Talk:Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting

Suspect section

Look at other articles where there are detailed sections of suspects. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop it! Lots of info is coming out on the suspect and I don't know why you're deleting it, along with the other edits I've been making! It's going to become necessary soon, so might as well!--75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring and causing disruption, please stop. The suspect section is not needed at this time as there is very little known about the suspect. Further, it is typical for Wikipedia articles on similar subjects to not highlight shooting suspects in such a manner. Also, please see the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in answer to your first post in this section. While you're at it, also look at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, more information is coming in. It is becoming necessary. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary. Neither is your edit warring and ignoring advice of experienced editors. Edit warring report has been filed since you are continuing to edit/revert disruptively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So the suspect shouldn't be talked about at all in this article? What in the world is that all about? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said the suspect doesn't need a section highlighting him. Having his name in the article body is sufficient. Another editor already expressed the same, you ignored his revert edit summary as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What happens if he's found guilty of the shooting, then? How will a section be possible, if the info is lost? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. How will the "info be lost"? We have sources at our disposal, what's been placed here already is in the article history. Further, Wikipedia is not a news reporting website (please see WP:NOTNEWS as was already suggested to you earlier) and there is no deadline in Wikipedia (please also see WP:DEADLINE as was suggested to you earlier as well). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a section isn't needed, but is there a reason we aren't even mentioning this guy anywhere at all in the article when a suspect has definitely been named? ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ProfessorTofty, his name was mentioned before the onslaught of IP and new user edit warring. His name should be in the article. I cannot and should not revert back to the last stable version as I will be likely called on the carpet for edit warring. If you'd like to revert to this version, it would be helpful to restore the last stable version as well as the suspect's name and other associated, appropriate content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Figured there was no real issue with re-adding pertinent, sourced content so put it back in myself (at the same time George Ho was attempting to do the same!). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When will a section be coming up? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A section is unnecessary. We don't want to separate the suspect info. Have you read WP:BLP1E yet? Also, even when we can't hypothesize, some guy couldn't do that alone, could he? --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So there'll never be a section?! :o 75.80.175.107 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, I'm expecting a yes or a no. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So...is that a no?... 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop wallowing and not do edit warring anymore? Until public sources learn a lot more about the suspect, there shall not be a separate section. George Ho (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur. It appears the shooting was “definitely politically motivated,’’ not that I'm surprised by this revelation: Source: Colorado shooter politically motivated, said ‘no more baby parts’ after attacking Planned Parenthood--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to any NEW or inexperienced editors coming to this page/discussion. Please be aware of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. — Ched :  ?  01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion here about WP policies, cited in the comments above, about ARTICLES about people notable for only a single event and a SECTION within an article about such a person. This discussion and the related edits are all about a section within an article, not an article itself, and I'm not at all sure the cited policies about articles, not sections, are relevant. Although I agree with the general premise that we do not want to glorify bad actors, e.g., we should not dignify jerks who jump onto football fields with live TV coverage of their antics, when bad actors crash into everyone's consciousness because of the atrocity of their actions, that rule no longer should apply. I want, for example, to learn why Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon and something about Chapman's background. As more information emerges about the shooter here, Robert Lewis Dear, I think it essential that the article include information about him and his motives. At the same time, I absolutely do not think Dear rates a standalone article about his bio. Hope I'm clear. Depending on further comments to this thread, I may or may not restore the suspect section that had been previously deleted. Lahaun (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Depending on further comments to this thread, I may or may not restore the suspect section that had been previously deleted." I'm confused by this comment, Lahaun. As it is, it reads like a threat to do whatever you choose regardless of consensus and policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my friend, I meant I was asking for contrary comments and, if none were forthcoming, I would fix the article according to my posted thoughts. So, to the issue, what do you think about what I said? Lahaun (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think: WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:DEADLINE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:1E reads, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own ARTICLE." (Emphasis added.) We are not talking about an article, but, as I said, a section within an article. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE are not relevant to the topic. Please explain, don't just cite random policies. All the best, Lahaun (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a suspect section, not bloated with excessive detail, but reliable sources are starting to cover him more as info is revealed about him. Eventually there will be a court case as well. USA today and WaPo have some more detailed info about the suspect.173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

