Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting

Edit war

Both AMERIXANPSYCHO and Versus001 are involved in an edit war. I've warned both users. Hopefully they'll stop before an admin gets involved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I will stop editing- though I was right- the current count is up to 13 and will be confirmed as 15+ soon. AMERIXANPSYCHO

It is pretty clear there is some sort of agenda involved with those edits. The more recent reports are all agreeing on between seven to ten dead, but AMERIXANPSYCHO seems to think all of this is coming from CNN, which he/she doesn't seem to trust, even though many other reports are agreeing on that number. Also, he/she has been using an early Reuters report and nothing else for his/her reasoning. Versus001 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks here regarding "agenda." Stick to the sources and the revert rule.--JumpLike23 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no "agenda", you conspiracy theorist. I just believe other more current news reports...such as ...not just Reuters AMERIXANPSYCHO

References

I'm an admin. Folks please keep the conversation civil. I need to get up to speed on the situation but I don't see a need for protection at the moment. Ping me if this changes. Valfontis (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but consistency with the reports is always necessitated. 15 had been disproved as a number and replaced with 7-10 at the time, yet you didn't seem to listen and kept insisting it was 15. But I guess we were both wrong and it turned out to be 13. Versus001 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have the highest reported number (i.e. "as many as...") but this isnt a news site anyway, so it can wait until sources are more solid. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's acceptable in these cases to write something like "according to ____ there are 13 confirmed deaths[1] with some sources reporting the number of deaths is as high as ___[2]..." We just have to be careful to avoid weasel wording. Valfontis (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If multiple high-profile reliable mainstream sources are currently reporting different numbers, then we need to report both using some phrasing like that, yeah, although I'd also think we should try to focus primarily on the most recent reports (which are more likely to be accurate than the very early ones.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be up-to-the-minute on anything anyway. I'd suggest choosing a number that has about 99% confidence, like "at least 10", and leaving it like that until all major news sources agree on the count. See WP:NOTNEWS. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we should still try to be as accurate as we can about the things we do say. Right now the first sentence says "twelve people" and cites it to multiple sources that say "thirteen people" right in the headline, which is definitely wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's what happens when we try to be news. Stop doing that, stop playing Tom Brokaw, and the problem disappears. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should just... not say anything at all? Carefully word the article to avoid the number of casualties, which is in the headlines of most sources? I can understand avoiding details, but we have to update very basic information like the number of deaths based on most recent reports. Read WP:RECENTISM; it isn't always a bad thing. Covering very basic details quickly is meant to be one of Wikipedia's advantages. --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, you're still edit-warring with people. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

About what? Can you please be specific? Versus001 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That category- you keep undoing others' edits. Could you at least bring it to the talk page so we can have a forum about it? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, you're edit-warring again. Please use the talk page to arrive at a consensus instead of riding roughshod over other users. I won't give a specific example as your edit warring has been across all topics on this page and can be reviewed easily. Klobfour (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, Once again you're edit warring. I'm sorry but this isn't your personal article. Please use the talk page to arrive at a consensus on the article. Klobfour (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

*facepalm* Versus001 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Klobfour: If you can't see that you were also edit warring, you don't understand the term. Please see WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it takes two to tango of course. However, Versus001 has treated this page as his/her personal fiefdom since its creation. He/she has made no attempt to discuss the article and instead simply deletes others' contributions Klobfour (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's true, the solution is not to edit war in response, but to use the article talk page as it is intended to be used. Try to get consensus for your view; if you are unable to do so, accept it and move on. Another editor's misbehavior is not a defense for yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps seeing as every entry in this edit war section names Versus001, and he/she has made no attempt to arrive at a consensus, an admin could have stepped in? Klobfour (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit my mistakes in not going to the talk page to resolve edit-wars, but not once have I seen this article as my personal kingdom (I could have undone every single edit across the board and did whatever I pleased otherwise). That is a pretty misguided accusation you're making right there. Also, I'll repeat: my misbehavior is not a defense for yours. Versus001 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct source on the weapons policy of Umpqua Community College

This citation is a direct source. College President Rita Calvin is being quoted by a Los Angeles Times reporter. Here is the article:

"Campus' no-guns policy applies to security guards too The attack on Umpqua Community College was both a "tragedy and an anomaly," college President Rita Calvin said.

"I feel awful. To witness the families that were waiting for the students in the last bus and to see all of the hugs and weeping and trauma that has gone on," Calvin told reporters. "More people were hurt than just the ones that were shot."

Calvin said that the school was not aware of any threatening messages the shooter may have left on social media in recent days, and that no threats had been made against the campus recently.

The campus employs at least one security officer, and several faculty members are retired law enforcement personnel, according to the college.

But none of them are allowed to be armed.

"We have a no-guns-on-campus policy," Calvin said.

--James Queally (Los Angeles Times Reporter)

Actual cite: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html?update=84576010

Many articles from mainstream news are including the quote, the gun-free zone status seems relevant to them, I finally tracked it down to the original reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Bennett (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And finally, the Oregon State Attorney General has weighed in about Umpqua's status as a gun-free zone: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2015/10/01/oregon-attorney-general-brian-williams-gun-laws-not-relevant-mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Bennett (talk • contribs)

David: please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Not a Gun Free zone criticism

True (Oregon public) schools cannot ban concealed weapons from campus 'grounds', BUT the very same court opinion held that schools could nevertheless ban concealed weapons from inside buildings (and other areas). These shootings appeared to occur within the classroom so technically, the shootings did meet the definition of a 'gun-free zone'. At best students and/or faculty could have kept their handgun locked in their car in the parking lot. I am citing a source for those of you who want to keep an open mind:

"In an Oregon Court of Appeals case (2011), three judges concluded that Oregon public colleges and universities no longer have authority to ban weapons on the physical grounds of a campus. Each school does however, have discretion as to whether to permit concealed handguns inside buildings, dormitories, event centers, and classrooms. Private colleges and universities may still prohibit weapons throughout the entire campus including grounds.

On March, 2, 2012, the Oregon Higher Education Board voted unanimously to ban weapons in all seven state colleges and universities.

...

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings. No private universities permit weapons on campus grounds.

Source is here: http://www.armedcampuses.org/oregon/ (please note that further cites may be found on the aforementioned website. I would suggest that in the interest of fair play, that these sources be investigated, rather than dismissed out of hand by those who may have a vested interest in promoting a certain political opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Bennett (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

those who may have a vested interest in promoting a certain political opinion Again, please read WP:AGF, focus on content and policy, and leave other editors' suspected motives out of it. Whether those motives exist or not is beside the point, and it is not necessary to know or care. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It was raised in multiple media interviews. It's not clear that it motivates shooters, though, but likely turns a "mass shooting" into "mutual combat" that is not covered the same way by media. It's pretty clear that these events end when people with guns show up. First responders are taught to immediately attack. That tactic is "active shooter" doctrine and explains why 2 police officers immediately took on the shooter and killed him rather than wait for SWAT/negotiators/backup. This is a procedure change implemented virtually everywhere after Columbine. --DHeyward (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Gun free zone"

Earlier today, someone repeatedly tried to edit this page to indicate that the college was a "gun free zone", as though this could've been prevented by some upstanding citizen who decided to pack heat. A CNN commentator repeated the claim. It's bogus; the courts ruled guns were allowed on college campuses in 2011. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"The [school] system still has authority to control its property and facilities and can make and enforce internal policies that ban guns from university classrooms, dormitories and sports stadiums, said Chancellor George Pernsteiner on Tuesday." As I read that source, it's unclear whether the school has found a way to prevent guns on campus. But, if I were involved with this article, I would oppose including this until we know more. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150316175339/http://umpqua.edu/safety-security-information I guess the very school in question never received that "information" that they can't ban guns?? :D It was indeed a gun-free zone or "guns prohibited unless you have a special permit"-zone if you will. You, and so many others, can try to distort this to fit an anti-gun (ie anti self-defense) agenda as much as you please, but that doesn't actually change reality! 90.227.183.88 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Please read WP:AGF and stay off this page if you can't observe it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No thank you. And absolutely.. I shall also assume then, in good faith, that this information will not be omitted, but rather added to the article? 90.227.183.88 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well first, I'm curious why we have to go to archive for that source. The school's website does not respond, but I'll assume for now that that's because it can't handle the workload. I'd like to see the same page on its website. Then I'd like to solicit other opinions as to whether the school's website, as a primary source, is adequate sourcing by itself. If not, we'll need to look for other reliable published sources. My current feel is that we will reach a consensus for adding it, without the loaded and unencyclopedic words "gun-free zone". For now, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is under discussion, there is no rush, and that is not evidence of any "agenda". As is usually the case with these breaking news articles, in my opinion there is too much editing going on and not enough discussing. As I suggested above, I don't have much interest in this article, so I wouldn't raise a stink if my opinions on this were completely disregarded. I'd just crawl back into my hole, eat a donut, and take a nap. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw a tweet asking non-students not to go to the UCC website because it, like most other institutions, isn't prepared to handle a mass shooter. I was bringing this up to say we should keep it off the page entirely. It has no bearing on the events. "Gun free zones" don't stop shooters, and armed civilians don't stop them either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I'd suggest letting RS decide whether it's significant. If included, it could be written in a way that does not imply a political statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Time will ultimately tell its significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

These shootings end when people with guns show up. That's a pretty common denominator. The police had the same type of weapons as the shooter. They don't ride in on magic unicorns and their ballistic vest is useless against a rifle.--DHeyward (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The key issues here are (as usual) WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. In particular, we cannot highlight the gun rules in effect in the area (or try to present our own research on them from primary sources), since that would be original research and synthesis. We can highlight quotes from experts about the subject, but we have to consider the appropriate WP:DUE weight -- if eg. professional police or academics on mass shootings say that it's important, we should probably cover it; if it's just one or two talking heads using it as a talking point to make the same arguments they always make, then it is less relevant unless their comments attract significant coverage or otherwise seem to have major impact. We definitely can't use the school's website as a source for something like this, because its relevance is pure synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I heard

