Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings

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)

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)

Oops, sorry! Marmorda (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed his name! Marmorda (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

I've yet to see any official statements or news reports, only twitter and facebook. Elijahr241 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Bangor Daily News claims a Maine Department of Public Safety spokesperson has confirmed the name. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait for a few more sources to add that info back. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the major news sources are reporting the same. SpaceTeapot (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Why can't anyone add the name for fucks sake? Baldur's Gate 3 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

'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)

A significant number of remaining revisions have a name in them, the oldest I can find being revision 1181926587. — Greentryst ^T_C 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Would person of interest be appropriate to add?LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Suspect has been identified by NYT, CNN, and NBC

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)

They have since been added. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

is there a source for this in more than one news outlet? Marmorda (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cut it out. See WP:OR and WP:BLP. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Not a Reliable Source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the clarification. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would say we are there at this point in time. Sandizer (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Same. Learning and growing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this, now that he has been named in quite a few RS. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, per Ad Orientem. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• The press and media are not governed by BLP. We are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • And BLP now is satisfied. We can, using attribution, framing, quotes, and myriad RS add his name. I agree with User:Locke Cole. This is getting beyond ridiculous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)}}

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)

Seems like that data was incorrect, 16 is the confirmed number right now. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s 18 dead confirmed 174.213.161.51 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Name

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)

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)

Is it? See here and here for two mass shooters who were named pre-conviction. Esszet (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

I think we can wait for an arrest. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you have issues with the policy bring it up elsewhere PyropePe (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Identifying somebody as a suspect does not violate the presumption of innocence. Esszet (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would caution against assuming that your world view is representative of the majority. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the news and tell me I’m wrong. Esszet (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

How is this a productive/constructive comment? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, it is merit to bypass, it specifically says it’s for non-public figures. Esszet (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP applies to all living persons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not that part though. Esszet (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that part does not apply? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

I've added a footnote about the original death toll. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

See WP:SUSPECT, as mentioned several times above. Seasider53 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Police identification is obviously going to be more thorough than a photo, that doesn't mean the public wouldn't recognize him. During today's press conference, the investigators revealed their first few tips actually came from Card's relatives, who called in after recognizing him from this photo.73.168.37.85 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

These are fine to add, in my opinion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  Also from Maine and I think that is the exact reason we don’t include King. His history of comments and disparaging remarks could be seen as inserting bias into the encyclopedic value of the article. Maine doesn’t produce many celebrities so we have no counterpoint to show a fair and balanced narrative between the 2. We need to think about not only the educational but also the optical reception of the record. Izmeizme (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  We don't need to provide a fair and balanced narrative as long as we are reporting on what reliable sources report on. If no other remarks have been made by a counterpoint then that is simply too bad for the opposition. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

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)

• 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)

  WP:NOTVOTE - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

I'd be surprised if there were any recent media reports that aren't naming him. Moncrief (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as arrest warrants have been issued. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support (invited by the bot) Of course, limit it to what is solidly widely published. No slip-ups, over abbreviations etc. that imply that he is more than a suspect. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds of WP:SUSPECT. I also don't believe that reporting on the suspect's name alone is enough to turn them into a "public figure." If the individual comes out on social media, in an interview, or releases some other form of confession or motive, that would change my mind; however, reporting on the name alone doesn't overcome any of the issues posed in SUSPECT. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  We always turn to reliable sources to determine if a person meets the threshold of being identified as a public figure, that threshold has overwhelmingly been met here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  "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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

"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)

Yeah I would say this would be a good WP:SNOW close. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, I meant to refer to just BLP. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Per ABC, apparently a suicide note to the suspect's son. [1] ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"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)

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.