One of us can add more about him and make a separate paragraph about him if WP:BLP allows this. Unsure whether this warrants separate section. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course there should be a suspect/perpetrator section, just as there is in other shooting articles. In fact, it is quite extraordinary not to have one. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For me, the issue hasn't been so much that there would or would not be a suspect/perpetrator section or sub-section, but that what has been added today has highlighted the suspect and everything about him in such a manner that it almost bordered on WP:UNDUE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should also consider where this story is going now, he's still alive, so the media coverage will now naturally flow to him and his background, his upcoming Monday courtdate, and the forthcoming legal/court/trial/ phase for several months to come, so should I guess the question is, are we going to go any further with this guy, I think he's unfortunately, partly through the connection with PP, established his notability enough to warrant a section. I also don't think it would be WP:UNDUE to add a section/sub about the victims, that's not uncommon for an article like this either. (And full disclosure: I was the IP 173 above, editing while logged out)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And once again, a completely strange absence of a suspect section. Shouldn't more info be out on this guy by now? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It needs one. And please register a full account. DreamGuy (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2015

2015 Colorado Springs shooting → 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting – 2015 Colorado Springs shooting is too generic of a name. For example, see Columbine High School massacre, Aurora Chuck E. Cheese shooting, and 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's already a discussion of same above. Did you miss it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No I did not. This is a requested move given the page protection. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. The others commenting above need to be made aware of this, then. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also another 2015 shooting in Colorado Springs, in which Noah Harpham killed three people.[1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Title seems politically motivated, the connection to Planned Parenthood has not yet been established. I do, however, support an article title change to November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting as there was another shooting in CS during 2015. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Politically motivated? The hostage taking, standoff and killings happened at a Planned Parenthood location, so we report the fact. Maybe the political motivation is in your statement? Follow the sources please! That is what we do in WP. This should be a no brainer.- Cwobeel (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my opinion. Are we now not allowed to state our opinions in Wikipedia discussions? If so, I didn't get the memo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to have the precise location of the event in the article title. For example, the articles 2012 Aurora shooting and 2011 Tucson shooting make no reference to Century 16 Theater or Safeway in the article title. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

One could equaly argue that oposition to this obvious change appears politically motivated. Artw (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - I agree with Winkelvi; there is no anti-abortion motive officially confirmed just yet. I'm not entirely opposed to the rename, but I think renaming it right now would be too premature. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Changed my mind according to all the other arguments for it. Naming it "Planned Parenthood shooting" isn't necessarily enough to imply an anti-abortion motivation in the article. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• It does not have to be anti-abortion to rename the article. in Wikipedia we follow the sources, and 100% of the sources refer to this shooting as the "Planned Parenthood shooting" in Colorado. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The primary sources are now mostly referring to this as "Planned Parenthood shooting", and it did take place at Planned Parenthood. The article titles about these kinds of events are not consistent, as noted above, but we should follow what primary sources are doing and what users are likely to search for. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• comment. Originally as I was starting out on this (then titled "2015 Colorado Springs shootings"), I was considering whether or not to include the Halloween incident. Everything moved so fast on article development (as would be expected), and that fell by the wayside. For right now I'd prefer to not include the "Planned Parenthood" aspect in the title for a couple reasons. 1) Stability. (already a DYK nom on this). 2) Until we know more about any "premeditation", I think it induces POV to the article. 3) A degree of respect for the people affected by this. I do understand the reason(s) for various titles and such, but in documenting an encyclopedia article, we should not be rushing any judgments. This is just all my own personal IMO. — Ched :  ?  18:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize with (1) but the change appears inevitable as that's where the primary sources are going. For (2), the fact that it occurred at Planned Parenthood is not POV, and many other shooting incidents are named after the place they happened. I'm not sure (3) should be a consideration. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't even know yet exactly what took place at the PP clinic. From what I've read, the gunman went into the PP clinic, but it looks like he did so to evade police, not necessarily to shoot up the place. There's been no statement released that says, "Yes, this was a planned and specific attack on Planned Parenthood". Therefore, at this time, putting Planned Parenthood in the article title would be more than inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Other articles have been named after specific buildings in which the shooting took place, without the shooter's motivation having anything to do with that building. It's likely IMHO that some people are going to try to score political or ideological points from the fact that this took place at Planned Parenthood, but that shouldn't affect editing decisions. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support If only because it was the second mass shooting in Colorado Springs in a month. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Being the second shooting doesn't merit adding Planned Parenthood if it's inaccurate or unwarranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The standoff, hostage taking and murder happened at a Planned Parenthood location. How is that not accurate or unwarranted? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As has already been explained, we don't know if there is truly a connection to Planned Parenthood other than the location. As has also been pointed out previously, we don't name similar incident articles based on the exact location they took place (at a theater, at a political rally, at the corner of Hollywood and Vine). Until we know for certain the shooting was meant to target the PP clinic, naming the article as you have proposed is inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - We have many media sources specifically confirming it was politically motivated. For example HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The link you provided does not specifically confirm the motivation. In fact, it specifically says "Appears To Have Been...". That leaves room for doubt, as it should be, since the motivation has not yet been confirmed by law enforcement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm speechless.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-abortion related or not, this incident will always be remembered and referred to as the "Planned Parenthood" shooting in Colorado. Thus the need for renaming the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You forgot to add, "in my opinion". Which, ultimately, and at this early date, your statement truly is. Of course, if some have their way, it will be remembered as such if the article is inappropriately (at this time) named as such. Until the motive is revealed by law enforcement, we have no right as editors to name the article something that isn't proven. Personally, I think Americans will remember the shooting as being the day after Thanksgiving more than any (at this point alleged) connection with Planned Parenthood. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I agree it should be renamed regardless of motivation.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 2 (after too many (edit conflict)) Please be aware that the shooting BEGAN - outside of the "Colorado Springs Westside Health Center". I oppose a rename at this time. — Ched :  ?  19:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Ched -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Most sources describe it as the Planned Parenthood shooting. Its as simple as that.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

