Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hyper-protective black mother

One user feels strongly that the mother's ethnicity must be included. The sole rationale appears to be that, since this fact has been reported, any desire to omit it is censorship. Since that argument is quite obviously invalid, and since I don't see any relevance, I am opposing this content. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who rewrote the passage to what now stands. That said, I have no strong feelings either way. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well your edit is what the other editor is now calling a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

People have been messing the citation from The Los Angeles Times so much that at one point one user threw up his hands and edited with the comment
"we can't say hyper-protective in wiki voice, how about we remove it as unnecessary rather than quote it".
My recommendation is that to avoid these sorts of unintended consequences, the citation be left alone. If ain't broke, don't fixit it. XavierItzm (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You've lost me. I said in the opening comment that I oppose on relevance grounds. You haven't shown relevance in response. My recommendation is to show the relevance or remove the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you now say that removing the quotes and removing one word does not cause a problem of "we can't say hyper-protective in wiki voice, how about we remove it as unnecessary rather than quote it"?
Right now, you have a direct quote from a well-recognised WP:RS. Exactly what is the purpose of selectively editing a WP:RS literal quotation? XavierItzm (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Meantime, XavierItzm, for purposes of clarity, my rewrite was a compromise between its removal altogether and the unnecessary, unencyclopedic irrelevance that was there prior. That it has stood since (for the most part) demonstrates that (most of) the other editors had no argument with it. That is not a consensus. This section is here to see if actual consensus exists, whatever its result. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it must be noted that the "direct quote from a well-recognised WP:RS" is a quote from the article's author(s), which was not directly cited to an authority. Were this article to be, say, nominated for WP:GAN, the passage would fail. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:GAN were to fail, which is open to discussion, it would fail multiple times for all the references to what the shooter presumably uploaded, what the witnesses presumably said, what the friends and relatives presumably said regarding the biography of the murderer, where did the murderer sit at night and with what little light or not, etc. Kindly indicate the reason for singling out one particular sentence for WP:GAN. Thank you in advance. XavierItzm (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of adding that the mother is black. The information in the rest of that sentence depends on media descriptions of the mother as "hyper-protective", not on her identity. Darth Viller (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the relevance of the mother's ethnicity. Again, you have failed to show that relevance. While RS has mentioned her ethnicity in passing, they have not assigned any particular signifiance to it relative to the shooting. To include it could imply such a significance, and to insist on including it solely because RS has mentioned it suggests POV editing. All Wikipedia editing is selective, it's what we do.
As for hyper-protective, that's a different issue. I removed it because I felt it was largely redundant with the content that immediately follows it: ...who tried repeatedly to shield him from various perceived annoyances, some of them minor, in their neighborhood. But if someone wants to keep it, I'm not opposed to keeping it in quotes. It's largely redundant, but at least it does no harm. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What we have here is a literal quote from a WP:RS. Apparently one word from the RS is not liked by some, and so there is an effort to create a Rube-Goldberg structure to work around what the Los Angeles Times literally wrote. This looks like "selective editing" - POV pushing to the extreme of seeking to alter a quote from a WP:RS? Regarding relevancy, Parkwells, Snarfblaat have argued it is. XavierItzm (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Missed this, I take it? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No,ATinySliver, actually I did not miss it at all. I responded 14 minutes later here. I take you missed it? XavierItzm (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "reply" was a deflection from the instant issue, and was correctly ignored. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:GAN was used as a pretext to alter a direct quote from The Los Angeles Times, and only that direct quote from The Los Angeles Times, even though the WP:GAN argument applied generally throughout many instances of the article. Failure to acknowledge how blatant this is, is quite sad, really. Oh, by the way, good morning, ATinySliver. XavierItzm (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I "alter[ed] a direct quote from the Los Angels Times"? Diff, please. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 12:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not state "you" "alter[ed] a direct quote from the Los Angels Times". At no point have I said that ATinySliver is the specific person who removed "black" from the literal LAT quote: "Hyper-protective black mother". This selective editing of one word from the LAT quote, however, was initially edited out, probably by others, by removing the quotes and leaving just Hyper-protective mother, and by creating rube-goldberg-like sentences to work around the LAT quote. This selective editing caused subsequent problems, leading another editor to state that now Wikipedia voice was stating the mother was hyper-protective (a direct consequence of removing quotes!). In the process of trying to restore the original quote, ATinySliver used as counter-argument the highly selective argument that the LA Times would not pass WP:GAN, which is open to discussion, but which ATinySliver did not apply to numerous other similar refs throughout the article. Hence, ATinySliver's WP:GAN was highly selective to the LAT quote, and only to that quote. Bottom line, this defence of the LAT quote at no point has indicated ATinySliver personally altered the LAT quote, but only that he proposed a highly selective argument for not preserving its integrity. XavierItzm (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your direct quote: "WP:GAN was used as a pretext to alter a direct quote from The Los Angeles Times". I was the only one to invoke GAN, therefore you did in fact accuse me of altering a direct quote, which I did not do. I was the first to actually use the direct quote, then later included the passage in its entirety. That the article has undergone several rewrites in the two fucking days since—which, in my opinion, have improved the article greatly, and one of which you at the time found "fair and square"—fails utterly in any argument that I've been "selective" about anything, no matter how many times you link my user name in your argument. Couple this with repeated accusations of "cleansing" or "pushing" some perceived POV and your credibility is gone. Meantime, if you want to see the myriad instances in which editors have made clear their opinions about TDM, you can search yourself. It's 05:50 in California, I'm going to bed, and you're irrelevant from this moment forward. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 12:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit I should have written " WP:GAN was used as a pretext to maintain the alteration of a direct quote from The Los Angeles Times" on my edit of 12:03, 6 October 2015. My apologies to ATinySliver, whom I did not intend to acuse of altering the quote. Sloppy writing on my part. My intent was only to point out how highly selective and unfair ATinySliver WP:GAN argument to support someone' else alteration of the quote was. XavierItzm (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotes still need to be relevant in context. The LA Times use the phrase to simultaneously highlight the contrast between his white supremacism and his own background and his limited social life. His white supremacy views are mentioned in a different paragraph on WP, though. Adding "black" seems a bit random here. Darth Viller (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the predicate "black" is relevant in this sentence, I'm arguing that it isn't relevant. I have no issues with removing "hyper-protective" either. Also, I'm not anybody involved in this section of the talk page, before that post. Darth Viller (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, sorry it looked like I was replying to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I thought you misread. No need to apologise. Darth Viller (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, I've added to the ref the entire relevant passage from the article. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mom's skin color does not dictate her parenting style. Her race should, if mentioned, be moved to the Early life section. She can be described as very protective in another section. We're supposed to avoid quotes. We're supposed to loosely paraphrase or better yet make it our own and back up the grist with RS. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think I'd {{efn}} both parents' races (with reliable sources, natch) following the passage where he identified as "mixed race". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I could live with that. The use of a footnote would be our statement that it's not particularly relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RS then would be the remaining issue; his father has been interviewed briefly; he appears to be a white man with an Irish accent. His mother has been described as black but is avoiding the spotlight for now, beyond a written statement. That said, like most articles, this will improve with time ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RS for the mother will be easy. For the father, something like this (CHM's uncle by marriage said his father is white) might be enough given that he is clearly white in the videos of him. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You just beat me to it.