Extent of alert and search

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)

Resolved

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

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)

 Already done by another editor. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 01:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least we don’t have to worry about BLP anymore. NM 05:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP still applies to the recently deceased. PyropePe (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean BLARDP NM 06:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Source please? PyropePe (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Forget my previous message- the sources are all quite different- I don’t know which is true or false. Sorry to be a bother. 74.78.87.9 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

See WP:CALC. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Please offer a source that states this. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Joey walker hero Izmeizme (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This interview with Cards neighbor is in direct opposition with everything stated by the previous interviewee. Izmeizme (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Another one said he killed himself in a tractor trailer 74.78.87.9 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Yep. The press conference on Saturday seems to have mentioned that and the article has been updated since. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

There is a difference between initial reports being unreliable and deliberate or negligent misinformation. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Deliberate is disinformation. 174.67.226.163 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

There's no evidence of the early casualty figures being deliberately wrong. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Can we add something for This interview as it is directly refuted by This interview and the original interviewee has since wiped social media or is this not covered under misinformation. The problem is I’ve seen many people parrot the initial interview across social media Izmeizme (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done – Both of the videos you reference are no longer around. Regardless, this would be original research, so we would need a WP:RS addressing it before considering to include it. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The videos are still online. It's just that the incorrect URLs were posted. [2] [3] Ixfd64 (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have added multiple sources that refer to the event as a shooting spree. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you WWGB. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

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. Cobblebricks (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The intro sentence you suggest is significantly longer, without adding more info. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The construction "<insert name> shootings were … shootings" is usually discouraged unless there is significant and consistent usage of a name in a large majority of reliable sources (eg. the Columbine High School massacre). Instead, the accepted style is that the lead will be descriptive of the event rather than try to elevate a particular label as official or common, which could be seen as WP:OR. In the future this may change as the usage becomes clearer, but oftentimes this is a result of a combination of factors, such as the uniqueness of the place of the tragedy. For example, the top two "deadliest" shootings in the U.S. have descriptive leads like this article currently has (2017 Las Vegas shooting and Orlando nightclub shooting) whereas others have bolded names (Virginia Tech shooting and Luby's shooting). While it is possible that this article may be renamed in the future, and the lead may be rewritten, we would have to wait.

The relevant policy pages is WP:MOSBOLDTITLE with elaboration at WP:BENOTBOLD:

"Wikipedia has articles about topics that don't necessarily have their own names... Trying to mimic other articles, editors will often try to fit such a title in the first sentence and bold it, leading to tautology... It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title."

- Fuzheado | Talk 04:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

References

When shooter died

Do we know with any certainty when the shooter killed himself? The body was found on October 27, but he may have killed himself on a different day.

I think it's fair to say at this point we don't yet know. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a note sayings that October 27th was the discovery date. Cwater1 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Victims' names

The victims' names add nothing of use to the 99% of readers who didn't know them. We should be selective regarding what we include. We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims. Those were repeatedly added to Robb Elementary School shooting, which included their hobbies, favorite foods & aspirations for the future. It's very inconsistent that names are included on many mass shooting articles, but rarely on articles about bombings. Even in regard to mass shootings, names are typically included if it happened in the US, but not if it happened in Mexico, Nigeria or Pakistan. No policy or guideline says to include victims' names. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this, Wikipedia editors are disproportionately American, so they are more likely to 1) know the names of American victims and 2) less likely to read Mexican/Nigerian/Pakistani media to learn the namesof such victims. We're only as good as our editors and what they decide to add.

A consistent policy would be helpful here. Columbine High School massacre lists victims. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I doubt (m)any of those who add victims' names to US shootings edit articles about shootings (or other mass casualty events) in other countries, which is the main reason that no-one wants victims' names on Bahawalpur church shooting or Salamanca nightclub shooting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