He was purposely targeting Christians please add that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlenameisfrank (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple sources indicating something to that effect. The Daily Mail and The New York Post, for example, has some details here and here, respectively. If that is part of the motive, it would likely be worth noting. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The article already notes that he asked victims to state their religion, and that his dating profile stated that he hated "organized religion". You can draw your own conclusions, but per WP:SYNTH, we can't on the page. Not unless we learn more about his motives. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't speculate per WP:SYNTH. However the current article, at least as of this talk reply, appears to make no reference to him asking that the "victims to state their religion".--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The article say he shot indiscriminately where it seems the contrary. He was discriminatory in his shooting. Why leave that wrong impression? Middlenameisfrank (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't speculate on his motives despite multiple national news agencies and eyewitnesses reporting that he targeted Christians, but you can speculate that he's a Nazi sympathizer and a "conservative, Republican" based on a dating profile even though he supports the IRA, a left-wing terrorist group? That's rich. Sy9045 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The asking people their religion section was removed by editor Alvandria with the edit summary "Only 1 article claimed he asked for people's religion. Let's wait for more reports." Given that this aspect of the incident has been covered by multiple news reports, it should be re-inserted. -- 120.23.149.249 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are they independent sources, or just copying each other? Not saying this wasn't the case, but if it is just one source that is getting copied, we should be cautious - especially given that a similar incident in the past (at Columbine) ended up being confused in media reports. It isn't like we're not going to get a lot more details over the next few days/weeks. Another issue is whether he was targeting Christians in general, or specific sects of Christians; the Irish Republican Army (which he is apparently affiliated with) was Catholic, so it might be he was targeting certain sects in particular. Or he might have been targeting religious people in general - is there any confirmation that he actually spared/killed people based on their answers? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He also may have operated a Facebook account that was friends with a profile that posted pro-Jihadist propaganda - the meaning of all of his social media profiles aren't 100% proof of anything. -- Callinus (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Controversial claims often need to be qualified with who said them - some news media report that two people who were not in the room claim that Chrisitans were shot - witness testimony is not always reliable, and it's better to wait for an official report that brings together disparate witness accounts. -- Callinus (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the (of questionable 'encyclopedic' value) "conservative Republican" comment (the shooter made in an obscure on-line post) gets right in, but the multiple eye-witness accounts that the shooter was deliberately targeting Christians is being kept out (for now), speaks volumes about the 'progressive' bias of Wikipedia entries where there is a 'progressive vs. conservative' divergence of talking points. I ask the people keeping the deliberate targeting of Christians out (for as long as possible) - would you be keeping accounts that a shooter was targeting Muslims out with similar fervor, had a shooter been targeting Muslims instead? Or African-Americans? Doubt it. That type of targeting would have been in the lead too, had that been the case. Recall also the CBS Lara Logan Egypt attack Wikipedia entries - where, for months, 'progressive' forces edit-warred to keep out mention that anti-Jewish hatered played a role (Logan's attackers thought she was Jewish and were attacking her for it - but Wikipedia-warriers fought to hide that). And yes, I know, this is a talk page, not a discussion forum, so please consider the above a vote in favor of including the relevent (and legitimate) fact that this guy was motivated by a desire to murder Christians, as per eyewitness accounts. And no, just saying he "hated religion" isn't "good enough", if our goal is to describe the facts of what is known.71.190.1.60 (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that we don't know his motives, and there's a history of sensationalism about Christian martyrdom in relation to shootings. Many of these have turned out to be inaccurate or misrepresented in the past, as in the case of Columbine, where there was a urban legend about the shooters asking someone if they believed in God, then shooting them after they said yes... and then, it turned out, the person who had been asked the question wasn't shot at all (and apparently changed her answer several times in the hopes of finding the one the shooters wanted). Some other girl was shot, but not after being asked the question. The shooters, as far as anyone knows, were simply being sadistic and trying to mess with people - not terribly surprising behavior out of mass murderers.

There's no harm in waiting until we get more independent confirmation of what went on - there was more than one person there, so we'll likely have a better picture of what went on in there. If the motive was religious in nature, it will come out, and we'll include it in the article appropriately. This is especially true as right now, we're not hearing from eyewitnesses - we're hearing from secondhand sources, who are saying what they say they were told by victims.

As far as his political allegiance goes - it is not uncommon for the politics of spree killers to be mentioned. Whether or not it needs to stay in the article, we'll probably make some sort of better determination on that in the future. Frankly, a lot of stuff about stuff like this suffers from major recentism issues, as people rush to throw in as many details as possible very quickly, despite the fact that in many cases we don't get a really good idea of what is going on for days, sometimes weeks. Not all of this information may be relevant. Frankly, a lot of the responses to the issue are entirely generic and cookie cutter - heck, Obama gave a speech about how cookie-cutter it all was.

TL; DR; the reason the "shooting Christians" thing isn't in the article yet is that we're lacking in details and external confirmation. Every article I've seen so far has noted we don't know his motives, and we don't know that his victims were exclusively Christians (or members of any other denomination). We likely won't know for some time. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue, yes. My main concern with the eagerness to highlight this is that it's putting incredibly heavy emphasis on one person's account while cutting the context that the more reputable sources append in saying that his motivations "may never be known." If we're going to cover it, we probably need an entire 'motives' section that can go into depth rather than just using one quote to imply (inaccurately) that his motives are known. But that should probably wait until there's been at least some time for proper investigation. --Aquillion (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

His motivations may never be known? Really? When he posted them online? -- 120.23.54.67 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He only posted that he would attack, he didn't post a long manifesto like the other wankers. -- Callinus (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not online perhaps, but it sounds like he did have something of that sort. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is known for sensationalising or fabricating claims, so I wouldn't suggest using it as a source especially for foriegn events. They're the ones who talked of "Sharia zones" in the UK. Banak (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And The New York Post? Are they "known for sensationalising or fabricating claims" too? -- 120.23.54.67 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently yes, see New York Post#Criticism, "The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias.", "Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs", "According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York". All these are cited to reliable sources in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Post is a legitimate newspaper, and in fact multiple witnesses confirm the targeting of Christians in this shooting: the story has also been covered by the Bangor Daily news, the Washington Post, CNN, and other media. Removal of the section on targeting of Christians from the article in the face of such extensive coverage in WP:RS demonstrates extreme bias and WP:POV. -- 120.23.5.154 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The NY Post definitely isn't a good RS and should be used with care. I'm not completely opposed to including this info, although it should be treated with caution as the story is still relatively latebreaking news, and we've all seen many instances, including here with CNN et al reporting the wrong perpetrator, of how poorly even good sources can handle latebreaking news in their rush to be first. Many of these reports are coming from only a small number of alleged eyewitnesses (I count 3 or perhaps 4), and they are generally relayed second hand and it isn't even necessarily clear how much checking the sources relaying them actually did to ensure the people the report are coming from really have a connection to an eyewitness. (The CNN/person who was shot in the spine account seems to be definitely seems to be, and perhaps the NBC. The report from Twitter and from SMS seem unclear.) Many of the sources you cite actually similar treat these reports with caution. Note also the most widespread CNN account doesn't actually confirm Christians were a major target, the accounts I've seen only say that people who identified as Christians were told they would be meeting god soon and then shot, it doesn't confirm what happened to people who said they were Christians. It's only the less widespread accounts that suggest people who said they weren't Christians were partially spared (shot in ways less likely to be fatal). Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be used with caution even though you are allowing the bit that he's a Nazi sympathizer and a conservative Republican based on a dating profile? You are dismissing reports from the BBC, Washington Post, CNN, USA Today and several other national news organizations and multiple eyewitnesses that said he targeted Christians. He also supported the left-wing terrorist group, IRA, but apparently "Nazi" made the cut but not "left wing" -- probably to no one's surprise. Maybe I'm a dreamer but I wish Wikipedia editors would rely more on objectivity than speculation based on some preconceived political narratives. Sy9045 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned below, I'm not commenting on whether that info is sufficiently sourced. If you want to discuss those details, I suggest you start a seperate discussion since this is a discussion about the inclusion of him targetting Christians. However, again without commenting on whether the info is sufficiently sourced there's an obvious difference between reporting what someone said on their own profiles, presuming we trust the verification of these profiles as belonging to him (which is the big issue) vs reporting second hand accounts, some of which I'm not even sure we can be sure are second hand accounts, of what was said during a shooting (and the resulting panic and emotinal turmoil likely to be present during those times). Also, the current article doesn't say anything about him being a Nazi. I suspect it never did. It does say he made a reference to Nazi Germany. Whether the Iron Cross 45 being clearly linked to Nazi Germany, is something that I will again not comment on since it's best dealt with elsewhere. But if it is, there's a big difference there. (If it isn't we have a problem, but your example is still mostly unhelpful.) Nazi Germany is simply the common name for what it's alleged he was referring to. It's not an unnecessary description. A comparitive example would be if were to say, far-right or fascist Nazi Germany. These are unnecessary descriptors, which may be challenged for a variety of reasons. By the same token, if the perpetrator had said something about Tiocfaidh ár lá, it would be resonable to say this is a phrase associated with Irish Republicanism or the IRA if this could be sufficiently source, but there would still be no need for additional descriptors like left wing, just as I already mentioned, we don't say far-right or fascist Nazi Germany. And the fact is, we already say he expressed sympathy for the IRA, you're apparent complaint is you want to put your own spin on the IRA bit, even though there is no spin on any of the other parts, simply a report of what his profiles said. P.S. The history of the IRA is complicated, something which you seem to be oversimplifying. Unsurprisingly plenty of parts of the IRA are associated with Catholicism, and as the article you linked to says, historically some parts were associated with, Nazi Germany. This is one reason why we avoid unnecessary descriptors. Something like the IRA, even if not as well known as Nazi Germany, is well known enough that such descriptors are bound to cause more confusion than they solve. (Not to mention the IRA given how long they have existed and in so many different forms, is far more complicated than something like Nazi Germany.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed [1] as it seemed to be quite misleading. None of the (second hand reports of) eye witness accounts simply say he shot everyone. Some of them say he shot people in the head, or otherwise seems to aim for fatal wounds for people who identified as Christian, whereas he shot in the legal or other wounds less likely be fatal for people who said they weren't. Some of the accounts, including who we seemed to be quoting (from the quote), simply said he shot Christians, without any explanation of what happened to non Christians. In case there's any confusion, the phrase “And then he shot and killed them” doesn't mean he shot everyone in the class. If you listen to the interview this is based on, or check our other RS, it's clear that the father is saying all the Christians were shot, without explaining what happened to the rest. As I said above, I'm not opposed to including info on these reports, but we definitely shouldn't be misleading if we are. And none of the accounts seem to say anything close to "he asked people if they were Christian, told the Christians you're going to met god soon, then shot everyone the same", which was what I removed basically said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in Obama Quote Edit

In 'Reactions', President Obama is quoted as "[Thoughts and prayers] does not capture...". Evidently, this was edited when added to the Wikipedia Article, which is fine, but that edit apparently introduced a number mismatch, which probably does not exist in the original quote. (nbcnews.com, the referenced source, has revised their article; the original quote is no longer there.) Please revise to "[Thoughts and prayers do] not capture...". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.22 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I've changed grammar and switched the reference from NBC to Whitehouse.gov per your comments. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this guy a Brit or just happened to American born in England?