I hereby propose the overprotective mother passage say only that, while the mixed race passage would look like this. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The father is Caucasian, Evans said, while Mercer’s mother, Laurel Harper, is black. As I read that, it's not clear to me that the uncle is saying both. Is it to you? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a former journalist; that's a standard writing style interjecting the quote's source mid-statement. It is clear to me. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok then. Good thing (AmEng) or good job (BritEng), since other RS for the mother isn't turning out to be quite as easy as I thought, Breitbart being about the best I could find. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny, that—the dearth of sources we're comfortable citing may be illustrative of the point: that, arguments notwithstanding, the article just may be assigning more importance to the issue than is the news media. Maybe. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The thought crossed my mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Support above proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add one important point that was missed. While the article contains a lot of content that is not relevant to the shooting, a higher bar is needed for hot-button, controversial areas like race, religion, gender issues, and so on. These are areas where various factions pushing narrow agendas (in this case, racists) are likely to seize on a little fact and blow it way out of proportion to serve their own ends. This is why I objected to the mother's ethnicity and not, for example, the fact that he was born in England. No large group of people assert that people born in England are more likely to have mental health issues and kill people or otherwise be "defective" or "inferior" in some way. If such a group of people existed, I would want to see relevance for the fact that he was born in England. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If I may be more specific, this falls under the purview of both SYNTH and UNDUE. If the article is worded in such a way that the casual reader is reasonably likely to conclude, say, "Oh, his mother is black, he's half-black, he hates black men, that's why he did it!"—or could be considered "racially charged" from any angle—then we're required by encyclopedic policy to fix it. (For that matter, we have to be equally careful with any religion/antireligion passages.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that gets us there, since one could reasonably argue that the wording I objected to could not have been any more neutral or innocuous. There was no problematic juxtaposition that I could see. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh ... I should've noted that was not so much a reply as an addendum. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The footnote proposed by atinysliver is sort of OK, except the reference to hearsay from the uncle is weak sauce. An earlier version of the article had a direct quote from a UK WP:RS that got cleansed out (perhaps by one of the racists Mandruss makes reference to above at 21:51, 5 October 2015 ???). I'll add it back to the footnote. XavierItzm (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So, wait ... a relative who would have a reasonable knowledge of a person's heritage is hearsay while a neighbor interviewed by The Daily Mail (very much reviled as an RS at WP) is reliable?! Removing the unreliable constitutes "cleansing"? (There's that word again ...) Your lack of assumption of good faith in the creation by of an encyclopedia article is reaching far beyond mere insult. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WP policy or statement that specifically disavows The Daily Mail as a RS? I think not. If this is not the case, no matter how "reviled" a user's opinion of the RS, it is just pure bias on the part of the deleting editor and cleansing out of a valid, well sourced WP:RS to omit references from The Daily Mail. XavierItzm (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The closest thing Wikipedia has to a leader once said it is "trashy and unreliable and should treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source." That sentiment has been shared by many Wikipedians and general netizens (Google "daily mail" reliable -site:dailymail.co.uk) over the years. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh. The very first link in your Special:Search contains the following complaint by DrChrissy, a Wikipedia editor I respect:
" I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is"
I wholeheartedly agree. In the particular citation from The Daily Mail that is the subject of my inquiry above, which is authored by no less than three journalists (Parry, Hodgson, MacLaughlin), they identify the witness (name, last name), her age, the timeframe of her contact with the murderer and his mother, the context of her relationship with the mother and the murderer, and the town and state where the witness interacted with the two subjects. It then proceeds to quote 38 (thirty eight) whole sentences verbatim from this witness, including the fact the mother is an African American (a fact corroborated by The Los Angeles Times) and a nurse (a fact corroborated by numerous sources). Do you dispute the quality of Parry, Hodgson and MacLaughlin? Do you question the witness? Like DrChrissy, I have to say:
"editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is."
Bottom line, you may not like the Daily Mail, Jimbo may not like the Daily Mail, but until and unless there is an official WP policy banning this WP:RS, it should be used, like any other source, with thoughtfulness.
Finally, I think Jimbo would be scandalised if Wikipedia editors were to fall under the appeal to authority fallacy, so I won't fall for that one.XavierItzm (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The cool thing to do is look for another source with the same claim, then use that one. If the only source backing a claim is The Daily Mail, it's safe to assume bullshit, but not literally everything they say is untrue. Even the true things are framed in sensationalism and lies there, though. Readers looking to verify a detail by clicking the citation didn't ask for that extra stuff. The headlines alone are usually the worst part, and all those pretty pictures can be a hassle for surfers on slow connections or limited data plans. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my most recent efforts to help write the best article we can will still be considered "cleansing" or "pushing" in any way but, I suppose, there's only so much I can do to ameliorate the darkest thoughts of those who cling thereto so desperately ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 12:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So, please support the assertion that the Daily Mail is not a WP:RS, and the reason why all references to the Daily Mail are being singled out for deletion systematically from this article. If it walks like a duck..., etc. XavierItzm (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's relevant - his email account was ironcross45@gmail - his dating profile was "ironcross45" and the police say he had an interest in white supremacy. -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Victim in wheelchair