As you well know, it's standard procedure for articles like this to include the victims if there is reliable sourcing to do so. There doesn't need to be a prescription that we do so, we just need to follow our sources which invariably do. See also WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and this RFC closure. Regardless, please stop removing victims and being disruptive when you know that for 90% of our articles of similar events we name the victims. We'll be following WP:NPOV and or WP:RS here. Thank you very much. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not disruptive. Different discussions have reached different results, mostly due to who is in the discussion, which depends where the attack took place. Over 90% can only apply when the definition of similar events is limited to articles about US mass/spree shootings. It's very inconsistent that for most such events outside the US, victims' names aren't included. That's true even regarding those in other developed countries, including the Dunblane massacre, Erfurt school massacre, 2008 Akihabara massacre & 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is over there. And yes, it's textbook WP:TE to repeatedly edit against consensus like you have because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Again, we will follow WP:NPOV and what our WP:RS state, not what you like or dislike. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing the names once is far from tendentious. There's no consensus to include victims' names in this article. In many others there is; in many others there isn't. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus to include victims' names in this article. There's no consensus only if you refuse to acknowledge the results of the last RFC. That's tendentious. Editing against established consensus is tendentious. Point of view pushing is tendentious. You've had your chance to argue this, you lost, and now you're attempting to continue to re-litigate this again and again. That's tendentious. [C]onsensus has changed, as per the RFC closure. Move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to the RfC for this article where there is consensus to include the victim's names, because a RfC at another article does not apply to this article. And just for the record, I do not support including the victims names here. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

because a RfC at another article does not apply to this article It's linked above. I do not support including the victims names here I don't care. WP:NOTVOTE. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, that RfC does not apply to this article. Furthermore, editors can discuss here on this talk page about including the victims names in this article, and so far, I'm not seeing a clear cut consensus in this discussion to include them. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, that RfC does not apply to this article. You can say that as much as you want, but that's not what the closer said in that RFC. I see a clear consensus from the community involved in that RFC that victims are relevant to events such as this. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to start another RFC. So far, you and Jim are basing your opposition on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and nothing WP:PAG-based. We won't be flipping the table on WP:NPOV just because you don't think the victims matter but our sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the RfC from the other article does not directly or indirectly apply to this article. The closer noted pretty explicitly that there was not sufficient participation to change written policy, and that at best it was evidence that consensus might have changed. In absence of a project wide discussion at one of the village pumps, the current project wide conensus is best represented by the May/July 2018 RfC, that NOTMEMORIAL applies.

However, even if you wish to apply the close from the 2021 Oxford High School RfC, that close pretty clearly notes that Importantly, [the names] should not be as a bare list, and editors should take care to ensure that names are used in an encyclopedic way. That is not the case here, where the names of the deceased appear as two bare lists. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I would ask you to strike that last sentence. I did not say that, or imply that, and is an extremely gross mischaracterization of my comment, and I don't appreciate the insult one bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that we're saying that the victims are irrelevant & don't matter is clear strawmanning. You know that we're saying that the names aren't relevant to the article, which is very different. (Personal attack removed) Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not jumping into the content issue. I'm well-known for being anti-naming in years of prior discussions, but I'm now semi-retired and this is one of the things I try to avoid. I'm tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, ad nauseam. There have been multiple attempts to reach a community consensus on this issue, and the community has always said that we have to re-debate it at each article. I strongly disagree, but so be it. A consensus at one article or even many articles has no bearing on this article.

If "Oppose per years of prior arguments" would count for anything, I'd do that. I doubt it would; whether it should is debatable.

That said, I will chime in as to process. The names should be removed pending consensus to include them. That should go without saying. We once had a situation where the names were allowed to remain in the article for over a month while discussion was underway, and the closer said that represented a de facto consensus! That should not be allowed to happen again. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So as I see it, there's three interrelated policy reasons for why the current form of the victim list is an issue. NOTEVERYTHING, NOTTRIVIA, and NOTMEMORIAL.

Presently the victims appear in two unformatted lists, grouped by the location where they died. Aside from the location and their names, the only other information we provide is their respective ages. When looking at this dispassionately, this is pure trivia. It doesn't tell us anything about how they died, whether they were targeted by the shooter, or died protecting others who were present, or whether it was pure random happenstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Accordingly there's no encyclopaedic content there, and this is I'm afraid akin to a memorial section.