Considering that he was born in England, I wonder what his nationality was when he moved to this country. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, and generally a person's nationality is noted.BananaBork (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not encountered a source saying that he is British or identified as such. He identified as "mixed race" on some online accounts. If he really identified as a Brit, he would have identified as a Brit. Until a source is found about his identity in more detail, nothing more than that should be added. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for media file that may be useful to add to the article

The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon

WEBM - The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon

Suggestion that this file may be useful to add to the article: File:The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon.ogv. — Cirt (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support - Highly relevant with very clear public domain licensing.--Melmann^(talk) 06:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

On the second thought, why is the quality of the clip so low? YouTube original is in 720p at 60fps, given that there is no fair use rationale since it is public domain content, why is the quality significantly lower? Are any technical limitations on Wikipedia hosting high quality video content? If not, can we re-host a better version? --Melmann^(talk) 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Original https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2015/10/01/president-delivers-statement-shooting-oregon - will convert to WebM -- Callinus (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The link to the president's statement should also be added to the references list: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon 73.42.240.18 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded File:The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon.webm -- Callinus (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Navbox?

Shouldn't we create a navbox for world mass attacks by year? (Like earthquakes have) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's an intrinsic problem with the idea, but there may be too many of them; remember, while we have a tendency to be biased towards Western mass killings, they're happening constantly in places like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. For example, the 2014 Peshawar school massacre claimed 145 victims. So far this year, only 15 people have died in all school shootings (including individual one on one things, which are much more common) in the US this year. We'd also have to determine how many people need to be injured/killed to warrant inclusion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Social media posts

There is a long history of the media dashing off to make speculative claims of social media posts on the basis of limited information in the first 24 hours after a shooting. The post about Vester Flanagan is here and the media cannot know for sure who posted it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

His step-sister Carmen Nesnick spoke to CBS and NBC and confirmed that the accounts are his. -- Callinus (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/chris-harper-mercer-ucc-shooting/#LGLs7JfR3iqH

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/man-suspected-in-school-shooting-massacre-in-oregon-had-ties-to-torrance-relatives-in-tarzana/

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Oregon-Mass-Shooters-Sister-From-SoCal-Speaks-Out-330352981.html

It is somewhere between possible or likely that the accounts are his, but caution is needed. The media has assumed that account names with lithium_love or similar are his. The source here says that the Flanagan post is attributed to him rather than saying that it was. The Mashable article is misleading as the external links it gives does not confirm the claim that he is the person behind the posts. Sources like the Daily Beast and Mashable are not really reliable enough for claims like this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Are you happy with the sourcing for the claim that he uploaded a Newtown shooting doucumentary? I earlier had a more qualified claim that accounts linked to his email had statements published, that was changed by someone to an assertion that he wrote it. -- Callinus (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the claim that he operated the lithium_love account on KickassTorrents needs some time to develop. It may be true but the media has jumped the gun to some extent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post and other major media are reporting that the kuller was a bi-racial man targeted Christians. I am passing by to read this entry and do not see anti-Christian hate discussed as motive. It's a highly dishonest omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.151.84 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to take information directly from these accounts. His "dating profile," for example, said he was in college but that is false. I've removed the information that was gleaned straight from that profile without other sources. "Targeting Christians" appears to be from a single eyewitness account based on a question he asked. . . --DHeyward (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There actually seems to be at least three eyewitness reports, although all I've seen are second hand. One is mentioned in NY Post [2] and is from a Twitter account from someone who said they were relaying their grandmother's story [3]. Another, more wide spread, was from someone who underwent surgery after being shot in their spine, relayed by their father to CNN and possibly other media sources [4] (CNN's interview [5]). A third account, relayed to NBC (also mentioned in the earlier source) was from a sibling.

The widespread CNN account relayed by a father would seem to definitely involve a victim (the interview appears to have taken place outside a hospital etc), I'm not sure how much checking those reporting the first or third accounts did to ensure that the people relaying them really had connections with someone who was present at the shooting.

From what I can tell the 2nd eyewitness who's account as relayed by their father reported that people who identified as Christians when asked, were told they would be seeing god soon and then shot. This doesn't confirm that they were a major target since it's possible that non Christians were simply shot without being told they would met god soon or after the Christians were shot. However more complete accounts, allegedly coming from the first and third eyewitnesses is that people who said they weren't Christians were generally shot in ways far less likely to be fatal (often in the leg).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also nobody knows the English professor's religious beliefs, if any, and at least one of the second hand reports says that the shooter's comment was made after shooting the English professor at point blank range.

Second hand witness testimony can be unreliable. I think it's highly likely that a shooter would have mocked people he killed by declaring that Christians would "see god in one second" but asserting that second hand witness testimony asserting that people replied if they were Chrisitan and weren't shot if they didn't reply is highly dubious and reeks of the myths that were invented after Columbine. -- Callinus (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any testimony suggesting that people who didn't reply (or who said they weren't Christian) weren't shot. Instead the suggestion appears to be that people who said they were Christians were shot with the aim to kill, whereas people who said they weren't were shot in the leg, or in other ways less likely to be fatal. It also also clear some people like the aforementioned professor, were shot with the aim to kill regardless, normally without questioning who they were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

4chan misidentification

CNN journalists were told that a 23 year old did the crime and they reported that before issuing a correction. I don't see this as passing the 10 year test.

-- Callinus (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, I added the bit in CNN Newsroom#Gaffes when they did a seven minute live cross to a terrorism correspondent to analyse the dildos in a gay dildo flag at a gay parade. It's not exactly a surprise that CNN badly bungles a lot of their reporting. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's useful to give the flavor of the media response to this debacle; it is particularly relevant in this case because the shooter was apparently motivated by media response. Also, it's chaos out there, and I think it is useful to immunize people against any misinformation they're reading by making it clear just how much so. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point. Although CNN never gave many details about an earlier suspect, they spend a considerable section of programming time making vague comments relating to attitudes on 4chan as though they were setting themselves up for a later announcement that 'Eggman' was the shooter. Of course, this is very difficult to source/comment on accurately, but I still think the inclusion of this section is valid taking into account that a great deal of reporting on both traditional and social revolved around this kind of discussion. Also, could someone with the necessary priviledges change "member" to "user" in this section, since I don't think the site has membership. Esurlaw (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed member to user in my text, but the sentence before it is a direct quote. Nor is it really misinformation: die hard 4chan users are pretty site-loyal, more so I think than many sites that actually require formal registration but nonetheless have many fake/multiple accounts, and are probably more recognizable in their patterns to other users. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Iron Cross

In the article, there's a line that says "Mercer had many online accounts, several under the name "Iron Cross 45", a reference to Nazi Germany." The Iron Cross has been around since the early 1800s, who's to say he didn't romanticize Imperial Germany or the Holy Roman Empire? It's a bit subjective to see German symbolism and immediately jump to Nazis without any other indications such as numerical codes 14 or 88. Drtanasinn (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

1945 is fairly clearly a well known year. Mashable makes the claim that there is a link (it may have been "edgy" rather than an expression of neo-nazi sympathy etc - teenagers often listen to goth music just to upset their parents) -- Callinus (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; while the Iron Cross is not exclusive to Nazism, the number 45 gives it that context (unless he meant .45 and not 1945). That being said, it's possible he had interest in WWII, but it is highly speculative to imply he had Nazi sympathies at this time, without further insight or forensic profiling. Tbessler (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, duh. (It's early). Is edginess worth mention? Drtanasinn (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drtanasinn: It was reported by Mashable as confirmed by the step sister. It would be good to leave that for 24 hours until more of the online profiles are verified. The phrase "ironcross45" was his email account and the name of his dating profile - the dating profile's listing of him as a "convesvative, republican" is more important because it goes against simplistic narratives. -- Callinus (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What simplistic narratives? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

Well he was 1. mixed-race, and 2. actively hostile toward organized religion, neither of which are traits stereotypically associated with conservative Republicans. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This language was seems more accurate: "An email address used by the man referenced an Iron Cross, a symbol often associated with Nazis and white supremacists."[6] I would add that it is a German military symbol. The language right now, clearly stating that is a reference to Nazi Germany, cannot be determined at this time, and Mashable is a questionable source for reporting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, not sure if it's the echo chamber or if it's based on plausible primary sources, but LA Times is now reporting him as a having "anti-government, anti-religion, white-supremacy leanings." - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html Tbessler (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH means that we should just go with what a decent source says - Mashable says it's "Nazi Germany" and that's a reasonable statement - note that ironcross45 at gmail was used to register a comment account on Mashable in 2011 - he may have become more "anti-government" after that. -- Callinus (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

German Empire supporters hate Nazism and fascism and most certainly wouldn't have 45 in their username. He is described as a neo-Nazi and being mixed-race doesn't change that. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

who in the world is a "german empire supporter". It's 2015, man. And what is this claim about being a neo-nazi? Ironcross itself is completely meaningless, and the number could represent anything.Whatzinaname (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

