Jump to content

Talk:2022 Raleigh shootings

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


Better wording

[edit]

This section -- While the suspect was still unapprehended, residents -- could be worded better. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Including victims' names in the article

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS TO CHANGE
To include the victims' names would require consensus, and there's no consensus to include them in this discussion, so the outcome is not to change the article.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should some or all of the victims' names be included in this article? Love of Corey (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. Editors cannot agree on a policy across all such articles. WWGB (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in pretty much every case is to include the names of the victims. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is in most cases when they take place in the US. When in the rest of the world, the consensus is usually against including names. This inconsistency shouldn't continue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The victims were not notable in life, inclusion of their names would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting. Here we go again ... WWGB (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "inclusion of their names would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting." This is subjective. I believe that calling victims by their names in the article will help with a readers comprehension of the event. If you just list the ages and genders of the victims, it can be confusing for some to differentiate them. The names of the victims are very unique to each other & will help readers understand the article. Also, what policy states that a victim needs to be notable in life for their name to be mentioned in an article? There are plenty of articles about one-off murders which state the victim's name, despite them solely being known for being murdered. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each victim isn't mentioned several times, so there's no need to name them for the purpose of repeat mentions of them. One-off murders are specifically about the killing of that person; mass shootings aren't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if a serial killer kills one person, and then kills another in a separate instance, and then another and another and another, all on different days, the names of the victims are notable, but if a mass murderer kills five people in short order, suddenly the names of the victims aren't notable? I don't buy it. Joe (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, read the comment again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you'd link to the policy you believe applies. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The victims were not notable in life, inclusion of their names would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting per WWGB and like ianmacm I have a ong standing belief is that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, not news stories and that it is in line with policy not to include the names of persons. I would go further and actually state that naming can be intrusive and insensitive to the feelings of people caught up in such tragic events. They suffer enough from media intruding in their sorrow, but that intrusion is at least usually short-lived and/or local. Nothing is gained by readers half way across the globe knowing the names of the dead now, nor in ten years time, regardless of how sincerely meant the 'individualising' or 'memorialising' may be. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the names add nothing for readers & it's a violation of the victims' families' privacy. We shouldn't copy the media, who give often write mini-biographies of victims of mass shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a violation of the victims' families' privacy. The nearly all of victims' families Have spoken to the media about their deceased love ones (except for the families of Gabriel Torres & James Roger Thompson). James Roger Thompson is directly related to the alleged gunman, so his name should be mentioned regardless. So, if we mention the victims' names with the exception of Gabriel Torres, this would not be a violation of the victims' families. Silent-Rains (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unless the victims were notable for something other than being victims, there is no rationale for their inclusion. As an example - Tenerife airport disaster had 583 victims, but we only name 2 of them (Eve Meyer and A. P. Hamann) as they were notable outside the collision. This brings me on to the subsequent argument against - the thin end of the wedge. Where do you draw the line? Should we list all 581 other casualties? Or the 3,000 from 9/11? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the 3,000 from 9/11? You mean like this? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the RFC: "Including victims' names in the article" That's not the 9/11 article. (But for the record, I'm against those three distinct articles as well.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs here. But in case it's not obvious, the 9/11 article is quite large, and adding a list that (by itself) has already been split into three separate articles, would be unrealistic. There is a link from the 9/11 article to that list, however. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - the RFC is very specific, and your initial response does not match the conditions of said RFC. I'm glad we agree on adding names to articles being unrealistic though. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry English isn't your native language. I thought it was clear what I meant in both my comments. As you've misunderstood repeatedly, let me re-explain since you're a non-native speaker: You indicated you opposed "listing" victims from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and you were using such opposition in the context of a logical fallacy (a slippery slope). I directed you to the list that exists on Wikipedia. You again misunderstood English with your comment noting a very strict (and disingenuous) reading of the RFC (taken with your initial reply). You then go on to misunderstand my statement about the size of the list for the 9/11 article not being practical to include directly in said article. Additionally, you used whataboutism in your initial !vote, but as you can see here, for articles about mass shootings we name victims in 90+% of our articles. If you need additional help understanding English I'm more than willing to discuss your deficiencies