Talk:2023 Kingsessing shooting

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

Change "transgender man" to "Kimbrady Carriker," the person's name. Carriker has not been confirmed as trans. In the event that confirmation is made, Carriker would be a transgender woman, not "transgender man." 157.23.244.62 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@157.23.244.62 This is part of repeated attempts by certain people to blame mass shootings on transgender people. 2601:189:8400:69D0:53B5:AEB4:5CE:E0B9 (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "transgender man" already removed from article. We're not naming suspect until conviction obtained, or suspect becomes a high-profile individual per WP:BLP. Xan747 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That is ludicrous; the perpetrator is well known. The only reason it's been scrubbed from this page is to hide the fact that this person was Trans and a BLM supporter. This is clear, left-wing information management. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Cross-dressing accused Philly killer supported BLM, posted gun memes" https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/cross-dressing-accused-philly-killer-supported-blm-posted-gun-memes/ar-AA1dsMMm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0c89ed3d07a0495d97eb5f8f9c3bff8f&ei=18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspect charged with murder

NOTE: there is a separate discussion related to this article happening at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Naming accused perpetrators of crimes if anyone is interested. Xan747 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If Kimbrady Carriker has been charged with murder in relation to this shooting, why does the suspect's name not appear in the current version of this article? Aren't we supposed to be an encyclopedic source? Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/05/1186051109/a-suspect-has-been-charged-with-murder-in-a-philadelphia-shooting-that-killed-5 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's convoluted, but here's the gist.

Per WP:BLPCRIME: For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

Simply being named in multiple WP:RS is not enough to make them a "public figure" according to guidance given in WP:LOWPROFILE -- they have to actively seek publicity. Thus far the suspect has not attempted to plead his case in public. If he starts granting interviews, then the situation becomes different.

Yes, I know the policies I quoted don't say anything about naming the suspect or not. This is just the way the policies are interpreted. Xan747 (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's because he is black. If the shooter were White, such as in the case of Shooting of Ralph Yarl we'd name him and include non-specific details about his "views on minorities" but because the shooter is black we don't name him, nor do we post his BLM ravings from social media (similar to the Waukesha_massacre which is treated as a mentally disturbed black man running from evil police with no mention of his anti-White social media posts). The only media outlets which actually cover the social media vitriol (daily mail, NY post, FNC) are straight up banned as sources WP:RSP so we just flush the violent black nationalist story down the old memory hole. Welcome to Wikipedia. --49.128.178.67 (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You do know he also expressed support for Donald Trump, right? He made another post implying that BLM and MAGA are natural allies and should join together against the government. If we’re going to reference his political statements we should include _all_ of them. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:BCC8 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not the policy. WP:BLPCRIME states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Going off of that, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. We can add the suspect's name because it is relevant to the person's nobility.

WP:LOWPROFILE isn't policy, but even so, it does say High-profile: As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. By my reading of that, Carriker is a high-profile individual. The high-profile activity is a mass shooting. Esb5415 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

> The high-profile activity is a mass shooting.

Has he voluntarily given an interview where he admits doing the shooting, and that it was for some sort of cause? Or gives a voluntary interview claiming innocence, and plugging a GoFundMe campaign for his legal defense? Then by WP:LOWPROFILE I would consider him a high-profile individual.

And yes, I know it isn't policy, but it's linked to on a policy page, which gives it a little more authority than some random essay. Xan747 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: looking the other articles about 2023 mass shootings in the U.S. (see: Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s), in every other one of those 20+ cases, where there is a known perpetrator or accused perpetrator, that person is (or those persons are) identified explicitly by name. This article is the exception. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, editors don't always follow the rules and I don't have the energy to debate this on 20 different talk pages. Xan747 (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like this isn't a rule and the consensus in practice is to explicity name the perp/accused. I will edit accordingly. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xan here. Because the suspect is not a public figure, BLPCRIME applies and we should not name the suspect in the article. Being charged does not meet the threshold for BLPCRIME, which is set at a conviction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, the overwhelming consensus I was talking about was that established in practice at a host of analogous articles like 2023 Goshen shooting, 2023 Beverly Crest shooting, 2023 Dadeville shooting. Should I expect you to remove explicit names of the accused from all of those articles? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would need to review each of those articles before making any sort of determination, as the particulars of each shooting and those who may have been arrested and/or charged might warrant inclusion. However I would expect any editor who cares about BLP to remove those names, if the circumstances are correct. In any event, that other articles might be getting the policy wrong is not a reason to make the same mistake here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

For accused individuals who are otherwise not notable, what are the sort of particulars that might determine whether explicit naming is warranted? What variables would that hinge on? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between notability and a public figure, and the presence or absence of notability is not determinative on whether a person is or is not a public figure. A person can be a prominent or notorious citizen of a town/city for example, without actually meeting GNG or a relevant SNG. The LOWPROFILE essay, linked above, has some of the particulars, though I'd say the behaviour pattern and activity level subsection is perhaps the most misunderstood. For criminals and suspects, the most relevant parts are media attention and promotional activities. Depending on the crime, eminence can also come into play, most typically though you'd see that with crimes predicated on an abuse of power. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, for individuals who are not public figures nor notable, what are the sort of particulars that might determine whether explicit naming is warranted? I'm not seeing a meaningful difference in profile for Carriker vs. Francisco Oropeza, Daries Stanford, Noah David Beard, Ricardo Miquel Vazquez, etc. The profiles in all these cases look functionally identical: a person with no public profile whatsoever before being accused of perpetrating a mass shooting. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I have not looked at the circumstances behind those other people, so I do not wish to comment on them. For the suspect of relevance to this article, I've already said briefly what would make them meet the threshold of public figure. To my knowledge, the suspect has not given any substantial media interviews since the event and being charged, nor have they engaged in any sort of promotional behaviours for their defence. They were also not a spokesperson for a company, community group, or other similar entity prior to the shooting. And they did not hold a position of eminence, power, or authority.