In the search for ratings and increased readership, "sources" get it wrong all the time. It doesn't matter what sources are prematurely declaring it to be, what law enforcement reveals is what counts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:VNT. The opinion of law enforcement has nothing to do with anything. Please stop repeating that claim.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop telling me to read WP:VNT as it doesn't apply in this case. We don't refer to things in the same hyperbole as the media just because it's "verifiable". When the media starts reporting that "The shooter confessed to an intention to target Planned Parenthood", then VNT will apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that WP:VNT is just a guideline, not a policy. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The article states that the police were first called to the PP building. If you have reliable sources stating that the incident began elsewhere, please add this information to the article. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That is a different name for the same building. But nobody uses that name in the sources. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The suspect was in the Planned Parenthood building. This is fact.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Jezus, people. Being in the building doesn't mean he intended to shoot up that building or to shoot it up because it was a PP clinic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But the shooting was within Planned Parenthood. Hence all our sources. Hence the rename.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that WP:IDHT now applies in your case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:IRONY applies to you, since Cwobeel is telling you the same thing as myself.VictoriaGrayson^Talk

@Winkelvi: A suspected criminal has to fully confess his motivation to cite his motivation in Wikipedia? Where is that policy?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're familiar with the policy that all claims must be backed by reliable sources? A source consisting of a writer's opinion does not support presenting that claim as fact. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the Associated Press as a reliable source at the WP:RSN please go ahead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no way an Associated Press reporter knows the motivation while law enforcement does not. They are generally a reliable source but that does not make them infallible.Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that those looking to push a particular POV see policy as they wish and as it fits their agenda and desired narrative. It's no secret that Wikipedia comes up as the first if not in the first five search results via Google, Yahoo, and so on. If the article is named "Planned Parenthood shooting" then the world will start believing it and media sources will use it. Because, after all, "if it's on the internet and if it's in Wikipedia, it has to be true!" Which is precisely why this article title needs to reflect that facts as presented by those actually in the position of authority to deem the incident as is truly was/is. Not on the whim of media sources wanting to present a narrative. What you said, Miraculouschaos is spot on: a reporter's opinion doesn't necessarily equate fact. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the reliability because I disagree with the claim, I'm questioning it because there is no possible way the source could know whether the claim is true. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move - This article has a hat note indicating that the other Colorado Springs shooting in October is mentioned where it is. The naming convention shown here is pretty much standard practice, and can be renamed to November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting if the other incident merits an article of its own. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no standard practice - several examples of articles being named after buildings and others named after cities have been given. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support move- The connection of the event to Planned Parenthood has been widely reported and is well sourced. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The new title is too long, and the disambiguator falls afoul of WP:PTOPIC. I suggest "November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting" if you want to disambiguate, but the current title is OK right now, given that we don't have a page on the October shooting yet. epic genius (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support move per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, Planned Parenthood shooting is prevalent in reliable English-language sources. The shooter's motivation is not relevant to how we title articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support move. This is a no-brainer: "The man who police say stormed a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing a police officer and two others, used the phrase "no more baby parts" to explain his act, according to a law enforcement official." [2] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