with you on my talk page or e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you so can better participate here in the future. As an aside, competence is required when editing on Wikipedia, and while lesser editors might take offense with your misunderstanding of English, I hope to shine a light on how we need to help editors such as yourself when the opportunities present themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The light you shine is dim. There is no need to attempt troll-level humour about my English, as it's so obvious that I'm a native speaker that your comments are borderline attacks, as well as the reference to CIR (as per CIR: "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack"). I've been here nearly 14 years and have over 35K edits to my name - hardly a clueless newbie. The RFC asks about including names in articles - I am against this. It makes no mention of separate articles for them, but I even clarified that I was against that as well. It was clear what you meant - just as I thought I was in mine - but I used humour to emphasise my point. Sorry you didn't get the joke. I must remember that your grasp of humour, sarcasm, and indeed social interaction with others, is atrophied. See? I can play the insult-without-insult as well. It makes both of us seem immature, and lessens the import of the discussion - so let's knock it off, eh? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's so obvious that I'm a native speaker It's not obvious to me when you grossly mispresent what I said with statements like I'm glad we agree on adding names to articles being unrealistic though. WP:AGF is clear that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must assume the reason you misrepresented my statements, repeatedly, were not deliberate. But as you've now clarified that those were not mistakes, I can now assume you were simply being disruptive. Please make yourself aware of WP:TPG, and in the future don't misrepresent other editors comments like that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's inconsistent. Many editors add victims' names to articles about mass shootings. There's however no push to add victims' names to bombings, such as the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings or the 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good argument. Perhaps the victims' names should be added there. It's also likely that sources cover bombings and shootings differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are written from a more cautious perspective than news stories. Nobody is prevented from looking at news stories with the list of victims, but there is a need to take into account the fact that there are living relatives of the victims.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are living relatives of the suspect. We named the suspect. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Excessively trivial, obviously low-profile individuals, doesn't need to be named to understand the topic, presumption in favor of privacy. Do no harm. --Jayron32 11:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how some information on the main victims of an attack is "excessively trivial". If it were excessively trivial, why is it included in so many of the available sources? Them being low-profile individuals isn't relevant as we aren't creating biographies on them. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many media sources love to sensationalise. They often include mini-biographies in their articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The availability of information is not what makes it trivial. Different sources have different audiences, tone, and perspectives, and Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia while news articles strive to be news articles. Those have different purposes, and need to be written in different ways. Something must be included in sources if we choose to include it in Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles, but we are not bound to include everything other sources use. Being true and verifiable are only two legs on which the stool is built, it falls over if the third leg, that being relevance, is not also assessed. I am stating that the information is not relevant enough to overcome other concerns we may have about it. Nuance is necessary to assess things like this, not a binary "I found it written somewhere, so I should include it" type of decision. There are LOTS of considerations when deciding what to write, and not to write, and verifiability is only one of those considerations. --Jayron32 14:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we don't need to include everything that sources include, but when most sources include information, that's a good indicator that that information is relevant. I don't see how the names of the victims are not relevant. Sure, you technically do not need the names to understand the topic, but that's true of the perpetrator as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of what's in news reports isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. The (suspected) perpetrator is the cause; the active participant. That's why it's relevant & usual to include much more info about him than non-notable victims. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're supplanting the judgement of our sources with your own personal view. Our reliable sources don't agree with your world-view. They provide coverage, oftentimes exhaustive coverage of the victims and the memorials and events that occur to honor them after events like this. Simply naming them is the bare minimum we can do to not shift undue weight to the perpetrator. Notability is irrelevant here, you need to understand WP:NOTEWORTHY, which all the victims are. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion
  • No, the bare minimum we can do is to not name them at all. Incidentally, for such a fan of policies you might want to consider WP:BADGER. You've made your point and position clear - you can stop now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the bare minimum we can do is to not name them at all. I get it. You don't like it. Do you have any logical reason to exclude them? Incidentally, for such a fan of policies you might want to consider WP:BADGER You might try reading it too. It's not a policy, it's an essay. The kind of tripe written by people who can't argue their position on the merits, so try to shutdown discussion because it embarrasses them to have their logical deficiencies pointed out for all to see. Sort of like you just now, with the "bare minimum" comment, which, as above, is another example of you taking what someone says out of context and ignoring the complete sentence. Here is that full context again, so maybe this time you can read and comprehend it: Simply naming them is the bare minimum we can do to not shift undue weight to the perpetrator. Better luck next time. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's an essay doesn't mean it doesn't make a valid point. You probably had a valid point when you started this, but it's kind of getting lost in the vitriol and zealotry - which ironically is what Badger warns against. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Did you have a good argument for excluding the victims yet, or is it still just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLUDGEON. People are entitled to express their views and you have easily had your two cents' worth in this discussion by now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please STFU if you don't have anything constructive to add. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not nice. Did you have a good argument for including the victims yet, or is it still just WP:ILIKEIT? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your expert understanding of English has finally fully shown as "I know you are but what am I?". Kudos. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly beginning to understand why over 2,500 of your edits have been deleted or suppressed. You can't accuse editors of being incompetent, not understanding policies (or essays), that they are "tripe" for lesser mortals than you, deny that policies that you have directed at an editor are equally applicable to you, or tell editors to shut the fuck up just because they disagree with your discussion methods (additionally if two different editors point out the same policy essay - perhaps there is something you should do about it?) and not expect some comeback over it. Finally, please stop pretending that you doubt my English language competency. This has now moved well out of the misunderstanding phase, or even the limited humour, and is nothing more than mocking insults - WP:NPA is most definitely a policy, not an essay. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly beginning to understand why over 2,500 of your edits have been deleted or suppressed. Ooooh, so now you've switched from just grossly misrepresenting what I've said to casting aspersions. You wanna substantiate what you're saying or is it your plan to talk out of your ass until you get one of us blocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtually every victim in these events is gonna be "random person who just had the bad luck to be in the path of a bullet". If they had stayed home that day, the story would be materially unchanged. Some people would have been hurt, some would have been killed, some would be the same, some would be different. If the perpetrator had stayed home the event would not have happened. So, no, their involvement in the event does not rise to the same level as the perpetrator. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no, their involvement in the event does not rise to the same level as the perpetrator Incorrect. If they hadn't died, this event would not be notable. And a complete accounting of this event that gives a balanced view that doesn't deviate from the balance our sources provide. Our sources discuss the victims at length, naming them is the bare minimum we can do to avoid shifting undue weight to the perpetrator. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, if these people had not been there to die, someone else almost certainly would have. That there were deaths make the event notable, that it was these deaths is trivial. The balance should be towards covering the shooter. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other people were not there, however. These people were. And our sources do not censor, hide, or omit them from the narrative. Our policies and guidelines are clear here. Neutrality demands we provide balanced coverage of this topic. The victims are clearly noteworthy participants per the reliable sources. Once you reduce your argument down to what it is (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), you find yourself trying to justify something that runs counter to long-standing policy/guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like WP:NOTMEMORIAL, invoking WP:LOWPROFILE misses the most important part of what both of those apply to: entire articles on subjects. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:LOWPROFILE (and by extension, WP:BLP1E) are irrelevant in this discussion. Nobody here has proposed entire articles on the individual victims (and are very unlikely to). The relevant guideline here is WP:NOTEWORTHY. As NOTEWORTHY correctly notes, [t]he criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. [...] Content coverage within a given article [...] (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For all of the zillion reasons that this has been decided a zillion times elsewhere. Including that it is not encyclopedic coverage of the topic. BTW saying that policy does not mandate exclusion is not really an argument for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW saying that policy does not mandate exclusion is not really an argument for inclusion. A couple of things: the folks erroneously citing NOTMEMORIAL, etc. are usually why arguments are made from the position of needing to clearly define that policy does not mandate exclusion. From my replies, you've seen that policy (neutrality) demands we in fact DO cover them. The other arguments are around notability, but as WP:NOTEWORTHY explains, it does not apply to article content, just to whether a topic has a subject has an article at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but once we've established that having an article on a subject does not mean that the contents of the article are a free-for-all and that any and all text (even any and all sourced text) must be included. While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. For example, I can find reliable sources that discuss the dinner menu on the day of the Sinking of the Titanic. Does that mean we are required to put it in the article? I mean, it's public knowledge, it is published in multiple reliable sources, why would you want to censor the article and prevent people from learning this information which is available all over the place. Why shouldn't the Sinking of the Titanic include that information? The same reasons can apply here as well. Not everything must be included. How do we decide what is, and is not, relevant enough to be included. We discuss it on the merits. We reach a consensus. And such discussions require clear positive consensus to include it.