Per ONUS, I'll be removing the victim list as there is no clear consensus for inclusion. Note I'm not opposed in principle to including the names of the victims in some other form, if they can be included in a way that satisfies the policies I've linked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL doesn’t apply. It is not a standalone article. I would argue the victims of an internationally reported event fall under the Notability Standards. I may be called biased as I knew 2 of the victims but I think it falls under painting a clean picture of the event. Especially with the current layout only listing an age range and that not necessarily being sufficient in the future if this is sourced. Saying an age range could be 12 14 year olds which could cause assumption of the reader to dictate the truth of no other research is done. A proper list allows for a better representation of the facts and context of the event. Izmeizme (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I am very confused why you think NOTMEMORIAL would apply. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this isn't a standalone article. Per NOTMEMORIAL: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. That's mainly it. This is an article about the shooting, not an article about the victims. Trying to claim that naming the victims makes it a "memorial section" is baffling and implying that NOTMEMORIAL would somehow apply doesn't make sense. NOTMEMORIAL is useful for AFD, but not for censoring the names of victims. Please see WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to Locke Cole's NOTNOTMEMORIAL essay, I believe the WP:VL essay is far more representative of the current project wide community consensus on this point, and certainly more in keeping with policy and guideline interpretations. VL has certainly been linked to in more article dicsussions than NOTNOTMEMORIAL.

As I mentioned above, the current project wide consensus is still the May/June 2018 on victim lists in mass tragedy articles. That RfC found no consensus for a change to NOTMEMORIAL to allow for victim lists in a bare list format to be added to articles. This is reinforced by the close of the December 2021 RfC on the 2021 Oxford High School shooting, which said that despite the RfC being a strong indiciator that consensus had changed, there was not sufficient participation to change written policy. That RfC closed with a recommendation a further wider discussion on the form of NOTMEMORIAL should take place, though to date it has not. As such, the long standing interpretation from 2018 still holds consensus, and that will continue to be the case until a discussion/RfC is held at one of the village pumps or the talk page for WP:NOT that is closed with a consensus to change the text and interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL.

Also please don't misconstrue my opinion here as advocating for censoring the names of the victims. I've already said I have no objection to including the names of the deceased, if it can be done in a way that is complaint with the policy points I have mentioned. The easiest way for this to be done would be to turn the list into prose, and include details about how and why those victims died. Were they targetted by the shooter? Did they die trying to protect or shield others? Or were they just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Simply listing the names in the form Location Name: Victim name, victim age, that I removed pending a conensus for inclusion, does not encyclopaedic content make. Alternatively editors could seek to change the text of NOTMEMORIAL either at WP:VPP or WT:NOT to allow for bare victim lists to appear in articles. Though I would be inclined to oppose such changes to the policy, if there was consensus for it to be changed in a manner that allows a list such as the one I removed yesterday, I would naturally follow it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th:There is no project-wide consensus or caveat not to include victim names in list form. In fact, that is done in most articles where there is consensus to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

VL has certainly been linked to in more article dicsussions than NOTNOTMEMORIAL. - Yes, I would agree that an essay from 15 years ago would have more links to it than an essay from just over a year ago. It still falsely claims that NOTMEMORIAL applies to sections within an article. (Presumably, this is because the wording of NOTMEMORIAL used to be Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.)

That RfC found no consensus for a change to NOTMEMORIAL to allow for victim lists in a bare list format to be added to articles. I believe you are misunderstanding that RfC then. The RfC closed as Consensus does not exist for any change to WP:NOTMEMORIAL at this time with no automatic rejection or approval. Therefore, the wording of NOTMEMORIAL is the same as it was and applies only to standalone articles. Neither the 2018 nor the 2021 RfC changed the wording. It was not expanded nor condensed and is being misapplied again.