I added that CNN noted that one of the victims (Moore) used a wheelchair (with a cite), but an editor here reverted that detail, saying it was "unnecessary." Why? It appears to show something about the shooter's state of mind that he shot her, a lack of mercy as described in the news article. The Death of Klinghoffer, an opera by John Adams, is based on an historic 1985 hijacking of a cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists. They killed an American in a wheelchair, which was a key event referred to in the opera. I think the issue of whether we include this detail in this article on the UCC incident should be discussed on the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a stronger argument than "unnecessary". Your hijacking was Achille Lauro hijacking, see its lead. Maybe Versus001 can bring something more? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The information is extremely trivial, and if that info can be included, why can't we note other things about the other victims? What is the point of that edit? Versus001 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, did you happen to read any of the above? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And did you read what I had to say? We should put in details of other victims, then. Versus001 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if someone can make an equally strong argument for them. Did you read the last sentence of the lead of the article I linked? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The dude on the cruise ship was the star of that show. He's the reason people still remember it. There, it's clearly notable. Here, it's just another victim (it says a lot about his state of mind that he shot anyone). That you've now said the intent behind the edit was what you said it was taints what could have been seen as a trivial detail with the idea that people in wheelchairs are special. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, trivial details stand a better chance in this article? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. A trivial detail without an associated POV stands a better chance than the one with it. Not mattering is better than mattering for the wrong reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This way is a bit better. Doesn't stand out like a sore thumb there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I can live with that, at least I got to insert my POV somewhere, ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's OK when it's subtle enough. I had a downright inappropriate and fairly lengthy acrostic in an upper-traffic article for years. I hope to someday revert the one spoiled letter, but not while it'd be obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine to have material about the students in the paragraph about all of them. Parkwells (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sciatica was the reason she used a wheelchair, but it was for convenience and comfort and wasn't a necessity. WWGB (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's probably why the others were wearing shoes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Discharge from U.S. Army