An unnamed, anonymous alleged law enforcement official. Still no verification from law enforcement, BATF, FBI or anyone else in authority that this was intended to be an attack on PP or that he actually uttered the words "no more baby parts". So far, just the anonymous individual has reported it was said. Doesn't sound too convincing to me without further verification -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to wait for verification from law enforcement as to what the shooter's motivation/reasoning/intentions were to decide what the article title should be. The shooter's motivation/reasoning/intentions belong in the body of the article. Who knows at this point what his motivation was, he could be anti-abortion or he could have stubbed his toe on the sidewalk in front of the PP building, got mad and decided to go inside and shoot the place up. The fact is that the shooting/standoff took place at PP, and that is prevalent in the sourcing, per WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Elliot Rodger's motivation in Isla Vista was that "he wanted to punish women for rejecting him and to punish sexually active men for living a more enjoyable life than his", and McVeigh in the OKC Bombings was "motivated by his hatred of the federal government and by its handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge", Hinckley's motivation in his attempted assassination of Reagan was to impress Jodie Foster, and all their motivations and reasonings are covered in the bodies of their articles, their titles were determined by sourcing and prevalence, not their motivations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Decent points, however, we only knew for certain what the motivations of OKC, Isla Vista, Hinckley, et al, later on and not immediately or even just a few days after the incidents. It's only been two days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you're simply filibustering and should walk away; source [3] after source [4] after source [5] after source [6] have determined what the title of the article should be. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - sad we have to disambiguate but apparently we do —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support necessitated by multiple shootings. Artw (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Too early and no details. No one affiliated with planned parenthood was injured or killed while a numve of persons unaffiliated with PP are dead and injured. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ke'arre Stewart and Jennifer Markosvsky, two of the deceased, were accompanying friends that had appointments at the PP clinic. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• But shot outside the clinic as they had not entered it, correct? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Does it matter? They went to a Planned Parenthood clinic and got killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Of course it matters. It matters as far how the article is written and its title. I'm sure the FBI, BATF, and other involved law enforcement involved in the investigation think it matters, as well. "They went to a Planned Parenthood clinic and got killed." No, they were walking in a public space within the city limits of Colorado Springs and were gunned down. Their destination may matter, but it may not matter in the least. Of course, that's up to law enforcement to decide how much it matters and why, not us. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Amazingly convoluted logic. Let the RFC run its course. 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Convoluted"? Not in the least. Focused on the facts and NPOV, yes, most definitely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support The move would serve all five interests mentioned in the title policy. Planned Parenthood is obviously a controversial organization but calling a shooting at Planned Parenthood the "Planned Parenthood shooting" expresses no point of view about Planned Parenthood. Even given the arguments of opponents (e.g., possibility PP was not the target), the shooting happened there. Inonit (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• It implies Planned Parenthood was the victim and/or target which has not been established. Considering the victims, it could just as easily be called an attack on first responders/police. But we don't know that yet. --DHeyward (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not imply that, any more than "2015 Colorado Springs shooting" implies that Colorado Springs was the victim and/or target. It's descriptive. It's a location. Inonit (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - "It implies Planned Parenthood was the victim and/or target which has not been established." By the right-wing blogosphere, who won't admit it no matter how much is against them. Everyone else knows it definitely is, and reliable sources say it was. But it's a descriptor anyway, not some POV statement. The fringe arguments are sure strong on this one. DreamGuy (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support some sort of move. I don't really care if it has "Planned Parenthood" in the title, but the current name is simply too vague, especially when there was another shooting in Colorado Springs in October that is not covered by this article. Cannolis (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there now sufficient support to go ahead and make this move? Or is more discussion warranted? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say give it a few hours to meet the full seven days per the box at top. As long as there's no large change it should end up moved. 14:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – this is the only shooting in Colorado Springs in 2015 that is notable enough for its article. The proposed move would create unnecessary disambiguation. sst✈^(discuss) 14:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per SSTflyer, changing (i.e. adding more words in) the title would make the article harder to search, even with the AutoComplete system. Even when seemingly ambiguous, this incident is the only notable topic of all shootings in Colorado Springs. Creating the articles about other incidents and deleting them look inevitable, but we should avoid that and not make a cycle of it. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I suggest leaving this open for another couple of days, or longer if necessary. There's no rush, and it's better to establish a firm consensus on a hopefully final title than to keep moving the article about. I've move-protected the article and this talk page to prevent any more back-and-forth, and to prevent any further undiscussed moves after the RM closes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached." Consensus doesn't mean EVERYONE agrees, it means the majority does, and they sure do. Why then does the minority think they can name it the way they want? Makes no sense. It's not like the current way was some longstanding consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note, "may" be closed after seven days, not "must"; what's the rush? Consensus is not about counting votes, it's about strength of argument. While the move-warring is not on (hence the protection), there does seem to be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether the defining feature of the incident is its geographical location (Colorado Springs) or the nature of the place involved (a Planned Parenthood clinic). So where's the harm in continuing to discuss it instead of railroading through one version or the other? It's not like we have a print deadline to meet; we can take as long as we need to decide what we're going to call the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The suggested new title is based on the POV that the Planned Parenthood clinic was the only place people were shot, which is just one interpretation. Several news articles, including the New York Times article I've linked to farther below, quote eyewitnesses who said that at least one victim was shot outside a "King Soopers" grocery store which is a significant distance from the PP clinic, which raises the likelihood that this may have been a more general shooting spree. In fact the staff of the PP clinic have said that the reason they had time to barricade themselves in back rooms was precisely because the gunfire began elsewhere, and that's also backed up by eyewitnesses who said it began elsewhere. That's a valid alternative POV that has been mentioned in reliable sources, so unless the police say that the PP clinic was the only target, we cannot declare it to be so. The current title is just fine, for the reasons other people have given farther above. Here's a link to the NYTimes article I mentioned, and there are other articles which say the same thing: [7] GBRV (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Naming it what it's called is not a POV, it's naming it what it's called. Besides which, and per above, calling a fact (that it's best known by the Planned Parenthood name) a POV is insane. It's like a fact-free zone with some people. DreamGuy (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "insane". A number of media sources began calling it the "Planned Parenthood shooting" because the final standoff occurred there, but that doesn't make it the official title of the incident for all time. Many eyewitnesses said that the shooting actually started elsewhere and included multiple targeted locations, in which case your proposed title is going to look rather contradictory unless you want to censor all mention of these eyewitness accounts. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is now nine days after the event. The information we have is sketchy and ambiguous at this point. Suggest revisiting in January, when we should know more. Full disclosure: I have previously commented on this page logged out, as 72.198.26.61, and am now editing logged in again. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support there are now weekly shootings so we have to distinguish them better than just year and city. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Definitely politically motivated"