IRA images

Probably needs to wait until more research is done,but I came across this referencing "IRA images" as part of the motivational melange. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

It still seems speculative at this point, yes. It also seems odd that an English-born man would sympathize with the IRA, that being an anti-English/pro-Irish nationalist group. Tbessler (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a populist anti-establishment movement that promotes violence. Radicalisation is commonly misunderstood - eg, many people who don't have pro-jihadist views have jihadist bomb making manuals etc. -- Callinus (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Targeted Christians

Multiple eyewitnesses also reported that he targeted Christians. It is shameful that this article is using a revisionist tactic based on preconceived political narratives to show him as a Nazi right-wing "conservative, Republican". He supported the Irish Republican Army (the IRA is a left-wing Marxist and socialist terrorist group). Apparently to some Wikipedia editors here, a dating profile is more credible than NBC, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, BBC and USA Today and the multiple eyewitnesses who were there. This happens too often on Wikipedia because editors somehow cannot leave aside their political views to report objective facts. Shameful. Sy9045 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sy9045: Your complaint is fairly confusing. While the Christian thing has come and gone in various ways, having checked every single edit until and including [7] it looks to me like it's been in our article since it was added here [8] at 14:40 UTC until now, at about 19:13 UTC. Your comment is signed at 16:03 UTC which means it was significantly after the Christian thing was added and then not removed until now. So it's fairly confusing what you're actually complaining about.

Note, the fact we may add the christian thing doesn't mean we should remove other details, based upon you WP:Syn assumption that someone who targets Christians can't be that thing. The only thing that matters to us is they are sufficiently well sourced. (I'm not saying these are, simply that your assumptions about the shooter are irrelevant in to whether we add or remove the details. Also, it's fairly odd that you're willing to accept some social media sourced details like the suspect alleging being an IRA sympthasiser, but not others, like the subject allegedly describing himself as a "conservative, Republican".)

BTW, do you actually have a reliable source reporting from a confirmed eye witness? So far, all we seem to have are second hand accounts from eye witnesses (relayed through relatives) or accounts where the person's identity doesn't seem to have been confirmed (sent via SMS or other text messaging services. Sometimes both.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The only eyewitness report of "targeting Christians" I've seen seems to be from one victim, whose family is repeating her statement. We need to be careful about mistakenly inflating the number of reports (heard it from so and so who heard it from so and so...). According to another witness: "The shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away" [9]. From LA Times: "A law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly, confirmed that the gunman asked students about their religion during the shootings." These statements do not imply the perpetrator singled out Christians. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sy9045: Note there are many "IRA" groups, as explained at the target of your link. You're thinking of the Official IRA, but the better-known Provisional IRA was, needless to say, influenced by Catholicism (how could an Irish group not be?) With a formal peace process in place, the situation becomes more philosophically complicated, because persons most loyal to the group may take no action. Unless we see some retrospective research in the news, there's no telling what (if anything) the killer was thinking. Wnt (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't mean what you think it means - people with mental health issues do not have "consistent" positions and while the media insists that "radicalization" is a single process, academic literature treats that notion as deeply dubious.

People who sympathise with the IRA often don't sympathise with Catholicism - but see the IRA as a populist anti-establishment movement that opposes government and successfully fought the British. -- Callinus (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Near vs in

There was a recent change from listing the college as being "in" instead of "near" Roseburg. While the college has a mailing address that uses that city, that does not mean it's inside the city. If you look at the city limits[10], the city ends a good ways away from there. 74.69.36.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've stated before but will say again for clarity--the school, while within the Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area or "greater Roseburg" (which comprises the entirety of Douglas County), is actually north of Winchester, Oregon, which is an unincorporated community north of Roseburg. It is not within the Roseburg city limits. Valfontis (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris Harper Mercer or Chris Harper-Mercer?

There seems to be discrepancy in the name of the perpetrator: "Chris Harper Mercer" or "Chris Harper-Mercer" (with hyphen). The Daily Beast article [11] cited no longer verifies that his mother hyphenated the name. Is there perhaps a transatlantic difference?: while British sources like Mirror and Daily Mail use Harper-Mercer, CNN, New York Times, PBS, LA Times, etc. are all referring to the perpetrator as Mercer, Chris Harper Mercer, and Mr. Mercer. The Daily Breeze (American) unhelpfully uses both hyphenated and un-hyphenated versions in the same article. Consensus? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Go with the highest quality American sources, since it's an American event. That would appear to mean no hyphen and Mercer. If the hyphen is actually more correct, I'd expect those sources to change within a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the name to unhyphenated Chris Harper Mercer, for now. Also I see the unverified bit about the mother hyphenating the name has been removed, which is fine (fairly trivial). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times reports that Army records list him as "Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer". --12.180.133.18 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sister link at Wikisource

I've created a document at Wikisource:

s:Statement by the President on the Shootings at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon.

You may wish to add to the article the template:

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't include both that and the reference in the video caption. We should decide which is more useful to the reader. I'd suggest the ref, it being with the video. I've added archive parms in case that page goes away. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooter's name should not be mentioned whatsoever

How can this be any clearer than it already is? 174.16.197.18 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The perpetrator's name is always mentioned, per Wikipedia policies including WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree on principle, but Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSOR. BananaBork (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As much as I agree with that, unfortunately, to implement that also means a major overhaul of all other articles detailing a mass murder. Versus001 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@174.16.197.18: The nice part about running an encyclopedia is that we can just document the facts neutrally. We don't go out of our way to stick it to the subject of the article, nor to bend over backwards to give him what he wants, whether he's a good subject or a bad subject. Sure, I wish we could give the article a soundtrack but there would be copyright issues, among other policy objections. :)

That said, Wikipedia isn't entirely a passive consumer of news, and you do have a way to have a say. We're not going to omit a topic like this (nor the name of the criminal), but you can see to it that we balance that out with better coverage of non-criminal people. Pick a saint, pick a famous scientist, pick a Fortune 2000 company or a species in the rose family, and make an article, get a DYK, go for Featured status. We don't carve away at our data to spite people but we certainly can direct our priorities in building it up to reflect what we think is more important. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible, at least, to include a section (hopefully larger than that of the shooter) which is fully dedicated to each of the victims? It would see to violate WP:DUE to not give the victims their due. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That would really only be possible if each of the victims were encyclopaedically notable for some reason, and there was significant coverage of them in reliable sources. The long-standing consensus is that simply being the victim of a crime is not evidence of notability. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is info about the victims available.[12] I wouldn't be opposed to including more of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Victim lists is only an essay and I wouldn't cite it as authoritative, but it should be considered in any such discussion. Actually it opposes listing the names, never mind additional details. I don't have much of an opinion either way. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@174.16.197.18: you might have something after all. Policies have to be made. An opinion could be that mass shooters are not encyclopaedically notable, "up to their names". Being the perpetrator of a crime should not be an evidence of notability, particularly if not even a criminal by trade ( for your own benefit). Mass shooters as well as anonymous supporters of international terrorism. --Askedonty (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I personally wouldn't feel frustrated if I had to check the source in order to read about the guy's name. What's important is that the article remains well written and well documented. We would be keeping much less of those useless childish claims "I'm dead but I wrote this", in the middle of encyclopedic reporting that way. That would read instead, "The guy wrote this ( he's dead)".

Versus001, I'm not going to revert this edit, but someone will. It's entirely peripheral to the event itself and would go instead on an article discussing the practice. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to add it to a general article about mass shootings, under its own section (like "causes") and then link from this article to that section in a short sentence. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

For instance, per ATS's and BB's suggestion, this would seem a fairly appropriate place. Darth Viller (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it from the main text into a note. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I have tweaked the grammar in that content, but it's a RS dealing with the practice in connection with this shooting, so it should stay. That doesn't mean it couldn't also be used elsewhere. In fact, that's a good idea.

I now see that it's been shortened and moved to the references. That seems to work fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I had to rewrite it a bit per COPYVIO—the phrasing was way too close to the source. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said in the edit summary, I wasn't too sure about the edit myself. But thanks, everyone, for making the necessary changes to it! :D Versus001 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspberger's, Mental illness and Army discharge

A number of sources are discussing mental illness. LA Times [13] discusses his struggle and discharge from the Army. The DailyMail says it was Asperger[14]. Any suggestion on how to add this? --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't jump at anything reported only by the Mail. When it comes to mental illness, I think we should err on the side of too little information; i.e., when in doubt, omit. I say let all of that percolate, no rush to print. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail should be blacklisted across Wikipedia. Then nobody would have to bother asking. The only valuable thing it can offer an enyclopedia is good pictures, and we can't legally use them. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding his Army discharge, he only made it to week 5 in Basic Training and more than likely received an Entry Level Separation which occurs more often than you think. Especially in the past few years of the build up, such as 2008 when he enlisted. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

His mental illness is now being discussed on most mainstream media outlets and warrants inclusion in the article. It appears he had some form of treatment but the specific illness or illnesses has not been detailed yet. This may link to his association with seemingly contradictory radical groups or figures, i.e. the IRA (Catholic Marxist separatists), white supremicism (his mother is black, he's mixed race), Lester Flannigan, Nazism, and Islamists (he purchased an ISIS flag shortly after the SS hat?, was friends with an Islamist, and uploaded Islamic videos on Kickass). Klobfour (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

lol. Liberals call Obama black but refuse to call this shooter black. So typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEC2:AD10:F8C6:CE5F:9B4C:5993 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental illness is a weasel word. If he was Autistic that should be mentioned but it would be irrelevant to the shooting. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest mental illness isn't a weasel word when he's been treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Also, austism isn't a mental illness either, it's disorder. Klobfour (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental illness is a vague word pretending to be specific. Mental illness could refer to any diagnosis and I've seen Autism referred to as such. Mental disorder is a disputed title for Autism too but at least the term is defined. Assuming mental illness means Autism is wrong. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 00:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Harper-Mercer was a UCC student

• http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/umpqua_community_college_shoot_1.html#incart_maj-story-1 "Harper-Mercer was enrolled in the college class where the shooting occurred, the sheriff's office said."