I agree that it should be written in prose if possible. But again, the rest implies that NOTMEMORIAL applies to sections when it does not. To me, it feels like we are trying to suppress the victims names with some objection to their inclusion. Only those that are not victims can be named in the article. (Yes, I know NNC exists. I am not implying that we only leave the shooter's name in the article. It is just frustrating that we can name anyone tied to the article that isn't a victim, but naming a victim automatically makes it a memorial regardless of content. That's how it feels to me.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing an active attempt to suppress victim's names here. A list without context to the event doesn't seem to merit inclusion, but if, as discusssed above, there are RSs discussing relevant noteworthy actions of victims, that would be worthy of inclusion. Crescent77 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

First comment in this discussion: The victims' names add nothing of use to the 99% of readers who didn't know them. We should be selective regarding what we include. We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims. [...] Even in regard to mass shootings, names are typically included if it happened in the US, but not if it happened in Mexico, Nigeria or Pakistan. No policy or guideline says to include victims' names.

The main problem with that is that the proposer is complaining that content was added that they felt did not belong on the article and was later removed. Despite being removed, the proposer does not want the victims listed to prevent any detail from appearing in the article that is not tied to the event, based on the "We don't want to go down the slippery slope towards having mini-bios of victims" part of their comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's quite the stretch to suggest that the statements "add nothing of use" and "don't want...mini-bios" is a suppression of names.

The question here is whether or not the inclusion of names adds any encyclopedic value. Crescent77 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, is this about my line above that says To me, it feels like we are trying to suppress the victims names with some objection to their inclusion? If so, the "To me" part implies it is my opinion.

In any case, this whole discussion has been about including or excluding the names. I mentioned below my thoughts on the encyclopedic part as I believe that exclusion means that the section is not fully comprehensive and that the section itself barely summarizes anything. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, my point is I just don't see how a summary would need include a full list of names. To me, that seems to go directly against what a summary is. Crescent77 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's flip this for a second: why do we name the shooter and various other people who weren't directly involved in this event? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You think we should not name the shooter? Crescent77 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW I have long been opposed to listing the names of non-notable victims of major tragedies in articles in all but the very rarest cases. The appropriate way to handle the subject is to include a link in the external links section to a list of the victims, possibly a tasteful online memorial site. I have had this battle more times than I can count and usually have ended up losing. The experience is about as pleasant or productive as pissing into the wind. There is a lot of emotion surrounding these events and telling people we should not be listing the names of victims has provoked some very testy responses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Restore They are the reason this death-based article exists and are mentioned in the first sentence. Reliable sources agree their identities are pertinent, hence the loads of independent secondary coverage. The governor has requested we read about them. NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. It never has, unlike NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Restore: Reflecting on past discussion, I believe that the names of the victims belong on this article in some form, preferably in prose where possible. We should mention the actions of the victims in prose where it is known. Regarding the cited policies opposing naming the victims, NOTMEMORIAL has been repeatedly miscited and misapplied, both here and in other articles, to the point that WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL exists to explain NOTMEMORIAL. This is not a standalone article on the victims, but an article about the overall shootings. This is not an article where we are honoring the deceased and celebrating their lives, but an article about a terrible event and the details of it. The victims are tied to this article due to being harmed during this event. It does not make sense why everyone major and minor is named in the article with the exception of the victims. NOTEVERYTHING should not apply. Above, it is linked to the words "encyclopaedic content," which is interesting as the definition of encyclopaedic is that it is comprehensive. Keeping the names out of the article is the opposite of comprehensive as it is intentionally excluding details and making the article incomplete. To go further, NOTEVERYTHING says that an article should be a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The victim section is barely a summary at all. It covers those injured and those killed, where the victims died, a characteristic some of the victims shared, the ages of the victims, and when they were identified by. In contrast, the sub-section above it (Manhunt) summarizes the following: finding the abandoned car, federal assistance provided, number of victims verified, arrest warrant issued, charges against the suspect, the search warrant, the dive teams searching, means of escape unknown, shelter order revoked, hunting restriction implemented, body found, location of body, general location had been searched prior, cause of death, and the hunting restrictions being revoked. NOTTRIVIA also should not apply. I don't see how the the victims can be considered to be 'of little value' based on the definition of the word trivia. Regarding the link, NOTTRIVIA just goes to the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section of the What Wikipedia is not policy. The section says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. This seems to be misapplied here. This discussion has been about content, not data. To go through most of the list at NOTTRIVIA: This isn't about a creative work, but a mass shooting; this isn't about a song, but a mass shooting; this isn't about software updates, but a mass shooting. For the only uncovered part, the isn't anywhere close to being "unexplained statistics" and does not apply. It doesn't even get covered as unexplained as it was clear enough that these are the names of the victims. There are no policy issues with listing the names of the victims. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Card is the cause & focus of this shooting spree; the victims aren't. If it's known that any of the victims played an active role in trying to prevent it, that could be important enough to include. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Card shot the victims intentionally. They are part of the focus when we mentioned how many died, among other details. It has been suggested in sources that victims attempted to end the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Those RSs may merit the inclusion of Walker, with proper attribution to his father as the source. Crescent77 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Restore: Super Goku V makes a detailed and compelling argument. Though the subject of the shooting is Card, the victims (by no choice of their own) became part of the narrative. They were going about their lives when their lives were taken. How and when they died is important and part of narrative that is important to the article. The names should not be used gratuitously but only as part of the narrative to explain what happened and the sequence of events. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. As discussed repeatedly, I find the justifications for how the victims names pass the notability test lacking. Crescent77 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  What notability test? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, that was more of a general offhand use of the term "notability" on my part, the technical WP terminology, as discusssed above, would be WP:DUEWEIGHT/NPOV/NOT/NOTEVERYTHING. Crescent77 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  You can't have a summary of an event like this and leave out the people without which the event wouldn't have been notable. If he'd gone into an empty room and shot holes in the wall, this article would not exist. As far as policy goes, WP:NPOV demands we include the victims (because our reliable sources do, often in significantly more detail than we do). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This would've been just as notable if the victims had been different non-notable people. The notability of this killing spree is due to the number of people who were killed & injured, not who they were. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet it was these specific people who died, not other people. And why should we supplant the judgement of our sources with your judgement when it comes to just doing the most basic thing: naming them? And this is of course ignoring the elephant in the room: WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, these people are integral to this incident, without their deaths this event would not even merit an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the people are essential to the incident, their names are not. You're edging into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Crescent77 (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where a consensus has been achieved yet. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus that "these people are integral to this incident". Locke Cole keeps strawmanning that into the issue of naming them. I'm pretty sure you get the distinction : We all agree that "without their deaths this event would not even merit an article", what's under discussion is whether the names merit inclusion in the article. Crescent77 (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to "leave out the people" as they are essential to the notability of the event; their names are not. Crescent77 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

