killed

Not at least 15, 22: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lewiston-maine-shooting-active-shooter-live-b2436191.html 2605:8D80:404:9D6:D9CC:757D:2060:A51A (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that data was incorrect, 16 is the confirmed number right now. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s 18 dead confirmed 174.213.161.51 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple credible sources citing to the death toll being at 18. While initally it was reported (even by reputable sources) that the death toll was at 22, it seems after the fog of war cleared and more information was obtained, the death toll is at 18. Jurisdicta (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already?

Wikipedia article already? Who does that? Ugh 109.245.95.120 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not consulting you personally on the appropriate wait time before creating an article about a notable event. WaffleTruth (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😂 Zuhair (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to provide accurate information on notable things. I'd consider this to be a notable thing, and therefore it's inclusion feels appropriate. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 12:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do, and despite what it may seem, an article about an event of magnitude like this shooting would be created as quickly as reliable sources make articles about it. That's just how Wikipedia functions. Luigi7255 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celtics section

Does the reaction of one sports team need its own section? Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See #Reactions ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question of whether the content deserves a section of its own per WP:UNDUE. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just didn't want this conversation to split in two sections. I personally agree with @P37307's statement in the above section, the information isn't relevant to the article, and it should be on the team's own article instead. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture

I have a better picture up front closer and clear , how do I posted here? In the comments? Nildapriccan (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC

Link the source of the picture. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's from a local news channel like you say below, it likely would be a copyright violation, so I wouldn't recommend posting it here. Even then, the picture you're talking about might not be the perp, but the recording definitively shows "whoever is in the picture did it", so I'd rather keep the current picture. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has all his info and yes its from the news just like the one from recording .
That doesnt answer my question though though you cant post pictures here.
Thanks though 2601:188:C781:2040:D532:CD7A:3A57:352C (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is: it might have more information, but don't post it as it might be a copyright violation. Also, the current picture came from the police department, not the local news. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where can i post a picture of the suspect where is more clearer there is on of his face clear approved by local news channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nildapriccan (talk • contribs) 11:36, October 26, 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new picture, the existing one serves its purpose fine. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The goal isn't to show the suspect's face, it is the illustrate the shooting and show what happened. The current picture says more than a closeup of his face in my opinion. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He isnt a suspect he is a person of interest and i beg to differ as a person who lives two hours from there and grew up in New England , the original picture does the the second one no justice . He hasnt been caught and three towns are in lockdown. 2601:188:C781:2040:D532:CD7A:3A57:352C (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The current picture illustrates the action, the event. A headshot just shows the perpetrator, who per BLP should not be the focus Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Consensus of RfC was to add name 22:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The POI has been formally raised to suspect. As far as not naming him is concerned, yes, law enforcement knows that incorrectly naming people in criminal investigations causes great harm to them, but in the unlikely event that it does happen (not what I think happened here), especially for a high-profile case like this, the damage is already done, and we are not in a position to mitigate it. Unless somebody has evidence of police misconduct, possible political motivations, or something similar, there is no reason not to name him. BLP says “strongly consider”, not “do not”. Esszet (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite him being named a suspect, it's generally the Wikipedia-wide consensus that we don't name the supposed perp until after a conviction. Unless somehow the perp can be considered a public figure, we should not name him. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? See here and here for two mass shooters who were named pre-conviction. Esszet (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true regarding conviction, as WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are different things. Rather, after the person is charged or indicted and is "widely disseminated" then that opens up the possibility of naming the person. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can wait for an arrest. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we wouldn't be following Wikipedia:BLPCRIME to a tee, I would definitely prefer we wait for an arrest than give the name right now. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suspect is clearly eluding justice. There is a warrant out for his arrest. If he was so concerned about defending his legal reputation, he would have turned himself in and answered to the charges. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have issues with the policy bring it up elsewhere PyropePe (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is an arrest warrant for the person, that opens it up more for posting the name, as we saw with Brian Laundrie and the killing of Gabby Petito. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Gabby Petito comparison is that there was reasonable suspicion that it was her fiance, as he was the last person who saw her. Here, however, it could still be a chance of a mistaken identity, a small chance, but high enough to merit exclusion in my opinion. Luigi7255 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, as it was a case of familiar crime. A better one to examine might be 2022 University of Idaho killings, where the Wikipedia article included the name of the individual at multiple stages throughout the investigation. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason, I would take a look at WP:SUSPECT. Living people are presumed innocent. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying somebody as a suspect does not violate the presumption of innocence. Esszet (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is in the off chance the suspect didn't do it, there are serious implications for the innocent individual. I'm not saying that it is at all likely in this case, but if we adhere to policy, it is still too early to name. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, policy allows it, it’s what usually happens (I think?), and as I said before, the horse is already out of the barn, we can’t mitigate it now. Not naming him here accomplishes nothing at all. Esszet (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming him also doesn't really accomplish much. There still will be way more holdouts presuming innocence if we give the name now rather than later. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Very few people would genuinely presume innocence here, that’s an extremely idealistic way to look at it. I don’t know what you’re all trying to prove, but that dimply isn’t the way the world works. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution against assuming that your world view is representative of the majority. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the news and tell me I’m wrong. Esszet (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a productive/constructive comment? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm assuming you didn't read the link I provided. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. I don't see how that isn't exactly what is being stated to avoid. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I have to assume you didn’t read my initial comment: “BLP says “strongly consider”, not “do not”.” I’m not sure exactly what it means, the perpetrator has engaged in high-profile activity (see WP:LPI), so it doesn’t apply anyway. Esszet (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High-profile activity =/= merit to bypass the "seriously consider" portion of BLPCRIME. If that was the case, we'd be naming suspects of the murders of high-profile people before they were even arrested. Luigi7255 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, naming individuals in Wikipedia articles before they are arrested does happen, though not always. Also, using the term "bypass" is not a fair characterization in the context of the guideline that says to "seriously consider" something. It is not an iron clad rule. It is intentionally a term of art and relies on the judgment of the editor. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is merit to bypass, it specifically says it’s for non-public figures. Esszet (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to all living persons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that part though. Esszet (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that part does not apply? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that? To be completely clear: that provision applies to non-public figures only. Esszet (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"not that part though" and "that provision applies to non-public figures only" - you just said that part of BLP doesn't apply. Where does BLP make such an exception???? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m assuming you have not read the policy, the exact quote is: “For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” It does not apply here. If you would like to keep Wikilawyering, go right ahead, but you can’t get around that. Esszet (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not only around the debate with BLPCRIME, but if the shooter can be classified as a public figure, and from what it looks like (according to BLPPUBLIC and the corresponding essay) he doesn't necessarily qualify. He hasn't made himself known through his name (only a suspect's name, not necessarily the perp's, being revealed hours ago) and he hasn't made his name public through any other means (i.e. through RS prior to the shooting). Luigi7255 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to clarify, I'm not opposed to inclusion of the name until conviction, I'm only opposed until the suspect is arrested; for now, we should just wait until the suspect is detained before we include the name. Luigi7255 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has been named as a suspect and an arrest warrant has been issued for eight counts of murder. This is widely reported and extremely well sourced. In my view, tt seems kind of silly to argue not to include his name, but yet its okay that we have included an image of the guy identifying him as the suspect?? As long as we stick to what the sources say, and use attribution where necessary, there is no BLP violation in including his name. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is very general guidance and is simply pointing out that, generically, an editor "seriously consider not including material." In the case of articles specifically about shootings and killings, context does indeed matter and it is not unusual at all for us to include the names of individuals arrested or charged, well before any "conviction" happens if it is widely published in reliable sources and we cover it responsibly. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely silly -- I can think of no better adjective than that -- not to name the suspect when he and his life are now a primary focus of mainstream news coverage, but I've given up trying to argue the logic of such things on Wikipedia. I'll just say that Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality, not create its own bubble of omissions. Moncrief (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our references literally name (BLP violation removed). His name is all over the media. This is a fast-paced story and I am not sure how it is libellous to simply cite the facts as they are stated ((BLP violation removed) has an arrest warrant out, he is formally a suspect and subject to a massive manhunt). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of not naming him, in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME should we also not be posting his medical information? PyropePe (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Name of place of first incident

The Wall Street Journal reports that the name of the bowling alley is Just-In-Time Recreation, formerly known as Sparetime:

"The first shooting took place just before 7 p.m. at Just-In-Time Recreation—the bowling alley formerly known as Sparetime, according to Maine State Police Col. William Ross. Twelve minutes later, 911 calls started pouring in from a shooting at the restaurant, Schemengees."