• http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/new_details_emerge_on_umpqua_c.html "He enrolled at Umpqua in the summer term taking a writing course and a theater class, confirmed Dr. Rita Calvin [sic], Umpqua Community College interim president. He was listed as a production assistant the college's production of "Blithe Spirit," slated to debut later this month."

--12.180.133.18 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a deadlier Oregon shooting in 1854.

Seventeen people (mostly Wards) were shot by Indians on August 20, 1854. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on that, but Findagrave has a possibly shaky story and a picture of a clearly real marker. The Oregon Historical Society says nineteen died.

In any case, it was more than ten. The bit in the lead giving this one credit for deadliest should be removed, amended or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like your typical mass shooting, more like the territorial disputes between Indians and settlers that was back in the day. I think it's more of an appropriate response to reword the sentence. Versus001 (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Deadliest in modern Oregon history", maybe? I think that's generally understood to meant "after the Indians". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where that says anything about shooting. It says slaughtered and massacred. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Self-correction: The first source talks about gunshots. It also talks about arrows. No body counts by weapon type. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a "mass shooting" as we understand it. The witness quoted in the original article notes, among other things, "the Indians would come right up to the wagons, cut holes in the covers, and shoot their arrows in at the women and children" and "the Indians had a few guns and plenty of arrows." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You ever see a man "clubbed" or "stabbed" with an arrow? They're usually "shot". But even disqualifying those, it stands to reason that gunfire killed more than arrows did, just for being deadlier. Even half of nineteen is tied with this one. But yeah, details are sketchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hence my contextual use of "as we understand it"; and, as you note, "details are sketchy" invokes WP:SYNTH. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye. The sketchiness is what makes the other story dubious instead of plain debunked. Debunked stuff isn't worth a second thought. I didn't mean to sound like a dick above with "the quotes", by the way. Just sort of happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. Here's tae ye! (Not a Scot—well, maybe a wee bit—but "aye" got me looking up greetings. ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit Scottish, either. Just like the sound of that word. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this somewhat contemporary report talks of children burned alive, fatal tomahawk wounds, and heads "beaten into perfect jelly". So those five (at least) don't sound like "shooting" victims, anyway you define that. Still roughly 14 in a greyer zone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

We're not using wiki voice for it, so this is moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. It wasn't moot when I brought it up, but that works. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Conceptually a mass shooting is done by "one or a few" people, I think. That's vague, but there's some kind of upper limit on the shooters - otherwise we would class some of the deadlier citywide riots as mass shootings. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd discount citywide stuff, just for the geographical scope and lack of a cohesive plan. But yeah, there is something wrong in ranking one guy's shooting against a group's, even if they're on the same page and the same place. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Alek Skarltos alumnus

Former Umqua alumnus Alek Skarlatos is one of the heroes of the 2015 Thalys train attack who received the Legion of Honor in France from the French President after the attack. He just left his Dancing with the Stars gig in order to return to the family home in Roseburg, the city where Umpqua is located. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Change Wikipedia policy concerning the information on and glorification of mass murders.

Would it be possible to change Wikipedia policy, making it against the rules to give more room on an article to a shooter than for each of the victims of a shooting? It seems counter to both common decency and wikipedia's mission to give these terrorists what they want. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooter becomes noteworthy due to his actions. The victims remain non-notable. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The victims are notable due to their actions. They died under a madman's crusade - that's enough in itself. Is it somehow more respectable, more manly perhaps, to go off on a shooting spree than to be shot? Both are actions - I see no particular merit in the first. In this case, however, some of the victims stood up when asked if they were Christians, and that is an immensely significant act in history. I don't think many people appreciate just how significant - there have been enough mass shootings covered where the killers targeted Christians that we can assume some of these people had some intimation of the risks involved. We tend think of someplace like Saudi Arabia as being more pious than America because, after dangling huge payoffs for the families, terrorists can recruit one person in ten thousand to die in their cause. But here a terrorist walks in and asks who wants to be a martyr and half the bloody class stands up. I don't know if they had anything like that in the Book of Maccabees. Do you have any idea what that means, in terms of what America is beneath its tarnish of crooked politicians?

No, I don't dream I can include this sort of OR essay in the article. But your notion that victims are non-notable is JUST as much your own thinking as this is mine, and it needs to be refuted. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In thematic relations, one is a patient and one is an agent. The agent is the one making the decision as to whether a notable event happens or doesn't. Replace the nine patients with nine random Oregonians, the story won't be much different (outside of their own circles). Replace the agent, you're very likely to have people going about their business as usual, in obscurity. That makes the active actor important. Not better. Just central. Fundamental. Crucial. Highly relevant. However you want to say it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Your philosophy assumes that the nine people would never amount to anything in their lives. But maybe one would. Might be curing cancer, might be serving as president... might be disturbing a butterfly. Doesn't matter, because the butterfly effect says that if you kick the past, in any way, the future becomes random. Substitute any of these people and you don't know what would happen. Now you may have a good counter to that argument, but it doesn't matter, because in Wikipedia notability depends on being mentioned in sources. Doesn't matter why - could be for stopping global warming or for turning up in a viral video. We only care whether sources are sufficient to document the topic. And of course, even notability is not required for something to be covered in an article; it only is a threshold for having a full separate article on the topic itself. So if we have RSes that talk about the victim, we can talk about the victim as much as they do, as long as we believe it's true. There's no law nor policy nor guideline that says that because they were a "patient" we have to leave stuff out. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they cold have been, it matters what they were, and they were regular college students who died. Not noteworthy enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlcrist (talk • contribs)

Essentially agree. Of course there will be differences when replacing the passive people (or even their shirts), but nothing near the drastic butterfly effect that including just one mass shooter in any group causes. At least not as it pertains to whatever particular school day. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question: Yes, it would be theoretically possible. The proper venue would be WP:VPP. But it would also be exceedingly unlikely to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

While including information about the shooter is important to the article, perhaps this could be balanced with information about one of the people wounded, Christ Mintz, who has been subsequently hailed as a hero in the news media. One example of this praise -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The guy who called him a hero is a cousin on his GoFundMe page. Not exactly impartial. ABC just quoted him. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I would add only that, as a "living" encyclopedia, this article is hardly finished. Early reports will always focus on the shooter—ostensibly to ask and answer "why?"—and the bulk of early detail is focused as such. More details, as deemed encyclopedic, are surely forthcoming. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

CNN and Twitter are onboard, too. This guy's going to get some enduring coverage. A mention will make sense, if it's of what he did, rather than repeating the praise. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

He already has two sentences. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I really need to keep up. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus burned down the Temple of Artemis in 356 BC because he wanted his name to have lasting fame. If he was around today, a mass shooting might well have been his weapon of choice. The Greek authorities tried to ban all mention of his name, and this is similar to the response of Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin to this shooting, who said "I will not name the shooter. I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act."[15] However, Wikipedia is not censored and naming and giving some background details about the shooter is within the scope of the article. This argument has been raised before in response to mass shooting incidents and no doubt it will be raised again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ideally the name, image and other personal details of the shooter would be left out. They aren't particularly notable in an event though their actions are. ODMP.org manages to have a list and details of police officer Line-of-duty deaths without naming a single perpetrator. We could clinically describe the account without creating these heroes. WP doesn't have to be part of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper-Mercer is on the front pages of three of the British newspapers today, which to some extent proves John Hanlin's point. The coverage is not as tasteless and controversial as the UK tabloid coverage of the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward which led to criticism. Harper-Mercer was born in Britain but the details remain scant. Hopefully this can be expanded at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not news. He's a gunman. He can fade away with time. That's preferable to having named martyrs for warped people. They seek fame and immortality as is evident from his writing. We can't control the media nut we don't have to play that game. Our BLP policy evolved to that and so should our coverage of these events. --DHeyward (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Over the past few months I have thought about this long and hard. I am British and have spent hours writing about mass shootings in the USA, and would hate to think that anything that I had written on Wikipedia might act as a source for giving ideas to people who wanted to do similar things. However, I don't believe that banning in the style of Herostratus would make much difference as the information would be widely available elsewhere. A ban might also backfire and generate even more publicity, in the same way as the British government's ill-fated ban on Gerry Adams and others from the airwaves in the 1980s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what he may have sought or wanted, he's dead now. He seeks nothing anymore and has no idea if people are talking about him. Only TV characters get to watch their own funeral. There's nothing particularly special about this school shooting that's going to inspire anything that hasn't already been inspired, if copycats actually do copy things at all. Very bland character, especially juxtaposed with the football soldier father survivor. That guy has famous role model potential. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Certainly we should expand coverage of the victims - unfortunately we have User:WWGB taking out information, like this: [16] I don't know why some people are so insistent on making articles be unuseful as comprehensive resources about an event - why even cover an event if you plan to be second best at everything from the beginning? (I'll admit, I'm aggravated because he took out some of my text too) In this case though, it gives the impression that we think the shooter is "notable" and the victims aren't, and so only the shooter is allowed to be described as something more than a statistic! Wnt (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The assertion of "cousin" is stretching the truth. The fact of the matter is that "Carnes was the great-granddaughter of Merkley's first cousin". This is distant family and little more than tabloid space filler for a hack to maintain their daily quota of words. Wikipedia does not engage in such non-notable trivia just to "balance" the coverage of a victim. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should even do that. If their families seek public exposure, they can do it but these pathological killers feed on the impact. This quote by the killer was taken out, but profoundly states his motivation while talking about the reporters killed in August: "I have noticed that so many people like [Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight." The question is why does he know this? This week in city of Chicago, 12 people were killed[17]. That's 3 more than in Oregon yet we don't see it blasted 24/7. We certainly don't want to extend whatever conflict is present to other places. We don't want some kid in Los Angeles to shoot another kid as retribution for a killing in Chicago he learned about on the news that he identified with. The school shooters like the one in this article see meaning being added to the life and memory of the shooters. So I think the question that we, as editors, need to ask is: How much of this information is really beneficial? Things like age versus exact birthdate, for example. Normal people don't care and it's not relevant. Place of birth, childhood homes, etc, etc. We have that information but publishing it forever immortalize the gunman and only heightens the sense of their worth in the next shooters head. Flanagan praised the VT shooter and Columbine shooter. This guy praised Flanagan. How much is it worth to write about the events if every word ever so slightly increases the odds that someone will decide to exit this life with an immortal epitaph enshrined in Wikipedia? --DHeyward (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I put that quote in, and I'd love to see it restored. However, Wikipedia should not be moved by such concerns. There are news outlets that seek to entertain, which work for profit, that have a choice what to highlight and what to put on the back page; they run a dozen stories on people like this and not one about the people who made magnets out of copper or developed a way they think they can make tin have zero resistance. But Wikipedia has a different calling, which is to document what can be documented, to make the knowledge available. We should have faith in freedom and hope for the human intellect. There is a chance that all this detail will help someone decrease the odds of future attacks. Put such worries out of mind, and just collect the information. Wnt (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