The latest media reports say that he was discharged from the U.S. Army in 2008 after a suicide attempt. However, army officials declined to confirm this on the record.[1] This is important, as it casts more doubt on his mental health prior to the shooting. How should the article deal with this? It looks notable enough to add.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's from an anonymous law enforcement official. That's good enough for most of the stuff here, this shouldn't be any different. The military is a tough nut to crack for journalists. Unless you want to talk about what they're talking about, they generally won't confirm or deny anything. Even harmless questions. Army suicide is a touchy subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator's birthplace

The article states that the perpetrator, Chris Harper-Mercer, was born in England, and the citation for this is a CBS News piece which says that Harper-Mercer's stepsister said that he was born in England. But FamilySearch.org has an entry in the California Birth Index database for Christopher Sean Harpermercer born 26 Jul 1989 Los Angeles, California, United States, mother's surname Harper.

"California Birth Index, 1905-1995," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VLHG-TZG : accessed 7 October 2015), Christopher Sean Harpermercer, 26 Jul 1989; citing Los Angeles, California, United States, Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics Department, Sacramento.

Also available on the site californiabirthindex.org

There is a wikipedia page about the California Birth Index which says it is compiled by the California Office of Health Information and Research. So I would think it is a more reliable source of information than what the stepsister is supposed to have said to CBS. But I'm not very experienced at editing Wikipedia pages and citations etc so would rather someone else did it. Katerimmer (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting but it is obviously WP:OR and online genealogy databases are not perfect. For some time now, I have been waiting for more detail on the gunman's links to the UK as I am British and the UK media was fascinated by this, newspaper front pages here. The closest thing to additional detail that I could find was this news article which says that his grandfather lives in Preston, Lancashire.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It bothers me that Wikipedia is stating it as a fact that he was born in England, although apparently the only evidence for this is that his stepsister said so. Shouldn't the Wikipedia article at least say "according to his stepsister", as many news sources did? Would any of these count as a proper citation for him being born in California?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-34431327