their names are not Why? And why when our sources so clearly think they are essential? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would they be? That onus is on you. Where do the sources indicate it is essential information? Crescent77 (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That onus is on you. No. The vast majority of our sources clearly think the names matter. The onus is on you to explain how omitting them is not a violation of WP:DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as policy goes, WP:NPOV demands we include the victims (because our reliable sources do, often in significantly more detail than we do) With regards to the sources, I'm not sure that's entirely correct. There are 87 sources in the current version of the article, though some are duplicates. Of those citations, only six (citations 10, 34, 36, 41, 42, and 45) mention the name of all of the victims. Of those six, only citations 41 and 42 have details on the victims beyond their name and ages. Additionally there are five other citations (9, 18, 35, 40, 60) that mention at least one of the victims (but less than all) along with details about them.

The assertion that reliable sources include the victim names often is significantly more detail than we do does not appear to be supported by the sources used in the current version of the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking above, no one seems to have used DUEWEIGHT until now. NPOV is being used only in support of including the names and not in opposition. NOT isn't really a policy to cite as it is more of a container policy discussing the various things Wikipedia is not, and regardless, seems only to be used to say that NOTMEMORIAL needs to be modified first. NOTEVERYTHING has been used above, though I have posted a comment disputing that NOTEVERYTHING applies. I would recommend you review the policies you mentioned and explaining how they would apply to satisfy VAGUEWAVE. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is part of NPOV, it's the same page, linked repeatedly above. WP:NOTEVERYTHING (which is also on the same page as NOT) directly addresses "Appropriate weight" which directly links to DUEWEIGHT/NPOV. That's all a central concept of WP. I would recommend you review those policies to better understand how they work together.