--Jayron32 19:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you didn't bother reading WP:NOTEWORTHY. It answers your concerns better than I could. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know it well, I could essentially quote it to you without even looking. But in the interest of not misrepresenting it, let me quote it to you directly "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies." (bold mine) My argument is that weight granted to listing the victims is not due, because it does not serve our purpose as an encyclopedia. Other sources, with other purposes, may feel the need to publish them. Us, as an encyclopedia, are not bound to slavishly reflect the priorities of other types of information sources. We can choose to exclude something because it does not reflect our purposes; and there are LOTS of things at WP:NOT, for example, and several other content policies, that reflect that we don't have to include something if consensus determines that it doesn't meet our purposes as an encyclopedia. --Jayron32 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted WP:NOTEWORTHY elsewhere in this discussion, and could likewise quote it for you again if you like, but you appear to have omitted the links to undue weight, et al. Quoting WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Our reliable sources include information on the victims. Further from UNDUE: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. There is nothing "slavish" about following a well-debated policy that has site-wide consensus. There is, however, a deep problem with trying to prop up a WP:LOCALCON to override policy. WP:NOT is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, irrelevant, as most of it applies to full articles on discouraged/forbidden subjects. We're discussing article content, which circles us back to NOTEWORTHY. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Widely publicized information, inextricably connected to subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to add more food for thought for those opposing (or considering opposing), the only mass-shooting article that is currently a featured article is Danzig Street shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This revision which is from the day it was posted as today's featured article, shows that not only does the article name the dead from the event, it even includes what one might consider biographical details on the victims. It would seem the FA-editors consider the victims an important part of the documenting of these events. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because doing so makes sense in the narrative of that article, but not in the narrative of this one. Precedent is meaningless, because the particular unique attributes of one article that are different from another will necessarily lead to different outcomes. --Jayron32 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: Because doing so makes sense in the narrative of that article, but not in the narrative of this one. That's an interesting perspective. Can you be more specific about how you think there is a difference, and how that difference is reconciled with our sources and the guidance at WP:UNDUE? Precedent is meaningless In the sense of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, sure. In the sense that a featured article goes through more rigorous vetting, and significantly more effort is expended in making sure the candidates abide by our guidelines and policies (like WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:UNDUE), not so "meaningless". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When an event involves 1-2 victims, where the writing can easily fit some basic information about them, it's probably okay. While we're playing the bad example game with each other, something like the Casualties of the September 11 attacks, with nearly 3000 dead, why not include all of their names and a brief biographical sketch of each? --Jayron32 09:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you just didn't notice, but List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks is linked right in the opening of Casualties of the September 11 attacks. And it then further sub-divides the victims into three articles that alphabetizes them. ...with nearly 3000 dead, why not include all of their names... as mentioned, we do; ...and a brief biographical sketch of each? What do our sources do? Because in the interests of neutrality, we should follow the balance set by our sources and not replace that with what you or I would rather have. If I'm a flat Earther, I don't just get to argue for inclusion of that in the Earth article because I like it; however, if our sources (especially reliable, respected sources) provide significant coverage of the topic, it might make sense in the interests of neutrality. Back to this article, in addition to the source InedibleHulk found, there is this article that goes into deeper detail on some of the victims of this event. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And as you also point out - that's a separate list in a separate article (three separate articles in fact). The topic at hand is do we include the names in the article, not an article (or articles). It's a subtle difference, but a difference nevertheless. You may argue that it's splitting hairs, or being pedantic, and that's right - but it's also what the RFC is about. We've had this discussion already, but nothing's changed. The 7/11 article doesn't include victims names. I mean, we could also discuss having separate articles just for victims, but that's not what is being proposed here. Maybe the RFC needs broadening to cover all mentions of victim names, but again - that's not what the current RFC is, and thus discussion outside of that (something we're both familiar with,) is not conducive to a result. For the record - again - I'm not only against naming victims in the article, but also an article. I feel that there is a disparity between the use of the term "notable" as a policy - where it's not appropriate, and as use in determining due weight - where it is appropriate, and I believe found wanting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a subtle difference, but a difference nevertheless. It is irrelevant, subtle or not. I understand you desperately want to re-litigate every minor thing under discussion, but whether or not something bloats an article (and how to deal with that) is already prescribed at WP:SIZE. There's no need to consider that here, as clearly five names will fit just fine within this article. I note with interest that you completely ignore my plea to look at what our reliable sources do, which is what WP:UNDUE points to when deciding whether or not a topic has due weight. As to I feel