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-shooting-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-was-reclusive-26-year-old-with-an-interest-in-ira-and-a6677696.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11906041/Chris-Harper-Mercer-Everything-we-know-about-the-Oregon-school-gunman-on-Saturday.html

Katerimmer (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree here. It is possible that the stepsister was wrong, and repeating it in multiple reliable sources does not make it correct. No further details have emerged on this beyond the fact that his grandfather lives in Preston, Lancashire. If this continues, it might be necessary to word it along the lines of "according to his stepsister, he was born in the UK." The original report about him being born in the UK comes from CBS here, and other news outlets are basically repeating this without any further fact checking. If he was born in the UK, it should be fairly easy for UK journalists to find when and where he was born in various public records. It is worrying that no UK journalist seems to have done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can't find anything with this UK-based search tool: Christopher Mercer 1989 Christopher Harper 1989. Maybe others can have a try. I am increasingly wondering if the stepsister was wrong on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• As Katerimmer noted above, reliable UK sources are reporting his birth in California, but that he possessed a British passport:

"Harper-Mercer's birth was registered in California but he carried a British passport, it also emerged." Telegraph.co.uk

"The man who killed nine people and injured seven others in a mass shooting at a college in rural Oregon carried a British passport and was fascinated by the IRA, it has emerged. Chris Harper Mercer, 26, who was shot dead by police following the murders at Umpqua Community College on Thursday, was born in California but had an English father." Independent.co.uk

I would like to see this article include this information as a discrepancy in the reporting of his birthplace. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. The UK media has had enough time to track down his birth record but has failed to do so. This, along with the California birth record, means that his stepsister is probably wrong. The shooter's father has links to the UK, but the indications are that the shooter himself was born in California, not the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted, The Telegraph said his birth was registered in CA and that he also carried a British passport. "Harper-Mercer's birth was registered in California but he carried a British passport, it also emerged." That seems sufficient to use; we don't need to rely on his stepsister's statement.Parkwells (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In the light of all of this, I am now tempted to remove the stepsister's statement altogether. This was a well meaning but probably wrong statement made soon after the shooting, as clearer information about his place of birth has emerged since then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. THe Independent and the Telegraph on Oct. 2 both stated he was born in California but carried a British passport because his father was English. The Independent noted his father had moved to CA to be with his mother, but they separated before the boy was born. Both parents should be identified in this article - people don't spring to life out of nothing. I have added them back.Parkwells (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

IRA and anti-British

The Independent and Telegraph both noted Harper-Mercer's postings about the IRA and anti-British ideas, but that information does not appear here. It appears to be as relevant as some of the other content about his portrayal of himself.Parkwells (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There used to an IRA reference earlier (e.g. here). I didn't find a reason in the archive for why it was removed, so I suppose it can go back in, along with a reference to his anti-British ideas. Darth Viller (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning, since things are routinely removed without discussion. Discussion only occurs when the removal is disputed. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a lowly "I don't see why not" comment. Basically to tell OP that there aren't any powerful reasons based on consensus behind its absence. Darth Viller (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The IRA material came from his Myspace profile, which was also the source of his photo of himself.[2]. This is of some interest but is probably best left to the citation of the Independent article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

His mother was an avid gun collector and an advocate of open carry

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/oregon-shooters-mother-hoarded-guns-feared-confiscation

Should this be mentioned?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not without significantly more RS coverage than that, if that's even considered RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The NYT describe the gun collection in some detail. Darth Viller (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As do other RS. Not just gun collection, but joint practice at shooting ranges.Parkwells (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

She probably taught him to drive, too. Might have taught him in the car he drove that day. She may have even owned it. How often did they drive together and what make/model was the car he drove? If he killed those people with baseball bats, would it be necessary to document how many times they went to they batting cages? --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