News orgs become very involved in these types of murders. We aren't called to "document what can be documented." We should only include things that are of encyclopedic value. The press chooses what to hype but if we were truly "documenting" without bias, for every shooting victim, there is a suicide. But the news doesn't cover suicides unless there is a hook. One of the reasons they don't is because suicides do generate copycats. Privacy is another reason. Chicago, in a very small section of the city, produces an Oregon body count every week but again its not here and it's barely local news. There are lots of reasons for not covering urban violence but it doesn't fit narratives the press like to push. What we're left with is the firearm version of Missing white woman syndrome. And unfortunately, what we see is shooters finding motivation and fascination with artificial fame. The "detail" that we add is largely cruft. Flanagan, for example, bought the same make/model of firearm used by the South Carolina shooting. Lastly, these events trigger all sorts of special interests from gun control groups advocating stricter laws regarding ownership, to gun rights groups trying to expand carry authorizations to mental health interests seekin more money for treatment. Oddly, none of those groups advocate for stronger mental health checks (and mental health records are protected way more than other medical records). But back to this instance, detailed coverage of mass shootings just doesn't help and there is tangible evidence that it's harming. --DHeyward (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: An encyclopedia, by definition, strives to cover everything. It doesn't detract from encyclopedic value if you don't like the perp, or you think something is "cruft" (hell, have you seen how many articles we have on Pokemon, or how frequently we let people feature some video game on the front page without even getting ad revenue for it?). It doesn't detract from it that you think the information is harmful, because the whole idea of an encyclopedia is that those who believe in the idea think it's a good thing for a person to have access to all knowledge, no license or permit required. Oh, I know there are more important issues to think about, other issues, you can save more lives with basic gun safety precautions where kids are concerned, etc.; if you want to have that effect on Wikipedia then try to improve our documentation of something that you think is more helpful. But tearing down each others' work is no way to go forward. And we won't get far if we don't really believe in an encyclopedic ideal - believe that improved understanding of cases like this can do more good than harm. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Our BLP policy is built around excluding potentially harmful information and it includes things like hurting the subjects feelings. When information is harmful we always weigh encyclopedic value to harm. There are lots of facts for articles like these but very few really matter. Shooter's name for example. "John Doe" works fine and conveys all the information needed. His exact birthday versus just his age is another over detail. These are things the copycat anthropomorphizes as an immortal icon. The less we give, the shorter the personal histories, the least humanizing/identifying information we give, the better off we are given how these psycho's operate. We lose virtually nothing but cruft (think about it: the crime is not unsolved - what good is accomplished by retaining what amounts to a shrine? At least two shooters mentioned previous shooters. We keep information out all the time and it isn't a question of sourcing, it's based on the potential for harm weighed against encyclopedic value. Not every fact is encyclopedic and I'd argue cruft facts that attract the attention of psychopaths should be committed. As an example, we don't repeat doxing information even if it was in the Washington Post. It's rarely encyclopedic and the permanence of Wikipedia makes it a bad idea. In a month, when the next troubled person googles the Oregon shooting, we will be hit #1. We shouldn't be the source that gives his life meaning by immortalizing a murderer. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. But for a long time, the media has been focusing more on the perpetrators and less on the victims and Wikipedia's information on these kinds of articles is dependent on what is being reported on, at least from what I've been seeing. If we're going to implement such changes, I think we need to address the root of the problem first, then. On a side-note, Wikipedia is NOT on a mission to defy common sense and give the perpetrators the credit they feel they deserve. Your accusations are not helping your argument, you know. Versus001 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Being a painfully slow reader, I'll confess to not having read all of this. But I'll say this much, current community consensus is clearly for including the perp's name, and there is no justification for a local override of community consensus on this, so this discussion violates WP:NOTFORUM. Interested parties should take it to an appropriate venue please. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This BBC News article takes a look at the issues involved. It says that "when it comes to copycat crimes, naming killers may be less important than the extent of the news coverage."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I took this to WP:Village pump (policy) as it's broader than this article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Late reply - in the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre a lot of commentators went on a fatuous crusade of creating moral panics over children who listen to music and play video games. The fact that the shooter was "conservative, republican" on a genuine dating profile should be included so that people don't go on moral panics against music, games, or liberal politics - but focus on guns or mental health.

• Note that all across Australia and the UK there are kids who have grievances, are single, have mental health issues, and have a desire to kill people - but there are no school shootings. -- Callinus (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In the US, too, these types vastly outnumber the shooters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Map

Hello ! I made a map of the Umpqua Community College. I can't put her in the article because I'm from the french-speaking wikpedia and the page is protected. If you're interested...

the map

Tubezlob (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest and effort. Via the coordinates, two clicks take the reader to a map that (1) is interactive (zoomable and pannable), (2) provides more detail including a pointer to Snyder Hall, and (3) if Google Maps is chosen for the second click, provides easy access to the Google Earth and Street View displays. I don't think this would add much reader value, certainly not enough to justify the space occupied by it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender

I have just added a little segment that briefly highlights how masculinity contributes to mass shootings. I understand that the inclusion might be controversial for some and that the paragraph as is might require some extra work to be acceptable for others. Please suggest improvements here. Darth Viller (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia, this entire passage is a WP:SYNTH issue and is almost entirely peripheral to the event. I'm going to remove it in its entirety for now per SYNTH but, but all means, discuss. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts, though I can understand that people may have issues with the phrasing. But I won't edit it back in. Here's the content with a few minor updates:

Stacy Teicher Khadaroo and Patrik Johnsson at the ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' single out toxic [[masculinity]] as an underrepresented theme in the national conversation. Psychological science professor Christopher Kilmartin, noting that nearly all mass shooters are men, is quoted by them as saying: "In this case, it sounds like he was blaming Christians for his problems, but the masculinity piece is what is really missing in the discussions about the equation." Sociologist Tristan Bridges added that perpetrators of mass shootings often conform excessively to dominant standards of masculinity despite these same men feeling emasculated. The authors also include comment from Peter Langman who says that violence can be perceived as status-enhancing for powerless males. Officials said Harper-Mencer was linked to a loose affiliation of "[[Alpha (ethology)#Beta_and_omega|beta]] boys" ("beta" is a common word in [[Red_pill_and_blue_pill#Other_uses|Red Pill]] circles) who were disenchanted about their social life.<ref name="Christian Science Monitor 2 October 2015">{{cite web | title= Many school shooters, one common factor: a warped view of masculinity|url= http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1002/Many-school-shooters-one-common-factor-a-warped-view-of-masculinity| author=Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, Patrik Johnsson|date= 2 October 2015 | website= [[Christian Science Monitor]] | accessdate= 3 October 2015}}</ref>

Every sentence clearly attributes who made what claim. There aren't any implications in the above text that build on these statements but aren't present in them. Synthesis is only used for grammatical reference and at one spot I added the name USA Today used that wasn't in the text.

I also disagree that the topic is tangential. At least these verifiable experts and the others quoted in the CSM article think it is relevant to the discussion of mass shootings. Surely their expertise counts for the topic being notable enough for inclusion? Darth Viller (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean, the article itself has the massacre as its subject. I don't see how that's peripheral. Darth Viller (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Underrepresented theme in the national conversation" sounds like a nice way of saying fringe theory to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it does to you, but it isn't much in the way of substantial comment. The article and the proposed paragraph include a fair number of social scientists. Do you have evidence they're fringe? Why make that comment then? Darth Viller (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

None of them are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, evidently, and all have books for sale in the particular niches of masculinity and school shooting. Seems like namedropping and piggybacking, more than attributing, but again, that observation is probably as insubstantial as the first. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning social science about masculinity and shootings as fringe? Darth Viller (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that way, or the articles about it wouldn't talk about how nobody's talking about it. It's even the trademarked slogan of The Good Men Project. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

... if—and only if—this were an article on mass shootings in general. It is not; it is about a single event. To include any commentary on what may (or may not) have been a motivational factor is synthesis within the confines of an encyclopedia. Firstly, WP:OR demands that no addition "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The paragraph above is in fact an analysis of mass shootings in general that, again, may or may not apply to the article subject. Second, the policy requires "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" (emphasis per the policy page). The paragraph above, which only peripherally refers to this event as part of that general analysis, fails both criteria. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't say the gender dynamics are same as the shooter's motive and neither does the proposed paragraph. Professor Kilmartin is represented as explicitly distinguishing between the underlying sociological dynamics and a potential motive.

I don't get your first point. The line about WP:OR is specifically about original conclusions, but that element is lacking in your analysis of the paragraph. It would seem to me that that means the paragraph comforms to that aspect of WP:OR. The quote for your second quote requires that the source(s) relate(s) to the topic (it definitely does) and that the materials represent the sources accurately (I think they do and have seen no argument that contests that with particular examples).

So it appears to me that the paragraph passes both criteria, with flying colours even.