All they have done is allegedly (I use this term because there is no conviction) committed a crime, and have been charged pending trial. Being arrested and charged for a crime, even one that involved multiple killings, does not a public figure make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's the same situation as with all the other accused in these other shootings. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Then, if I wasn't about to go to sleep, I would remove those other names per BLPCRIME. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

How about tomorrow then? Sleep tight. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, I don't know of any policy that says, "if you're going to apply that rule here, you have to enforce it everywhere else that my cursory examination shows it is violated." And for good reason: it wrongfully burdens the opposing party with having to do a detailed analysis of why or why not those examples are out of compliance, which distracts from the local issue. Further, policy is not dictated by an "overwhelming consensus of established practice"; such an argument renders policy moot.

Since this is a BLP issue, consensus must be established before including potentially damaging material. You should not have named the suspect prior to obtaining consensus for inclusion, and @Sideswipe9th's reversion of your change should stand until you do. Xan747 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Xan747, do you think consistency is a valuable principle for Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, yes. Xan747 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Public figure" is defined as "a person who has achieved notoriety, prominence or fame within a society, whether through achievement, luck, action, or in some cases through no purposeful action of their own."

How does a suspect in a mass shooting not meet this criterion? Orthogone (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Orthogone, by that definition he absolutely is. However, that definition conflicts with guidance at WP:LOWPROFILE, which in a nutshell says that the subject must actively seek public attention to qualify. Xan747 (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Xan747, your invocation of WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't seem applicable at all here. That essay makes no mention about individuals who commit or are alleged to have committed high-profile crimes. The omission is probably due to the reasonable assumption that commission of a high-profile crime is obviously high-profile activity. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, WP:BLPCRIME clearly says, "For individuals who are not public figures", which links to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE which in turn says, see also: WP:LOWPROFILE. But, as @Orthogone correctly points out, BLPCRIME also links to the mainspace article Public figure, which contradicts the essay and sets a lower bar, resulting in two competing and incompatible defintions. The policy page should to change to eliminate that contradiction, even though that would ruin all the fun we're having. But that's a topic for the thread you started on the BLP talk page, not here. Xan747 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A number of users here have argued that the shooter wasn't actively seeking publicity, and thus doesn't qualify as a public figure. I'd say that if you decide to go on a killing spree, you will be aware that this is going to make national (and possibly international) news, and thus qualifies as seeking publicity. Cortador (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Also, simply naming them in an article about an event they've allegedly perpetrated is not the same level as creating an entire biography of them (which I think BLP is more relevant for). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So is he going to be named or not? 2600:1010:B168:BE5A:B422:D6BE:9299:6870 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Funny you should ask; I was just thinking about nominating this article for deletion due to lack of notability. But a few news stories trickled in this week so it might have some life to it.

Name suspect: @Locke Cole, @Cortador, @Jweiss11, @Esb5415

Not name suspect: @Sideswipe9th and me.

I don't count @Orthogone's !vote because that's the only edit they've ever made, and I'd only count IPs if they have a substantial history of edits. But even so the !votes are 4 to 2 to name. So if any of the editors in Name him column want to change the article, I won't stand in their way. I can't speak for Sideswipe9th. Xan747 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Name him, like pretty much every reliable source on the planet. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

About Joseph Wamah, Jr.

I have found two sources that claim that Joseph Wamah, Jr. was killed approximately 44 hours before the shooting (Link and link). Should the article be updated to reflect this? Heart of Destruction (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, do it. Xan747 (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but I am not completely certain of how the article should be updated to reflect this information. Heart of Destruction (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A one sentence summary in the victims section will do. Just take a stab at it and if someone doesn’t like it they’ll change it. No big deal. Be wp:bold! Xan747 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have edited the article (see here). What do you think? Heart of Destruction (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Even better than what I had suggested, good work! Xan747 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of four fitting these criteria which either did not name the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources, or not until after consensus to name was obtained by discussion. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A note on the total number of injured victims.

as we know from numerous sources, two people were wounded by gunshots during this event.

However, some sources, such as th' one I shall link, state that 2 more people were wounded by shattered glass.

https://6abc.com/kimbrady-carriker-philadelphia-mass-shooting-kingsessing-stand-trial/14547066/

Because of this, should the article not state that 4 were wounded?

Other articles about mass shootings include those who were injured by shattered glass in their injured count, so why should this one not follow suit? BadMombo1660 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If four people were injured, the article should reflect that. However, references should be updated to support the new data. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)