911 or 9-1-1

Re: 1 2 3

There are all kinds of arguments one could make for either side, some of them downright inane (for example, we can't say 9-1-1 because there is no hyphen on a telephone keypad (!!)). I won't provide a comprehensive list of reasons for 9-1-1, but I'll just start with the fact that Wikipedia clearly thinks 9-1-1 is the preferred form based on the title of 9-1-1. 911 is a dab page, but, if we preferred "911", we would have titled the article as 911 (emergency telephone number), which is instead a redirect to 9-1-1. This is a style issue, nothing more, and there is certainly no requirement to agree with a source on this any more than on any other style question. Beyond that, I will let others fight it out, not wishing to steal all the glory. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"9-1-1" is just common sense to me, because it is the name used for the service whose number is 911. Similar to if I want to call WMF in the US, I say "I'm going to call WMF in the US", not "I'm going to call +1-415-839-6885". Also, screen readers will pronounce "9-1-1" as intended, "nine one one" instead of "nine hundred and eleven". But I don't think this is something to spend too much time over. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just enough time to establish an explicit consensus, so as to end the slow-burn edit war. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why pick on this minor consistency edit?

The 911 page is an article page about the year 911. Since 911 was already taken the emergency number page was titled 9-1-1. 911 is not a Dab page, but it does have Dab Hatnotes. There is a 911 (disambiguation) page too. The victims at UCC said they dialed 911, the did not say they dialed "9 hyphen 1 hyphen 1". They dialed "nine one one". Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why pick on this minor consistency edit? - Gotta love it when I see that argument, from someone who is doing precisely the same thing they are complaining about. Further, if you want to get into ridiculous literal pronunciations, "911" is pronounced "nine eleven" or "nine hundred eleven" where I come from, not "nine one one". Again: Why is the article not titled "911 (emergency telephone number)"? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BurritoBazooka; it makes more sense to hyphenate 9-1-1, since it's a phone number and all. Plus, 911 may confuse the amateur reader into thinking it's an actual number and not a telephone number. Also... "The 911 page is an article page about the year 911." Um...hence why we are hyphenating 9-1-1? To avoid the confusion, and because that is indeed the article name? And Mandruss said: "Why is the article not titled '911 (emergency telephone number)'?" Not sure if it's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer that it'd be too much to write down, and a simple redirect link obviously can't work since "911" is already taken as an article title. Versus001 (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Writing just "911" is terrible. Other than just Canada and a few small Caribbean islands, I believe only the U.S. uses this awful number. Many developed countries use "123" (get it?). So writing "911" w/o clarification is pathetically US-centric and shows enormous lack of awareness. Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the wrestler was named for the phone number, and he's called 911. Same deal for the TV show. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

But editors will have to go through an annoying process of typing down "911 (emergency telephone number)" or something along those lines. I'd certainly not like that. Versus001 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you said "will", I gather you think someone is suggesting or advocating a move. No, I'm saying that the fact that no such move has occurred in all this time is clear evidence that the 9-1-1 form has community consensus. I seriously doubt the community chose the 9-1-1 title to save editors some copy-and-paste effort when creating links (no one would actually type all that, I hope; we're not working with typewriters). If they had, all the other references in that article would say "911" (my browser stops counting at 100).
As I said above, there are arguments for both sides and some of them actually make sense. So I look for a tie-breaker, and to me the article title is that tie-breaker. If the article title was "911 (emergency telephone number)", I'd be here arguing for using "911" in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It looked like that to me, my apologies. Versus001 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Does any advocate of the "911" form have a more authoritative source than this? That nails it, in my opinion, so I'll change the article in a couple of days if no such source is presented before then. It's likely the article has that title because the editors involved in determining the title were aware of that FCC source. This is why article titles are good tie-breakers. I have added a more conspicuous citation to that article, immediately following the first use of "9-1-1", which is also the first word of the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Canada is literally higher than the US. But it's unlikely these responders called that 911. You win this round. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[3] ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's 2015 Canada. A much dumber place. (Fun Fact: Ten of the first twenty Google results for "canada getting dumber" are about getting a Canadian number. "America getting dumber" goes 30 for 30, but the ads are still for numbers.) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Trout for silliness. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Their Twitter guy still keeps it real, at least. En français, aussi. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Identify family