The same unnamed police source who stated that Dear had talked about "no more baby parts" and that he "said a lot of things," also said that Dear's actions were "definitely politically motivated." While nobody cares to contest "baby parts" or "lot of things," "definitely politically motivated" has been edited out twice, most recently with the comment, "Comment is from a unnamed source - where's the oversight? comment is also biased and unproven - this is undue weight and POV - please discuss on talk page per BRD." Okay, so here I am on the talk page. Now I should like an explanation as to why all of the police source's comments can be quoted except for that one. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored. These type of selective deletions is disruptive and needs to stop. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's undue weight given to an unnamed source who is still only allegedly someone working for law enforcement. We don't allow unnamed source comments in other articles, why is it being allowed in this one? Oh, yeah, I forgot: a reliable source put it out on the internet, so it's acceptable per WP:VNT. God forbid we should ever edit as if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains truly verifiable facts. (yes, that was sarcasm). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've somewhat deanonymized him/her by noting s/he talked to NBC News. In a perfect encyclopedia, we'd stay away from these types, but this is Wikipedia. A work in progress. We do allow these elsewhere here, and often. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to have the "politically motivated" statement but it's not okay to imply the politics were abortion related (or only use it in a paragraph where the only politics discussed are abortion). The lede was fixed but without a motive, we need to be careful taht "politically motivated" could be anti-police or anarchist or sovereign citizen or tax protester or any of a number of political views in addition to abortion (which we don't know either). We simply don't know who his targets were or why and it's premature to presume they are one thing especially when the source has mentioned many. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Except what the reliable sources say. Oh wait! They go against what you are trying to say, in this case, but you are fine with quoting the same source when it supports what you want to believe. There seems to be a lot of personal editor POVs on show.DreamGuy (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims names are irrelevant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Naming the victims and going into any detail about their lives violates WP:DUE. No other article whose subject is a mass shooting discusses the victims. See this discussion: Names of victims. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@ParkH.Davis:: The Victims section is required in articles such as these. Please stop removing that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See for example Charleston church shooting#Victims - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to Names of victims. The names of the victims are not notable as per wikipedia policy. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Required" is a bit of a strong word, but certainly standard in these sort of stories. In any case, that talk section (not policy) is about listing names in the infobox. If there's something more relevant there, spell it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Victim lists. Naming the victims violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an essay, and the author is quick to note his opinion is contentious. NOTMEMORIAL applies to the subjects of articles. The cop's article is rightly up for deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

The victim's identities are not notable to this article. The names, ages, issue and employment statuses of the victims are irrelevant to the event itself which is the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not a memorial as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No information not about the shooting itself should not be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

These were the people who were killed, which made the shooting notable enough for the reliable news sources to cover. That coverage included profiles of the dead, which Wikipedia reflects. If they're not part of "the shooting itself", what here is? That you haven't deleted the investigation and reaction sections suggests you don't actually care about proximity, but are just looking for excuses. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, you are confusing the intent of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It refers to the subject of the article. The victims are mentioned in the article, but they are not the subject of the article. I do not think that you will find a policy prohibiting mentioning the victims in an article about the massacre. If you do, then you can bring it up here, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. Peaceray (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Intent is irrelevant. The policy is explicitly clear. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