The quote here also specifies that the second incident happened about 12 minutes later. — VintageNebula 🌌🔭 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in other counties closed

My cousin in a neighboring county to Androscoggin County has no school today and tomorrow. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting information

Some sources are reporting that 22 people were killed, but others are reporting that the death toll is 18. All of those sources are major news outlets and seem fairly reliable. What should we do in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are going with the sources that are reporting what the Maine State Police and Governor said in their news conference. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a discrepancy, we can use FOOTNOTES when necessary to note the issue while keeping things simple. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote about the original death toll. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PIC of Suspect

Why the prohibition on not naming him as a 'suspect' or 'assailant' (what's the difference, if any?), if you are going to already publish the pic of him? Inconsistent, or illogical, to say the least! If you can't publish his name, then you shouldn't be allowed to publish his pic. This illogic is what makes editors so upset with Wiki with their illogical rules: you can publish THIS, but you can't publish THAT, although the two are just different ways of naming him. Get rid of the pic of him, if you can't add his name, or let the name be allowed under 'suspect' (labeled that way in his pic), or add some other line, as 'accused' for the temporary case (?) between beginning accusation and later arrest (or death), if that latter event occurs. Otherwise, the THIS [pic] vs. THAT [name] for the same thing with only THIS allowed is plainly one-side of the two-sided coin, although exactly the same. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUSPECT, as mentioned several times above. Seasider53 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the question remains, why are we including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime. A photograph/image of the WP:SUSPECT is clearly material. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough support to take it down, then sure it can be removed for now. As far as I understood the reasoning, an image does not immediately connect the person to the crime as the person is not well known, but I could be mistaken. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And done for now. Pinging Di (they-them) and Manchesterunited1234 for input due to editing/uploading the image in question. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: I believe that the image of the suspect is not clearly identifiable, it is a low resolution image of a security camera feed with his face partially obscured. In my opinion, there's no BLP concern. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): I will agree with that assessment. With everything resolved, I will personally say that I feel that the image and name issues are separate issues, especially with law enforcement putting out a CCTV image to help identify Card to the public. In any case, thank you for your work and for your response. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the man's name is literally spelled out several times right in this article's reference section (sources 29, 37-39) - and three of those titles explicitly mention he's the suspect. Should those be taken down/modified? 73.168.37.85 (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at BLPN has been that we avoid sources with the suspect name in the headline where possible, but not if it's the only source available. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my point of having the pic there in the first place. If you have him already labeled as the 'suspect' in his pic's caption, than why not junk that prohibition on putting his name to the pic of him, when he IS the suspect, befitting that line as many reliable sources have named him already? It makes NO logical sense, at all! I agree with Isaidnoway and 73.168.37.85 points that again make Wiki a mess of THIS but not THAT as I outlined originally. Either go the whole consistent route as 'suspect': pic and name, or no pic and no name! Otherwise, another Wiki contradiction in BLP, making editors try to figure out what is ok, and what isn't. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever started talking to someone, thinking it was someone you know, only to realize that it wasn't? Different people can look very similar and have no relation i.e. Doppelgänger. The problem of ID is largely affected by the resolution as well. That's how I see it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly and bordering on WP:POINTy. No sane reading of WP:BLPCRIME prohibits blurry photographs of a notable event from being used on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Thought since we have had a discussion, the editors must seriously consider not including material clause is fulfilled, so there should be no further objections. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. If we're not comfortable repeating the shooter's name that RSes provide, then we shouldn't be putting an identifying-quality photo of a suspect or a person of interest. It's just difficult to care because a) he likely did it and b) even if he did not, his face and likeness have gone around the world already, Wikipedia showing it or not makes no material difference if it turns out that he didn't do it.
But for the sake of consistency, if we give suspects presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt until charges are filed, then we shouldn't be showing his face as the lead image. Maybe there is a compromise here to blur his face, so that we can still benefit from having a visual aspect, without identifying a person for a serious crime with no charges being filed? Melmann 04:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the image isn't very useful for identifying him because it is low resolution and his face is partially obscured, however I have no qualms with blurring his face further if that's what we decide is appropriate. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "identifying-quality photo". Police identified the suspect through his vehicle registration, not the blurry security camera footage. All the footage did was show that it was plausibly the same person. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King's reaction