Note I will indent the paragraph to give it some clearer formatting. Darth Viller (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it may or may not have anything to do with the shooter's motive, why should it be included? You said yourself that it's merely a general point. It has no direct relation to the article. Feel free to find a better place for it, perhaps in a suggested "Beta Uprising" article, or on School shooting. I don't necessarily agree with the information being included anywhere, but as long as it's on a suitable page, I wouldn't contest it. Coco Chen (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Coco Chen is exactly correct, and is the element your analysis of my analysis is lacking: unless this speculation were somehow to become fact—that is, what is now mere guesswork (however much educated) instead conclusively adheres to this shooter in this event—as opposed to, in essence, "he might fit this pattern"—it fails encyclopedic policy. In other words (as I struggle for clarity), the OR/SYNTH issue is: inclusion implies to the reader that this is the conclusion to draw, while devoid of actual fact, with respect to this shooter. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

After any mass shooting, it is routine for media talking heads - who have usually never met the shooter or heard of him prior to the incident - to speculate about why he did it. The material reverted in this edit falls into this category. Theories about motives should wait until an investigation is complete.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph was in "Reactions" and as such comprises the CSM authors' and several social scientists' reactions to the specific event. What they said is established knowledge about gender dynamics, not really speculation about the shooter's specific motives. Darth Viller (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That does not mitigate its inherent problems within the context of an encyclopedia. The existing reactions are factual (Obama's political commentary notwithstanding) and solely specific to the event. The paragraph as written was entirely speculative and almost entirely peripheral. (It poses and speculates on the question, "Why do you think they do it?") This constitutes WP:OR and violates WP:SOAPBOX. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of the 4chan thread remains to be proved - I don't know how long it will take - nor is it clear the shooter actually subscribed to the ideas current in that forum - but it has led to some sourced discussion like [18] that this is tied to the "Beta Uprising" meme, essentially the notion that the Sexual Revolution has led to a de facto polygamy, which (as in other species) results in violent confrontations between males. There is actually substantial room for nuanced discussion of the ideological basis of these crimes, but the data is so unreliable right now that it seems like a near waste of time not to wait a bit. However, @Darth Viller: it may be worth your time to consider starting an article on Beta Uprising, where this data is relevant now regardless of its connection to murder; the sources available seem thin but sufficient for an article. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove or qualify final line in "Reactions" section.

The final line of the wiki currently states "According to the BBC, the incident was the 45th U.S. school shooting of 2015 and the 142nd school shooting since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[52]" I suggest removing said line as the BBC cited the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety which is notorious for pushing false information. Politifact has previously assigned a "Mostly False" rating to their school shooting list. If the line is not removed then it should be noted that the source is a questionable special interest group. -mstngs351 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstngs351 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the BBC's use of "routine US gun violence" should be considered carefully. Anyway, Everytown is obvious conservative propaganda and attempts to play on readers' emotions. The line should be removed and hopefully replaced by other statistics, but it's alright if that's not possible. Coco Chen (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Motive: Anti-Christian sentiment" needs removed

It is not clear what religion or what the motivation the shooter had. The claim that it was just killing "Christians" (or "anti-Christian") is not established and further complicated by the fact that he told his victims, "I'll see you soon" which implies he believes going where they are in the afterlife. So clearly he is some sort of theist, who thinks he was going where the Christians go when they die.

According to another account, "It wasn't about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians." This account directly contradicts the "Anti-Christian sentiment" claim.

Thus, "anti-Christian sentiment" for the motivation needs removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGGGGGGG999999 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I took it out. The source only said he had anti-religious feelings - and also said he had white supremacist feelings. It didn't claim to know these feelings were the reason for the shooting. Somebody can be a die-hard liberal but that doesn't mean he shot his wife's lover because the man was a conservative. Also, the story credits law enforcement sources with that opinion, and doesn't say it in the newspaper's own "voice", which we could explain in text but not in an infobox. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The text is different when posted to other sites

I posted the URL of this article to my Facebook feed. When the preview came up the text was different from the article. It stated that at least 15 people were dead and 20 injured. Nowhere in the article itself does it say that. Is there a different source of text used for the previews? 66.214.228.176 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The best I can say is that you somehow posted the URL to an older version of the article. Versus001 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

More likely is that Facebook is reading the preview from it's cache rather than from the live version of the article. Other than posting the url to the current revision (click "permanent link" in the bar on the left) I don't think there is anything you can do about that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Title should have year

To be consistent with other articles about like events, this should be renamed as "2015 Umpqua Community College Shooting" in order to have the year in the title.Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CONCISE, the year is included only when needed to disambiguate. Until there is another mass shooting incident at this school, the year is not needed in the title. See Category:University shootings in the United States. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To get here quickly there is even a UCC shooting redirect. Checkingfax (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"White Supremacist" - nonsense

Our political correct gun control freaks aren't wearing their thinking caps to day. The guy named as the killer is identifiable mixed race. His victims seem to be all White. In that light to claim he had "White Supremacist" (whatever that is supposed to mean), because a apparently new profile with his photos got ironcross45 as user name is not only far-fetched, it's incredibly stupid. --41.150.174.164 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The term white supremacist occurs once in the article, and not in wiki voice. We didn't invent the term in reference to this shooter, it appears in multiple reliable sources. I fear you're over-reacting. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

People of colour can be white supremacists. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is true, look at Clayton Bigsby, famed white supremacist who was black. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or famed Jewish anti-Semites Bobby Fischer, Henry Makow and Patrol 36. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with the shooting and is crufty, non-encyclopedic crap/ --DHeyward (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There were Jewish members of the Nazi Party. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in love with that content, but well more than half of what we say about his background is crufty, non-encyclopedic crap. Just read the Perpetrator section and tell me how much of that has something to do with the shooting. Leave it all or strip it all, I don't really care, but let's reach a consensus and be consistent. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of items that had nothing to do with anything, like his previous college and their time in Torrance. There's probably more that should go, too ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Heyyouoverthere, you can't use fictional examples from the Chappelle Show. DrTanasinn (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As said before, people of color can be white supremacists. The term "white supremacy" is still applicable because it's an ideology first linked to whites, with a large majority of its followers being obviously white. The fact that many other sources mention this indicates is notability in explaining his motives, at least. Versus001 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity is relevant

Given that RS news sources have reported both that Harper-Mercer had white supremacist materials/posting and that he is mixed race, it seems relevant to include ethnic information about him and his parents as content in this article. Why are people censoring that information, which has been reported by more than one RS?Parkwells (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you failed to sign, I'll assume you're Parkwells based on your false claim of censorship. I believe we still state that he was mixed race, and that is all that is necessary. The specific races involved are not relevant. If you continue to assert censorship, I suspect people will simply start ignoring you. I know I will. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right; censorship was the wrong word to use; I wrote it too fast. But I do find your editing choices odd compared to numerous other articles I've read in Wikipedia that report in considerable detail about perpetrators and their families, including ethnicity. "Mixed race" is a term that can apply to numerous combinations of ancestry; given that the perpetrator was reported as promoting white supremacy, his parents' ethnicities seem relevant.Parkwells (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The "mixed race" sentence has now been cleansed out entirely under the pretense that this is because it did not come from authorities, which is true; however, we have
(1)Daily Mail (UK): a neighbour stating that the mother is a black nurse and we have
(2)Reuters): the murderer self identifying as "mixed race" in social media
These facts reported by WP:RS are blanked out but the article persists on several quotations from neighbours, witnesses, and from media and statements posted by the murdered himself (!)
So: inconvenient facts, we'll find any reason to censor out. Anything else, by the same standards we'll include. Interesting the things you see on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There really is no reason an encyclopedia should use The Daily Mail for anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

That is (at least) the second time this editor has accused me of having "cleansed" an article. This says far more about XavierItzm than it does me. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, would you please state the basis for your claim that the specific races involved "are not relevant." Also please state exactly to whom you think this fact is irrelevant.Snarfblaat (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Snarfblaat: If reliable published sources have attached "significant significance" to the specific races (i.e., that he was black/white versus Hispanic/white, Asian/white, or Smurf/white), I've missed it. Have they said the particular mix had anything to do with the shooting? Absent that, asserting relevance to that would be WP:SYN, a violation of Wikipedia policy. I can't answer your last question since relevance is not "to" anyone. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Klobfour insists on putting quotation marks around the single word of hero as he/she did here, but WP:MOSQUOTE states that a "direct quotation should not be used in an attempt to preserve the formatting preferred by an external publisher, especially when the material would otherwise be unchanged". Is that correct? Versus001 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like Klobfour is acting on a petty bias, almost patronizing. But you already know edit warring is not a solution (thank you for opening a discussion on the talk page). Anyway, I don't think it should be quoted. If it is not reasonably resolved here, feel free to raise a concern on WP:ANI. Although, given your recent history with edit warring on this article, be prepared to take some of the responsibility. Coco Chen (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I look at it like this. If the quotes are omitted, will that be ambiguous? Will a reader suspect that the word "hero" is our paraphrasing of what the parents said? I don't think so. I think the reader will understand that the parents used that word. So I don't see any need for the quotes. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Parents

The parents' names and their divorce when Harper-Mercer was 16 have been reported by RS. Why is that content being censored here? People are curious about his family, thinking that might point the way to understanding his issues - why did he do this? Parkwells (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

First, please understand that we don't include something simply because it is reported by RS. Then please explain how knowledge of his parents' names aids understanding of anything. I don't know about the divorce, that's a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are parents' names included in any article? They are basic facts of a person's life. A person does not spring from nothing. Most articles on shootings include information on where the perpetrator came from, including specifics about their families, education, etc.Parkwells (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In George Zimmerman's case, Wikipedia exquisitely details his parent's names, and the fact his mother is Latin American and his grand parents black.
In this case, where the murderer's mother is black, this fact is censored out.
Los Angeles times: "hyper-protective black mother"
So it goes in Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said, so it goes. Articles are not consistent on everything, and things very often don't go the way you want them to. Therefore Wikipedia is a community of corrupt imbeciles. Thank you for that unique insight. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail also reads that the mother is:
"An African-American lady".
Someone like you in Wikipedia just deleted this reference. Nice job censoring out! XavierItzm (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The data and its accompanying Daily Mail reference failed WP:RS; a neighbor called his mother an "African-American lady", which hardly stands up as evidence of heritage, and there was no mention of the father whatsoever, never mind his race. Personally, I'd have no problem with "hyper-protective black mother" as per the LA Times, as long as there's no unencyclopedic linger.