They are also not memorialized, but simply acknowledged. We certainly shouldn't quote their friends and families about what a great guy/girl they were, or how much they loved fishing/whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

I have left their names. It was irrelevent that one of the victims was an ice skater, as he was not shot because he was an ice skater. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, he wasn't shot because his name was Garrett. But an ice skater named Garrett was shot. Simple enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

The fact that he was an ice skater has literally nothing to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are also edit-warring to your preferred version, and have been reverted by 4 different editors. Let the discussion continue here until consensus is reached.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information about the shooting itself should be included in this article. The fact that the victims had children or used to work for the military are irrelevent. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that subsequent news reports may change aspects about this. For instance, if it emerges that the shooter was also racially motivated would make the African-American & Asian-American ancestry of the unarmed victims relevant. Ke'Arre M. Stewart's actions in warning the Planned Parenthood clinic, calling 911, & thus altering the possible trajectory of how the shootings proceeded may also become part of the narrative. Peaceray (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently no such report exists establishing any motive. Information about the victims which is not related to the shooting is extraneous and not notable. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Corrected typo in my last post. ParkH.Davis, WP:CHILL. Slow down, take a breath, & spend some time to accurately read posts; it's better to get it right than to rush. I never said that there was a report about a motive. I merely indicated that if something came out about racial motivation, then ethnicity would become part of the narative. Peaceray (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said that you said anything. I merely stated that "[c]urrently no such report exists establishing any motive". Martial statues, hobbies, employment, and age (and ethnicity for that matter), are irrelevent as no source exists to show that these had anything to do with the shooting. Until a source can be produced to show that these facts had something to do with the shooting, they should not be included. Information which has nothing to do with the shooting itself should be deleted. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, I feel your pain. The same issue arises in all articles of this type, and I long ago abandoned your line of argument because I was always on the losing end. It's not embodied in policy, but there seems to be a community consensus for a lower relevance bar for inclusion of personal details like this. I'm staying out of the fight here, but please stop the edit warring. If this has to be discussed for a week, that's not too long. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that all three killed were married, and survived by children is noteworthy, as it provides context about the reasons in which they were in the vicinity of the clinic. Some people have promoted statements suggesting that most people in a Planned Parenthood clinic would be unmarried, or not have children. Their marital status is an important fact, as it negates a likely smear campaign against such people. -- Callinus (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make political statements. Any information not directly related to the shooting itself is extreneous. I am fine with only their names being mentioned. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

While all this talk about abortion may seem like American hullabaloo, that hullabaloo is exactly why this one got article-level notability, and the deadlier Halloween one did not. So yeah, their marital status is pertinent to a driving force in the plot, if not the actual shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

So the victims were targeted because of their maritial status? Do you have a source to back up this claim? What does abortion have to with marriage? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't put words in my mouth, and then expect me to source them. I mean the plot, as in storyline, not the shooter's plot for whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

The fact the victims were married has literally nothing to do with the shooting and there is zero evidence that they were targeted because they were married. Whether or not abortion had anything to with the shooting has even yet to be established. All extraneous information should be deleted. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• One paragraph is fine. The current state is OK. -- Callinus (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is not a memorial for the victims of the shooting and is not a place to forward any political narratives about the shooting. It is irrelevent that one of the victims was once an ice skater as it has literally nothing to do with the shooting. Same goes with the other extraneous information stated about the victims. Why is wikipedia policy being so blatently ignored with this article? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also, note that you have already violated WP:3RR, so please refrain from further disruption. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I have as much right to express my opinion and to cite wikipedia policy as anyone else. Attempts to bullying me into doing otherwise are futile. This is not a place for expressing a political opinion on abortion or marriage or ice dancing. This article is about a shooting and only a shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever worked on a shooting article? If not, others with experience have the same right to believe things, but their belief carries more weight than yours. You can continue to repeat yourself here, but not in reversion edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can surely express your opinion. But you also need to listen. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I support the memorialization of the victims of terrorist attacks and mass shootings. Unfortunately, my position on this matter does not agree with established wikipedia policy. Only information directly concerning the shooting itself should be included in this article. The victims martial statuses are irrelevant. This is an article about a shooting, not an obituary. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You're spending this much time arguing against something vaguely resembling something you support, all because you think a policy you don't understand disagrees with you? That may not be trout-worthy, but it's fishy as hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Please re-read. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL most certainly DOES apply. This is not an obituary, it is an article about a shooting. Information not directly related to the shooting itself should be removed. What do the victim's martital statuses have to do with the shooting? ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL is about the subjects of articles. Its intent is: "You can't create an article about your grandfather because he was a great guy and got a Purple Heart in WWII and everybody loved him." You're adding your own interpretation to extend it to this situation. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL states:

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

And if people weren't shot, if people weren't killed, the attack itself would remain unnoteworthy. There is no news without the victims, it is not only an article about the perpetrator and the police response. The bare facts of the victims' lives - that one was a police office and a former national-level athlete, that another ran back to warn others, that a third was not seeking medical services but was accompanying a friend - have all been reported on in multiple news outlets, to ignore what has appeared in reliable sources does not seem encyclopedic to me. Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The same argument was made in 'Names of victims' to no avail. Only information which directly related to the shooting itself is notable for inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm prepared to agree with ParkH.Davis regarding the undue weight about the victims. Their marital status, and their children, as well as their past life achievements - all unnecessary for this article. Their names, ages, and occupations are pertinent, but really nothing outside that would be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that some like to include the fact that the victims were all married with children to add irony to the implied motive of the shooter was to protect children, based on his "No more baby parts" statement. Similar to the fact that all victims of the Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting were not Jewish. Peaceray (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I took out the ice skating thing, as totally irrelevant. Agree that spouses and children aren't relevant. Really the whole section fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about article subjects. There is plenty of precedence for listing victims. Just type "List of victims" into the search field. Peaceray (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't write articles to add "irony". It would be just as inappropriate to add "irony" by pointing out all the police officers were pro-life yet they still came to sound of gunfire. Or the "irony" that the security measures taken by PP kept all the employees safe and created a defensible fortress for the shooter that went on to kill and injure six first responders that believed it was a soft target and implemented their "active shooter" doctrine. --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of this personal information seems unnecessary, but I think we need to leave the names in. To simply say three people died without at least giving them names would be a bit of a disservice. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with including only their names. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is a need for context. The officer was killed when he responded to the incident, and the other two victims were killed just because they happen to accompany someone to the clinic. These are aspects directly related to the narrative of the incident and need to be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

None of that information has to do with marriage, children or ice dancing. Only facts which actually have to do with the shooting itself should be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with others that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to creation of articles. The current version is fine with me.

• Police officer Garrett Swasey, 44, who responded to the shooting, was a married father of two children.
• Ke'Arre M. Stewart, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran, who was killed after he ran back to the clinic to warn others about the shooter, was survived by his wife and child.
• Jennifer Markovsky, 35, who was accompanying a friend to the clinic, was survived by her husband and two children.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the victims were married and had children has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's just basic bio stuff, the same that goes on a tombstone. Yes, those reading through abortion-coloured glasses will infer what they will, but that's beside the point. Ke'Arre sounds like a woman's name (to me, at least, for a day), so something indicating his gender is good. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

Wkikpedia is not a memorial as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This article is not an obituary or a tombstone for the victims. Why are the victims' genders relevent? Were they targeted because of their genders? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

While we don't know yet if their genders were the motivation for their murders, it is a verifiable fact that the killings occurred at a women's clinic, not at any of the thousands upon thousands of other targets the perpetrator had to pass by in Colorado Springs. So yes, the context that including the genders of the deceased provides to Wikipedia's worldwide readership is relevant. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no argument that WP is not a memorial, but there are sometimes differences in the implications that people derive from this consensus. You ask if the victims were targeted because of their genders. Between yes and no, I would certainly go for yes. After all, the attack was on a women's reproductive health clinic. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that victims were targeted because of their gender? Why were 2/3rds of the victims male if the terrorist was targeting women? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming ridiculous. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

100% 50% [later correction, thank you! gidonb (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)] of the deceased victims in the women's reproductive health clinic were women. Some of the potential victims managed to hide in a "safe room". In addition, the mass murderer also shot at police forces outside the building. No need to bring references, I am just answering some questions that you raised. You know the facts as well as anyone here. gidonb (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Two of the three people that were killed were male. Why are the victims' genders relevent? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Because: [1] the most basic demographics include gender and age. [2] the attack was on a women's health clinic, i.e women were targeted. gidonb (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If the question is whether references are needed to include gender in the article, the answer is also no! You can and should make a reasonable decision here to include or not to include the gender, then edit the article accordingly, without adding the rationale for gender inclusion in the article. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The implication of adding genders is that gender is relevent. Without a source stating that the victims' genders are relevent, they should not be included in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The first part is true. The second part not so much because this is an editorial decsision. You have to decide with your co-editors, then support only the info that will be listed. gidonb (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To ParkHDavis - I disagree. In my opinion the facts of the murders are relevant and the bare facts about the people who were killed - their names, their ages, their jobs, why they were there at the clinic on that day - *are* relevant. Multiple reliable sources have included those facts as part of their articles or reporting. Including the facts about the people killed has *nothing* to do with anything about building some type of Wikipedia shrine to their memory, it has everything to do with the verifiable facts. Also would like to reiterate that: 1) Wikipedia:Victim lists is an opinion-piece/essay written by basically one person and is not a policy or a guideline. 2)Names of victims is a discussion by various editors on a single article's talk-page and is also not policy or a guideline. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More background of Dear