I know we normally don't quote a state's foremost author. But when the state and the author are as intertwined as these two, an exception might be made. Just putting it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and additionally, Patrick Dempsey, who is from Lewiston, also released a statement. He also opened the Dempsey Center in Lewiston. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are fine to add, in my opinion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of celebrity reactions. That's a slippery slope with no real upside in terms of adding to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, me neither. In this case, though, we have a crime/horror/Maine writer who writes about this horrific crime in Maine and happens to be a celebrity. It'd be like if an actor (say, Patrick Dempsey) portrayed one of the characters we write about here in a television miniseries (or similar work of fiction). Less "thoughts and prayers", more "direct consequence". Not as "significant" as if a full novel came out of this mess, or if a locally famous government figure straight-up banned the problem here, but clearly relevant. Clear relevance is a fairly solid barrier against these oft-maligned and rightly feared slippery slope situations, I find. For now, Dempsey's birth and institution to prevent preventable death in this town make his immediate response relevant enough (if relatively less textually substantial). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I see King has expounded on this. Still no novel, or even new novella, but "bigger" than a tweet. Or whatever tweets are called these days. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainer here. Stephen King is a highly prominent Mainer and has been very public about his views on firearms. I can see adding his reaction here or at least in the article about him. Dempsey is less prominent but a Lewiston native so his reaction seems relevant too. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
honestly, what a celebrity has to say about a mass shooting has no encyclopedic relevance IMO. Also as the other user pointed out, adding celebrity opinions is a slippery slope and the section will likely balloon only to get nuked by an editor who thought it grew out of hand in the future. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Naming the suspect