More to the point at hand, your wall of text doesn't explain why a summary would need to include names. Crescent77 (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Restore, of course. For all the reasons set out at WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and WP:CASL, not to mention the prior RFC that had been advertised in various community noticeboards and was closed with a decision that "consensus has changed". It strains logic to think we can write a summary-style article about an event like this and leave out half of what made the event notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove - I am always against these lists as they add little content to the article. If anything, write out the names in a sentence. Details on their age, jobs, favorite colors, beer preferences, and dental hygiene are all fluff the media puts out to increase clicks (revenue) by exploiting people's emotions and morbid curiosity. 98% of the time it's not remotely notable in the long-term. Yes, I am being a callous jerk, but I would never expect to see lists of victims names in my old World Book Encyclopedia and I don't expect to see it on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, much of the media - including some RS - love to sensationalize things to gain more sales &/or pageviews. Not everything they report about notable events is notable or encyclopedic. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In what way are the people whose death made this event notable unencyclopedic? As to notability, that concept has zero influence on whether or not we include information in already notable articles, see WP:NOTEWORTHY. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That there was 18 killed, and 13 injured is certainly noteworthy. Those figures in summary are consistently mentioned throughout reliable sources discussing this shooting. However the names, ages, and other details about the victims seem to be mentioned only by a minority of sources. As such, and as much as I regret saying so, including them would be to give undue weight to something that reliable sources do not seem to be discussing.

That being said, there are, as mentioned by other editors, a couple of names within the victim list that have had some attention drawn to them by reliable sources. Those individuals, whether it's due to their background within the community or actions on the day, may be due for inclusion in summary form here. But the list as a whole does not seem due for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, your old World Book Encyclopedia is not exactly the standard Wikipedia is trying to obtain. Even though RS may try to sensationalize news, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Being that this was the largest mass shooting in the United States in 2023, each victim matters and should be appropriated cited to in the article. The details you included are not necessary, but who they were and where they were killed are important and should be in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The article already covers who they were (relevant to the event in question) and where they were killed. Crescent77 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Restore, per Locke Cole and Super Goku V. Esb5415 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. As the victims are not notable individuals, their names are not encyclopaedically relevant to the event itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTEWORTHY, but notability is not a concern here. WP:RELEVANCE is. The victims are central to this event (with the perpetrator). Omitting all details of them whatsoever is an easy WP:NPOV violation, and as this article stands, it is not neutral. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Once again, you're strawmanning. "All details of them whatsoever" were not omitted. There are a few details in the article; feel free to add more, if they are relevant.

  What folks are trying to avoid here is a list of names without context, which has all the appearances of a memorial. While that may be an admirable motive, it doesn't justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Crescent77 (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator's behavior on social media worth mentioning?

The following passage has been added and removed multiple times from the perpetrator section:

"Card had used Twitter to like and retweet far-right extremist views, including transphobic views by right-wing figures like Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr., as well as Twitter's owner Elon Musk."

Some of the users removing it are accusing the passage of betraying political bias but it's clearly sufficiently notable behavior to have been mentioned by several media outlets. Can we have a conversation instead of endlessly edit warring, homies? Cheers. Tdmurlock (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that his activity on Twitter is connected to his killing spree? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He liked many posts on Twitter that advocated against gun control and posts which falsely claim that most shooters are non-binary or trans.