I'm the one who reverted the Daily Mail edit. If by "someone like you in Wikipedia" you mean someone who recognizes what Wikipedia is—and, more to the point, what it is not—you would be correct. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can see your point with regard to the Daily Mail, even if I do not concur. the LA Times reference just got deleted twice under different contexts. Two-teaming? XavierItzm (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this entire section and the one above? Versus001 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Two-teaming, no; writing an encyclopedia, yes. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your edit and I thank you. Fair and square citation. XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged. Happy editing! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

reaction section: Forget the zeroes and remember the heroes.

Perhaps for the reactions section:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html
• http://www.kval.com/news/local/Forget-Oregons-gunman-trends-Chris-Mintz-hero-not-zero-330452361.html

Hero not zero naming:

• http://www.wusa9.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/naming-shooters-in-mass-killings/73205970/
• http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/376494/why-its-important-to-name-the-shooter/
• http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/thoughts-naming-oregon-school-shooter/nnsYg/
• http://fox40.com/2015/10/02/oregon-sheriff-who-will-never-say-shooters-name-is-no-fan-of-gun-control/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Words of wisdom. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Satan

Several sources, like this one have been claiming he dabbled in Satanism. Worth mentioning? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

NBC also referenced this aspect. Albeit not as in great detail as the aforementioned People magazine article.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The NBC article only quotes Harper-Mercer's comment about hell and "the devil." It reports nothing about Satanism and does not use that term.Parkwells (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't 1990. Satanism isn't scary anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Odd twist not being reported

See: http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/here-is-the-oregon-shooters-profile.html/ 108.46.17.166 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)BG

Not sure that this blog is the best source.Parkwells (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the pamelageller blog clearly makes the point about a possible muslim related motivation.

self-published sources are not reliable, and Pamela Geller is not an exception to the self-published rule. -- Callinus (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

She also doesn't try to answer her headline question, even with a no. She does say his online presence "frankly give little to no insight into motive." That's the clear part. No clue what "thant" is supposed to mean. Thanatos? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

I think "thant" is a typo for "that". Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, but I think someone should blogvestigate Geller's possible links to the darkside, just to be sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Or wait, someone has. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Names of the victims

The names of the victims should be in the infobox above the perpetrators name. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no such provision for a victim list in a civilian attack infobox. (How big would the 9/11 victim list be?) WWGB (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sentiment, where applied with some logic. This, however, is an argument for the policy page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The absurdity of listing victims of mass murder is not in the inclusion of their names in a wikipedia page, but in their murders in the first place. The names of the victims are not only notable, but are far more notable than that of the shooter. Not listing the victim's name would be like not mentioning Lincoln's name in the article about his assasination. This event is notable because of who was killed, not because of who did the killing. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that nine college folk who took a bullet are as notable as Abe Lincoln? The shooter is getting all the headlines, not the victims, due to self-imposed notoriety. You really need to take some time out to reconsider how society, and encyclopedias, actually work. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does this page exist at all if it is not notable when nine people are murdered in a public school? It is not Wikipedia's job to glorify the actions of terrorists, that is your job on your own time. If the victims are the part that aren't notable, then their names should be deleted from this article altogether. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me you need to be reviewed on Wikipedia's policy, because this is the norm for all mass murder articles. Also, please, go to the policy page if you feel strongly about this topic. And you're making some pretty strong accusations if you think other users are "glorifying" the shooter on purpose. As if the majority of users on Wikipedia root for the mass murderers. :( Versus001 (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have brought my concerns to policy page as was previously requested of me. I want it to be made clear to me where it says in Wikipedia policy that shooters are to be given more room in an article than the victims of the shooter's crime. It seems to me that this event is notable because it is a school shooting and that the victims were students, not because of any quality which the shooter possessed. Virtually all mass shootings which occur go unrecorded on wikipedia due to their nature of not being school shootings. This event is notable because if the victims, not because of the shooter.

I do not appreciate being attacked for defending my position that the shooter should not be glorified. Glorification of the shooter should not occur regardless of whether you intend to glorify or not. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"It is not Wikipedia's job to glorify the actions of terrorists, that is your job on your own time." Who doesn't appreciate what, now? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED says that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

"Virtually all mass shootings which occur go unrecorded on wikipedia due to their nature of not being school shootings." Let me redirect you to here. School shootings are only a section of mass murders that are recorded by Wikipedia, many of which have articles of their own.

As for you being attacked, if you're talking about what I said ("Something tells me you need to be reviewed on Wikipedia's policy, because this is the norm for all mass murder articles"), then I didn't mean it as an attack. At least, not intentionally. In fact, I have stated many times before that I agree with the notion that we need to give more attention to the victims where it's due. But implementing such a policy will take time, a lot of time probably, and for now, you're going to have to abide by the current guidelines in place until some sort of change is made. Versus001 (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The policy you seek is WP:DUE. Please read it. Reliable sources give more attention and coverage to the perpetrator, so we do too. It's that simple. You may not like it, but that's the policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

While I concur, that sadly is something that is not on Wikipedia's policy. ATinySliver's got it right, you need to go to the policy page if you want such an edit to get through. The talk page isn't the place to discuss this kind of topic. Versus001 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found several articles from mainstream media which discuss, exclusively, the victims of the shootings.

References

It seems to be that plenty of reliable sources have given much time and effort on reporting exclusively on the identities of the victims without mentioning the shooter, as it appears that this is very notable to the shooting. I would be happy to provide this page with more reliable sources detailing the identities of the victims. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your belligerent "fuck policy" is this close to a belligerent "fuck you". The editors are human and do not necessarily disagree with you. The policy governs what is or is not encyclopedic. You're going to end up ignored at best and blocked at worst if you continue to SOAPBOX here instead of making a reasoned, civil argument (absent the assumptions that we somehow are acting in bad faith) at the policy page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, we'd have implemented those a long time ago if policy didn't dictate otherwise. Also, I will have to add that while the shooter doesn't deserve the credit he's being given, both on Wikipedia and any other news source in general, it is still Wikipedia's job as an informative encyclopedia to at least give a basic overview of who the shooter is and why he did what he did. Versus001 (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between a reliable source noting people did things and one noting people did notable things. Alcaraz wanted to be a nurse. Anspach had something to do with emergency services. Carnes liked the outdoors. And so on.

In contrast, Harper-Mercer did something that made all the articles you linked above exist at all. If Levine was named Smith and loved darts instead of fly fishing, we'd still hear about it, because of the guy who killed him, not because he didn't publish any novels. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

So just so I'm clear, this article is notable because of who the shooter was and not because of what the shooter did? Should this article be renamed if it's about the shooter and not the shooting? 174.16.197.18 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's about what he did. He was nobody till then. Now he's just a slightly more notable nobody than his victims. He can't have his own article, because he's notable for one event. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

You are misreading what's being said. This article is notable of what the shooter did. There's just a section dedicated to explaining his personal life and his motives because it serves to inform who he was and why he did it. The other sections serve their own purposes, and they all add up to an informative article about the shooting. Versus001 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why he did it, and if it's like the other thousand or so, it never will. But yeah, lets readers make their own somewhat educated guess. There's not much mystery as to why people go to school on weekdays, so less need be said to allow readers that same guess about the victims. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Classroom 15

To answer the question posed by WWGB, that's how it's identified by The New York Times, so that's how I styled it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone found anything more on the highly dubious white supremacist stuff? Revert anyone who removes anonymous mention

This supposed "information" comes exclusively from an anonymous source from the LA times. Usually absurd claims like this take some serious evidence to back it up. How come we aren't hearing it directly from the police investigating it?07:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like I'm gonna have to redirect you here, because this discussion is talking about the same thing. Versus001 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not even remotely close. What you linked is someone mentioning ironcross, which has nothing demonstrable link to do with any kind of white supremacy. He could call himself the thenewhitler and it still would be meaningless without any ACTUAL link to white supremacy. It would be a link to neo-nazism, anyway, not "white supremacy". Whatzinaname (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What? I clicked on the link and it goes to where I wanted you to go. For the record, the section is called "'White Supremacist' - nonsense". Versus001 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of my edit confused you. Be specific. Whatzinaname (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You somehow being redirected to a different section of the talk page than what my link provided. Versus001 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic but that actually has been happening to me lately. Not sure the cause, but sometimes when I click talk links, they go to another section entirely. Coco Chen (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

overexcited edits, per WP:NPA--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cute. (BTW, the cited source says no such thing anymore ...) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I have a life and don't want to waste it edit warring with blatant POV pushing. Do explain quite clearly why you removed the cite that the supposed "white supremacy leanings" are from an anonymous federal source. Anonymous sources, especially ones with manifestly incredible claims, should always be demarcated by such at wikipedia Whatzinaname (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC) And I'm afraid it does still say that that la times source is anonymous. "The Los Angeles Times reported Friday, based on information from an anonymous federal law enforcement source familiar with the investigation, that the shooter was obsessed with guns and religion and had white supremacist leanings." try reading with your eyes open net time, perhaps? ...You are reading what's being said, are you? Versus001 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC) You again... posting irrelevant stuff again... what a shokWhatzinaname (talk)

social media sources (phrasing)

The perpetrator section currently reads in part, "Harper-Mercer self-identified as mixed race on social media.[42][43] According to the Los Angeles Times, those sources claimed he was a "hate-filled" man with antireligion and white supremacist leanings, and with long-term mental health issues.[44]". It took me a couple of readings to realised that "those sources" was referring to his posts/accounts on social media (at least I presume so). Is there a better way we can phrase this to be more explicit about which sources are being referred to without being repetitive? (I've failed to come up with something better than what's there, otherwise I would just have changed it). Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

The section on OBAMA'S reaction should be removed. The press release was made BEFORE the gunman was even dead. The attack was STAGED.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)