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.
Clear consensus in favor of naming the suspect, per WP:WELLKNOWN, etc. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the suspect be named in this article now that there is an arrest warrant with murder charges out for him? Corgi Stays (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - We've got four or five different talk page discussions going on about this matter, so I created this RfC to set the record straight and put it up for an official consensus vote. Corgi Stays (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTVOTE - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The suspect has been named in several publications. The subject in question here has lost anonymity and is thoroughly connected with these shootings, but has not lost the presumption of innocence. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but not because there's an arrest warrant, because the public figure threshold exception to WP:SUSPECT has been met. Also, as a practical matter, if the named person's identity had been mistaken, there's been sufficient time and opportunity for him to come forward and say so. Sandizer (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per WP:BLPCRIME/SUSPECT - A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Not convicted, nor even arrested. Not a public figure under LPI. Naming the person can imply that they are the culprit and are guilty of a crime. Per NOTPUBLICFIGURE, Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care [...] which is what we should be doing to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per widely reported in reliable sources. We can use in text attribution - (his name) was identified by law-enforcement as a suspect, and an arrest warrant was issued for him, citing eight counts of murder. He is now WP:WELLKNOWN, because of this event, and we have a multitude of reliable published sources, and this allegation and/or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and very well documented. It's hard to argue that he is still relatively unknown at this point, when he has been identified by law-enforcement, is the subject of a manhunt, and numerous high-quality sources are reporting on this. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The individual has been named in global media(like BBC) so he meets WP:WELLKNOWN. We can include a specific statement (as the media often does) that an arrest warrant is not a determination of guilt. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as widely reported, an arrest warrant (that alone should end the prohibition on his name not publicized), regardless of whether he is subsequently tried (maybe he dies before--then what does Wiki do), and convicted or not, and his conviction could be over-turned on appeal. What does Wiki do then, wipe out all the detail on him associated with the crime? There SHOULD be some type of line not yet listed, where an ACCUSED (how about an 'accused' line?) could be added for those merely accused, with it updated to 'assailant' as listed there now? SOME type of compromise MUST be done to stop this constant bickering every time someone who is not a well-known person is ACCUSED of some heinous crime! Otherwise, Wiki editors are doomed to repeat this discussion talk (and pic of him published or not) again, and again and again, ad infinitum! MondayMonday1966 (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, most reputible sources talking about the shooting are using the name and law enforcement has named him as a suspect and has issued an arrest warrant. While I understand the concern that one is presumed inncocent until proven guilty, adding this line alleviates any assumptions of guilt while still providing information (the name of the suspect) and adds to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The omission of his name here when he is a wanted suspect, discussed and described in minute detail by multiple reliable sources, is a very narrow reading of WP:SUSPECT. This guideline says we "must seriously consider not including material...that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime..." The threshold has been met; we've seriously considered not including his name, but at this point -- when the manhunt for one specific person is very much part of the event -- it is unsupportable to continue to censor his name. Avoiding the suspect's name is also inconsistent with articles on other high-profile but not-yet-adjudicated US murder cases, such as 2022 University of Idaho killings. Care should certainly be taken, as is standard Wikipedia procedure, to neutrally describe the manhunt/arrest warrant for him without "suggesting he has committed the crime." But avoiding using his name full stop at this point is frankly absurd. Moncrief (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The suspect is now WP:WELLKNOWN (though not under WP:LPI, which I misread), and there is nothing we can do to protect the innocent at this point. Wikipedia is not a news source, and the number of people who rely on us as their primary, let alone sole source of news is extremely small. In the absence of exculpatory evidence (to use the legal term), we’re going on a moral crusade for nothing. And I mean nothing. Esszet (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Multiple reliable sources described the subject in detail. The article should of course be written from a neutral perspective, but it is common sense to include his name if it is described in reliable sources. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport: Suspect is well known. Attempting to keep their name private is futile, as their name is currently being blasted all over the news and is already present in the article's reference section. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:BLPCRIME does not contain any prohibition whatsoever on naming the suspect, it just says that editors should consider not doing it. At this point, where the suspect has been charged with the crime, and his name has been plastered across the headlines of every newspaper in the country, it's hard to consider the omission to be anything other than virtue signaling. Of course we should be careful not to accuse him in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "State Police said that they have issued arrest warrants for murder for ██████ ████.") --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, Support, as I see way more articles naming him than not naming him. Though, like everyone else here says, we need to be very careful to not accuse him of the crime in Wikivoice. Luigi7255 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if there were any recent media reports that aren't naming him. Moncrief (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Luigi7255, Fuzheado, LegalSmeagolian, Yanping Nora Soong, ClydeFranklin, Acroterion, and Marmorda: they were in previous discussions - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never got your ping, so pinging them again in case they didn't either: @Luigi7255, Fuzheado, LegalSmeagolian, Yanping Nora Soong, Acroterion, and Marmorda: sorry if this double-pings you. Clyde [trout needed] 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Named in multiple reliable sources. WP:SUSPECT encourages strongly considering not including content that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.; it doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Clyde [trout needed] 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The original reticence to name the suspect is understandable and justifiable, but we are now far beyond that stage. This is now a ridiculous failure to interpret BLP properly. His name should be added. BLP is now satisfied. We can, using attribution, framing, quotes, and myriad RS add his name. We should make it clear that he is the suspect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is now a ridiculous failure to interpret BLP properly."
    I disagree, it's a success in following consensus, which was established early on. Consensus now appears to be changing, and this RfC formalizes it, but one single person should not be allowed to deviate from the establishment. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the subject's name is very widely reported across all new sites and is WP:WELLKNOWN. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, would also support a quick close to this RFC as it seems over the top to do an RFC for something that isn't even prescribed by WP:BLPCRIME, just suggested. If no one else does it sooner, I'll request a closure in 48 hours. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I'm hoping we won't have to wait that long for this to close. Having this in limbo is really hindering the ability to keep this article relevant and current. Moncrief (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Having this in limbo is really hindering the ability to keep this article relevant and current."
No editors have followed the convention of avoiding articles that name names already, so the amount of work to my understanding is just replacing the suspect's name with the word suspect. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would say this would be a good WP:SNOW close. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Because the suspect is now well known by global media, and so not mentioning his name would be redundant to protecting reputation. We can clarify that he is not legally guilty. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my whatever) - 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The suspect has been named everywhere in the media and from police sources, yet Wikipedia censor his name. They even found a suicide note in guys house. 86.6.163.32 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is because WP:DENY. He won’t be mentioned by name because that is apparently the motive of the attack, despite basically every reliable source mentioning him as the accused. 2605:8D80:407:37F9:50EC:53DB:4928:5437 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY is an essay specifically about on-wiki behavior. It is not a policy nor does it have anything to do with real-world events. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed above. Wikipedia has strict policies for writing about living people, see WP:BLPCRIME, and others which the community is evaluating. These policies protect you, too, in the event people write about you. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME is very specifically NOT strict. It doesn't contain any prescriptive language, just that editors should "consider" not naming names. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to refer to just BLP. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer a source that the note found was a suicide note, or withdraw the claim; CNN only says a note was found without specifying the contents. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per ABC, apparently a suicide note to the suspect's son. [3] ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Police are speculating that it might be a suicide note." (That's attribution and myriad RS can be appended to some variation of that sentence.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Have authorities in adjoining states and provinces been notified, and are they as well on the lookout for Mr. Card? - knoodelhed (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – Situation has concluded. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect dead