See "For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 December 2015. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not about the shooting and provided by ex-wife that divorced him over 20 years ago. It's as credible as his recent neighbors saying he was not violent. (actually police would weigh current neighbors over 20 year divorced spouse). This is cruft. She has no information about the shooting or anything recent about his life. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. This is reliable of a source as it comes. Put that the NYT reported it or whatever, but censoring it is bad. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No wow. We routinely omit things on relevance grounds, even things reported in The New York Times. You can try making a case that it's relevant, but you can't call it censorship. It's what we do. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

there seems to be an unusually high number of things judged "not relevant" for this article for some reason. Artw (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. In case it needs to be said (and it seems to always need to be said), we go with what the reliable sources say and not what individual page editors think. The New York Times thinks it's notable, and I don't care what just some anonymous Wikipedia editor thinks. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Then we have to include everything in that article, as well as everything in every NYT article about this subject, as well as everything in any reliable source about this subject, no matter how minor or insignificant. If some reliable source mentions that one of the victims had just come from the shopping center next door, we have to include that, lest we be guilty of censorship. Do you care to write that article? Who cares where that victim had just come from, if that had no bearing on the shooting?
News sources give more details than encyclopedias do or should do; it's what they do. Part of our job is to act as a filter in a neutral way, not repeatedly favoring one side or viewpoint over another. You can argue that an inclusion or omission violates NPOV (and explain how it does, exactly), but it's wrong to claim censorship simply because something is omitted.
And then there's the mighty king of all Wikipedia policies, WP:CONSENSUS. If an editor can't defer to a consensus they strongly disagree with, then they are just too smart to edit Wikipedia and it's in their interest, and Wikipedia's, not to try to do so. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is totally about that. Come up with something other than "I don't like it." And try a real account sign up too. It's groovy to have a real sign on, for a variety of reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty sure there's some sort of censorship campaign going on with this article. Paranoia of promoting the gunman, perhaps? 75.80.175.107 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot

Why don't we have the perpetrator's mug shot here yet? DreamGuy (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - @DreamGuy:, WP:MUG. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Three critical words in WP:MUG are "out of context". Out of context would be including Nick Nolte's mug shot in his bio article. It would not necessarily be out of context to include Dear's mug shot in an article about him killing three people. So WP:MUG doesn't really apply here. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. There is precedent for inclusion, but one could make an NPOV case for omission. Local consensus wins, and I abstain. (BTW DreamGuy, thanks for talking first. Such things are always controversial, so that was a good call. At a minimum, it saved your edit and the inevitable BRD revert.) 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As said above, there's nothing in WP:MUG that applies. What else can you come up with? DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Since we have no objection other than something that was wrong, I have added it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The move

I have started discussion of the move that is currently being blocked by User:Muboshgu and User:George Ho at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Artw (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Motive

Multiple sources are reporting that the shooter's motive was "christian terrorism" and that he was possibly inpired by the christian terrorist group, Army of God. This explicitly discussed by the New York Times. Wikipedia is not censored and there is no reason not include information which is being reported by reliable sources. The shooter has expressed his support of both evangelical christian theology and the Army of God. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Those articles are referring to his views, not necessarily his motives for this specific attack; and they mostly quote his ex-wife describing his views over twenty years ago. That's not exactly current events. But the bottom line is that the police need to release a statement about the motive. One of the reasons they haven't done so, I think, is because many (or most) of the victims had nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood clinic, and at least one was shot nearly a fourth of a mile away near a grocery store. That creates an ambiguous situation which frankly looks more like a random shooting spree over a relatively wide area. But we need to wait for an official determination by the police. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Some extremist people are sure trying to censor it. I'm not sure why they think they can get away with it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Calling me (or anyone else here) an "extremist" is way out of line and violates Wikipedia's rules for polite discussion. Nor have I "censored" anything since the same information about his ideological viewpoint is still mentioned elsewhere in the article; but stating that this was his established motive or the only motive that police are investigating simply isn't true. The police are investigating several possible motives and haven't released an official statement about his motives yet, even if you've personally decided upon a motive. This isn't your personal essay. We need to wait for an official statement on the matter. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are on the extreme end, so you are an extremist. Please try to edit following NPOV policy. We have plenty of official statements (and we talked about them here, and they are in the article), you just ignore them. You can't ignore reliable sources to advance an agenda. I'd suggest you follow the rules here. DreamGuy (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)