He also replied to a CNBC tweet about Brittney Griner being released from Russian custody with "Mass murderer for a wnba player great job keep up the good work" (the irony). Cobblebricks (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously "mass murderer" in this context refers to Viktor Bout. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. None of the sources are of good enough quality to use for such controversial claims. E.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements". StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Here is a Newsweek article. I added this info to the main article without checking this thread, but I think it should be included due to it being provided by a reliable source and giving a better picture of the state of mind/beliefs of the perp. Happy to discuss more. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Content has been disputed and there is no clear consensus to add this. See WP:ONUS. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NEWSWEEK. We would need to discuss if the article is even reliable enough to use first. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair I'll remove if it hasnt been. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not yet, but if you wish to go forward with this, I would say it might be a good idea. If a consensus is formed that it is a RS, then it could potentially be used in the article and would be able to be used for verification. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude I haven't seen any sources, or law-enforcement, state he targeted any victim(s) because they were transgender, or that his social media posts were indicative of a motive or directly connected to this event. Is it disgusting, in my view, yes it is, but I just don't see any direct connection between his social media activity and these shootings. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

The victim Peyton Brewer-Ross was 40 years old. I'm his partnerand mother of his child. What more sourcesdo you need?</ref> 2603:7080:E63F:8C97:682:84DE:8D4C:C553 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Age changed to 40 based on [4]. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that your word is insufficient as it is impossible to verify. WWGB has found a source, so we cam use that. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

Please remove citation #14, [5]. Citation #13 provides all the information in the cited statement ("The shooter used a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .308 Winchester"), it's just as reliable as #14, and including two sources for the same statement makes it appear as if some information comes from one source and some comes from the other. (In other words, it's less convenient to find what comes from where.) It also leaves open the possibility that there's a synthesis of the two sources. This isn't the case, but without checking both sources, you can't know that. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 (2)

In this phrase:

found in a trailer, on part of the land

Please remove the comma, as it's unneeded. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 (3)

Remove Newsweek's analysis of who he was interested in. Focusing on those interests isn't relevant. They didn't randomly include his movie or food preferences because they have nothing to do with this news story. Same can be said of his politics. It is being used to try and assign blame and is divisive. 50.200.149.188 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is #Perpetrator's behavior on social media worth mentioning? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Authorities were alerted in mid-September about Robert Card's threats

A statewide awareness alert had been issued to all Maine law enforcement agencies:

• https://apnews.com/article/maine-guns-mass-shooting-lewiston-warnings-4d5066230b500c152a7dd0d3e4d13f1b
• https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/10/30/lewiston-shooting-robert-card-threats
• https://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/29/maine-police-statewide-alert-shooters-threats/71374517007/
• https://nypost.com/2023/10/29/news/maine-cops-alerted-about-veiled-threats-from-mass-shooter-robert-card/
• https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/maine-police-reveal-major-warning-150012140.html
• https://abc7chicago.com/maine-mass-shooting-robert-card-veiled-threats-gun-laws/13986021/
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/maine-police-issued-statewide-alert-weeks-ago-about-robert-cards-threats-ap

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 89.12.147.156 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am sure an editor will add it in shortly. I would but I am busy and support adding this content. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST, WP:DAILYBEAST, and WP:SYNDICATED apply, but the rest should be fine. Direct link to The Independent to replace Yahoo and Direct link to AP to replace WBUR. No good replaced for the ACB7 article as I can't find the original AP article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Card's Maine Recycling job (February 2022-Early June 2023)

NBC News reported that Card worked as a commercial driver for Maine Recycling from February 2022 until early June 2023 when he was fired at the job. Former co-workers say that they saw a change of Card's mental state earlier. Card's behavior immediately grew increasingly erratic and he spoke aggressively about guns before he left the job. 2600:1702:5225:C010:5D42:29E1:197C:E4D5 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you give the link to that article? Luigi7255 (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Took me a bit to figure out the article they were referring to, but it might have been this one: Former co-workers at Maine Recycling Corp. say they saw a change in Card’s mental state earlier this year as well. Card was employed as a commercial driver from February 2022 to early June 2023. (New paragraph) Card’s behavior grew increasingly erratic and he spoke “aggressively” about guns before he left his job, one co-worker told NBC News. (Doesn't say he was fired in either paragraph.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag addition

Locke Cole recently added a NPOV tag to article but did not open a discussion on the talk page to outline his concerns. I'm not seeing any blatant NPOV violations and support removal of the tag. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)