Confirmed suspect found dead in Lewiston recycling plant. 2603:800C:353C:F800:412B:3D4C:ED6:6842 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by another editor. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 01:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we don’t have to worry about BLP anymore. NM 05:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP still applies to the recently deceased. PyropePe (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean BLARDP NM 06:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Killed during shooting at Just-In-Time Recreational. 2601:282:4300:2B:0:0:0:D5 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a minor was killed doesn't mean this was a pedicide. The minor definitely wasn't the target of this (as far as we know anyway). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential motive?

is there any indication of what could have been going through the suspect's mind? Brookline Fire buff (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see with the article is quoting a single person from the neighborhood saying he was a gun fanatic and putting that here. The interviewee who said that used a memory of Card after a hunt covered in deer blood and smiling. Being happy with a successful hunt is not grounds to be considered in a negative light and I would argue it pushes the host approach of this page into a negative light. I don’t believe we should take one persons opinion and use it as fact. Card did retweet and recycle far right wing talking points but that is documented through his social media profiles. Not based off of one persons narrative that we can not confirm the bias of. 2603:800C:353C:F800:412B:3D4C:ED6:6842 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same person as above didn’t notice I wasn’t logged in. I also don’t think we should attribute it to a news source as it was a reiteration of another person’s opinion. Izmeizme (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And that everyone avoided him as said the article, is not true, according to another one, when one of his acquaintances spoke that he was a shy, very kind man- if we are taking opinions into facts, why don’t we write that as well? 74.78.87.9 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Wikipedia has worked for years to be a proper encyclopedia. Printing opinion or falsehoods ruins that reputation. Izmeizme (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He left behind a suicide note- I also read somewhere (though I don’t know if this is verified) that he was looking for his ex-girlfriend in the two places he shot people- presumably to kill her 74.78.87.9 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide details?

He was found dead in a recycling bin, next to the facility which he previously worked for. Just thought this might add a bit more detail 74.78.87.9 (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source please? PyropePe (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure the source. Somebody else told me it, and I don’t know where he saw it. I have seen it somewhere too, but I didn’t take notice of the source. Bear with me for a bit. 74.78.87.9 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the core policies of Wikipedia is WP:V meaning everything must be verifiable. Usually in fast moving situations like this any addition to the article requires a source. PyropePe (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the two men and one woman at the hospital?