that there is a disparity between the use of the term "notable" as a policy ... ...notability, as mentioned repeatedly above, does not apply to article content per WP:NOTEWORTHY. There is nothing "wanting", other than a need for you to acknowledge NOTEWORTHY and UNDUE, which both control here. Our sources define the "notability" of something in an article subject, not editors who just show up to like/dislike it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm trying to be reasonable here, but it seems I'm not the only person being blinded by like/dislike it. It is a difference, whether you like it or not. You are also missing my point completely and this time you're the one truncating a quote to take it out of context - I absolutely agree with you in my above statement that "notability, as mentioned repeatedly above, does not apply to article content per WP:NOTEWORTHY" - I even say that myself, but you misinterpret it. My point is that "notability" as a policy is not applicable, but as a noun (and possibly adjective) is applicable, and that's where confusion lies. In this case although several sources do list the names of the victims, it's only because they're victims - there are no other conditions that make them newsworthy. Now, I know that the same argument could be put that the shooter is in the same category, but the shooter is different by intent - they made a decision to shoot, whereas the victims didn't go jogging with the intention of being shot at the end of the run. That changes the level of due weight with regard to shooter Vs victim. WP:DUE would suggest at this point that if reliable sources are balanced when it comes to listing victims, then so should we be. I suppose the ultimate argument for inclusion/exclusion is - in what way does inclusion and knowing the names of the victims improve the project, and conversely, how does exclusion make it worse? I don't see that inclusion improves as - unlike assassination, for example - the choice of victim is random, and whether person "A" or person "B" was killed makes no difference. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it seems I'm not the only person being blinded by like/dislike it I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice. It is a difference, whether you like it or not. It's irrelevant. Whether we list them in a separate article or here is controlled by WP:SIZE. But no reasonable person would claim that they must be listed separately with just five names. Stop wasting my and your time (and any poor soul reading this to reach a decision on what to do) with these irrelevant points. ...it's only because they're victims - there are no other conditions that make them newsworthy... I'm gonna stop ya there. All of that is irrelevant. You're trying to use your judgement on what is "newsworthy" to determine relevance. NOTEWORTHY and UNDUE don't leave it to editors to determine whether or not something is relevant. UNDUE isn't as subjective as you're interpreting it to be. Our reliable sources dictate our level of coverage, and right now the reliable sources lean heavily on not just naming the victims but detailing their lives and how their communities and families deal with their deaths. You may not like that. And that's OK. I like partly cloudy days and dislike sunny days. But what we like shouldn't dictate what is included/excluded. Simply naming them here is in line with policy, guideline, precedent and what our reliable sources do as well. in what way does inclusion and knowing the names of the victims improve the project, and conversely, how does exclusion make it worse You can probably guess where I'm gonna go with this but... inclusion means we're following our reliable sources and policies/guidelines on article content, and excluding them is a NPOV/DUE violation as we're supplanting the guidance of our sources with what editors like/dislike. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant to you, because you don't like it and refuse to accept that your interpretation of policy is not the only interpretation of it. You know, hard as it may be to fathom - but people here are editing to improve the encyclopedia, not just annoy you, even if that is a side effect. I even tried to be reasonable and only address the arguments, but no - that was seemingly unacceptable to you as well. You choose to just regurgitate the same points over and over again, and misinterpret/misrepresent those made by others to suit your own arguments and/or ignore responses made by others to counter your own, unless you can turn them into some kind of literary weapon - mostly by misrepresentation. Given that you have no understanding of this (even when pointed out by editors other than me) and seem to think it acceptable, there is no point in continuing this, so please - get in your last pithy comment in keeping with your behaviour thus far because I'm done here - but note it's because you're impossible to deal with, not because I concede your points. I've removed this page from my watchlist.
I'm against inclusion of names in these articles because my interpretation of policy is that the victims - although sometimes named in the sources - are only named because they are victims, not because of any other notability. Their inclusion in the shooting (for example) is down to chance, and it's undue to clarify that victim "A" was a housewife in their 30's who liked to go jogging in the morning. This adds nothing to the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're allergic to discussion and keep needing to point to essays on how to stifle conversation. It's interesting that you think those essays only work in one direction (not against you) as well. 🤷‍♂️ But, like the other arguments you put forward, maybe it's endemic of your inability to understand the topics at hand. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

[edit]

Change "suspect" to "accused" as no legal proceedings have occurred yet. 75.51.14.82 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Thompson was taken into custody and is suspected of having committed a crime. If he is accused of something at a later date, if he survives, we might then call him 'the accused' in the context of a trial during which he has been accused of something. Regardless, he will remain the suspect until he is convicted or found not guilty, so we will likely continue to call him 'the suspect' until after a trial gives a verdict. Joe (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OP appears confused about the meaning of the two terms. Actually, he is the "suspect" until charged. Then he becomes the "accused". If convicted, he becomes the "perpetrator". WWGB (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Raleigh_shootings&oldid=1215249459"