It is customary practice to identify parents of a gunman and provide content about family life in articles such as this, but some editors here keep deleting their names and more information about Harper-Mercer's family life. Providing these facts does not glorify the shooter. As Callinus noted above, it is consistent with the approach in other articles, including those the article on the Charleston church shooting (there is also an entirely separate article on the perpetrator) and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where both parents are identified. I think the issue should be discussed here on the Talk page, rather than left to individual editors who seem to be forming some arbitrary new approach. I'm not suggesting that there be a separate article on Harper-Mercer, but this one needs to be more complete.Parkwells (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a "new approach", and certainly not arbitrary. We (should) add content based on relevance, not on subjective perceptions of customary practice (and see WP:OTHER). This bar is justifiably higher when living people are involved. This is not a biography of Harper-Mercer, where parents' names might be expected. Please explain the relevance of the parents' names. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(...)As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred (...). Checkingfax (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Checkingfax that consistency is to be preferred under WP:SSEFAR and Wikipedia has had details on the parents of Sandy Hook (in an infobox!), which is so nearly identical to this case, and numerous other cases for years. XavierItzm (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SSEFAR is a fair counter to OTHER when OTHER is the only argument given. It is not; in fact, I put it in parentheses to emphasize that. I'm still waiting for relevance of those names, as well as justification for associating the names of innocent people with this killer until the end of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the discussion was finished. Maybe you should say why his biological parents who raised him are not relevant to his life. This is not a suggestion to "out" them; they are already publicly associated with him by media reports about the shooting, and his father has spoken in public. They are part of the documented facts of his life, which is why it is relevant to have them in this article. Why is it okay to write about them and not have their names? Or is it something you want only to be in the sources and not here? If you feel so strongly about this issue of excluding parents of killers (does that include excluding parents and family of the many other criminals?), perhaps you should try to take it up as a policy issue. You would also need to proof and correct the many articles (Sandy Hook, Newtown, etc.) written here about killers and other criminals to ensure you have deleted the names of the parents or other family, including historic figures. Parkwells (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Parkwells: Apologies for the AGF failure. I generally expect to see in the editsum a reference to the change and "per talk". When I don't, I sometimes ABF. Of course it doesn't help that the sneaky editsum tactic is occasionally actually used.
Once again, this is not a biography of Christopher Harper-Mercer, so the documented facts of his life are not a goal here, and that is an empty argument. Note that DHeyward just removed the birthdate and the infobox with the same rationale (and I concur).
Yes, I want those names to be only in the sources and not here. If you look at the RfC above about the photo of Harper-Mercer, you won't find any arguments for inclusion based on the fact that the very same image is all over the web. I've never found that argument to carry much weight at Wikipedia.
Once again, no, I don't have to go fix those other articles. There is no requirement for consistency between articles on this, that is a very common misconception that causes much conflict. Those were different mixes of editors, who saw fit to treat different cases differently, and there is nothing wrong with that. If the community saw a need to be consistent on this, there would be a guideline. There is not. I might decide to go contest that content at those articles, but the fact that I don't doesn't require me to accept the content in this one. If you still disagree, a brief visit to WP:VPM will clear that up for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"injured" section - following should be removed

WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Chris Mintz had no blood on him and didn't look injured at all. He was pointing at something in the picture I saw of him on a gurney. He had no distress in his face at all. In another picture he was seen with his friends laughing at America and giving the devil sign. This was a globalist hoax. Umqua was a complete hoax. No cell phones got any info. Very unusual for that generation. Very unusual. This is a hoax used by Everytown as the Sandy Hook Hoax was used to tighten gun control which is a globalist goal. --72.21.198.64 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The article doesn't mention whether he looked bloodied or whatever, so nothing needs to be corrected on that front. It's in any case not Wikipedia's place to go beyond what reliable sources report - and they report that Mintz was injured. So I'm sorry, but we can't include your theory. You'd need to get reliable sources for the above things, first. Darth Viller (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Umpqua. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) This is not a forum for conspiracy theories. You're at the wrong place, my friend. Versus001 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)