InedibleHulk, where does it say that the three victims who died at the hospital were two men and one woman? Neither source provided mentions that fact anywhere. Corgi Stays (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list has two women on it. One died at the bowling alley, we note. Therefore, it's original research, but reasonably sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CALC. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also like this current version where no gender is explained and the names just imply what they do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Heroism

It has been described in media Joey Walker died charging the shooter with a knife. Should we include this information. I may be biased as I am from the Lewiston community and Joey Walker and Ron Morin were close family friends. Izmeizme (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a piece on fact checking. I had deleted the section on Card being a gun fanatic. The interview was recanted by the interviewee and they are being dragged on their Facebook for it. We can be better than this. Izmeizme (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer a source that states this. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joey walker hero Izmeizme (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That supports the first comment, but not what you deleted. Do you have a source regarding the recanting part?
(As an aside, here is a non-AMP link.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly he deleted the apology however a screenshot appear in this threadon his Facebook. Along with members of the community berating him for falsely painting the family in a poor light. Izmeizme (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also if we are going to include disparaging remarks we should also include every “He was really quiet” or he deeply cared for people” Izmeizme (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that technically is a source, I was referring to a reliable source in my prior reply. Regardless, this is a bit of a mess then. I guess we could make a decision not to cite article that deal with that interview, but that might need a concensus and the evidence that there is a problem is currently limited to a supposedly removed social media post with the only claimed remnant of it being a screenshot. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This interview with Cards neighbor is in direct opposition with everything stated by the previous interviewee. Izmeizme (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found dead(?)

I'm seeing that he was found dead in a dumpster at around 7:45pm est Friday? NaturalDisasterMaster (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear. The Guardian says: The location where Card was found with a self-administered gun shot wound, behind a dumpster, had been searched a day earlier. (Emphasis mine.) Presumably, this will be cleared up in the next press conference. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

Why not add a Misinformation section about the false reports of 22 dead and 50-60 injured? 174.67.226.163 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between initial reports being unreliable and deliberate or negligent misinformation. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberate is disinformation. 174.67.226.163 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you will, it is common with many events for initial reports to be unreliable. It's not "false" which suggests deliberate lying. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence of the early casualty figures being deliberately wrong. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's common for early media reports of the number of victims of mass casualty incidents to be very wrong. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spree shooting vs. mass shooting

@Stephen has twice removed the wording "spree shooting" claiming it is "unsourced". The sources all fairly well document that the shootings occurred at two different locations, which is, as far as I've seen, what we use to define a "spree" (multiple locations over a period of time) shooting vs. a "mass" shooting (one place, one time). @WWGB, @Jim 2 Michael, as regulars on event articles like this, can you offer any thoughts on this or guidance? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what the sources say. The vast majority are calling this a mass shooting. If there are sources labeling this as a spree shooting I haven't run across them so far. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated, the sources are 100% consistent in documenting shootings occurred at multiple locations. There is no synth here, this is more WP:CALC territory where the meaning of words appears to be lost on people... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is clearly a spree killing & spree shooting, consisting of two mass murders which were also mass shootings. Some RS describe it as a spree. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory sentence is written like a news report

The current introductory sentence is written like a news report, and it should be changed. This is the current introductory sentence:

On October 25, 2023, a gunman killed 18 people and injured 13 others at two locations in Lewiston, Maine, United States.[1]

The introductory sentence should be rewritten as per WP:NOTNEWS; here is what I believe the introductory sentence should be rewritten to:

The 2023 Lewiston shootings were two mass shootings that occurred on October 25, 2023, in which a gunman killed 18 people and injured 13 others at two locations in Lewiston, Maine, United States.[1] Cobblebricks (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b "Maine city deserted as residents hole up during hunt for killer". France 24. October 27, 2023. Retrieved October 28, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Lewiston_shootings&oldid=1182340894"