Jump to content

Talk:2017 Aztec High School shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2017 Aztec High School shooting has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 8, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the perpetrator of the 2017 Aztec High School shooting had previously been investigated by the FBI, but the investigation was closed after he convinced them that he was simply "trolling"?

To be added

[edit]

To be added:

  • the lengthy police report notes that after the shootings, law enforcement agents discovered several vehicles with swastikas and other hate speech visible on cars in the school parking lot, but decided to ignore and disregard it as having nothing to do with the case
  • a follow-up by the SPLC notes that local law enforcement twice denied concerns about a possible connection or motive with white supremacists, alt-right, and other right wing terrorism implications, before the results of the autopsy were released indicating white supremacist and far-right symbols on the body of the shooter, and after both the Daily Beast and the SPLC had uncovered the online posting history of the shooter and his deep connection to far-right terrorists in Germany.
  • at least one civil rights organization in New Mexico informed the SPLC that one of the sheriffs in San Juan County is a "pro-gun supporter of Trump’s hardline on border issues."
  • the claim pertaining to the shooter picking the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack makes little sense, and in the original context of the police report itself, makes even less sense.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Doomslaiyer wishes to add the following:

When Atchison was 11 years old, he discovered the Encyclopedia Dramatica website, and eventually became a sysop for the website, where he would write and edit many School Shooting articles the site had to offer. He used his power to upload pictures of White Supremacist propaganda. Several ED admins went to the site's forums to complain but no action was presumably taken.

No source was offered for this proposed addition, but if memory serves, a small part of this is supported by Zadrozny & Collins 2017. I didn't add it originally because it was too inside baseball, but I think Doomslaiyer is correct in that the most verifiable parts of it should be added. I'm just objecting to adding the parts that can't be verified, which is why I reverted. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He used his power to upload pictures of White Supremacist propaganda." tone needs to be more neutral. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mate you're talking about a proposed edition to this page that wasn't even done that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dont care 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

[edit]
Atchinson was also interested in Jeff Weise, the perpetrator of the 2005 Red Lake shootings.

Moved to talk. Unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What source are people even gonna find? The media only reports on certain types of shooters 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then it doesn't need to be in the page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wish it were, keep sourcing your corporate slop then. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent removal of Atchison's pro-Trump posts

[edit]
Atchison's online activity included writing pro-Hitler and pro-Trump posts on Internet forums

User:Mercur70 has repeatedly removed the mention of Atchison’s pro-Trump posts because the user believes this equates Trump with Hitler. I don’t see how that’s a valid rationale for removal, as white supremacists like Atchison were called "very fine people" by Trump, who held problematic racial views just like his father. Fred Trump was arrested and detained at a Klan rally in 1927 for refusing to leave. This could explain why former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke was one of Trump’s earliest endorsers in 2016.

The point I’m making is that we don’t need to equate Trump with Hitler, he has lived a life making the equation for himself, and white supremacists like Atchison were drawn to Trump as a result. That Atchison was both pro-Hitler and pro-Trump makes perfect sense in this context and in the community of online white supremacist that Atchison supported. Of course, I haven’t even mentioned, that according to his ex-wife, Trump used to read the collected works of Hitler’s speeches before he went to bed at night, and it was one of the only books he ever used to read.

None of that matters, but I offer it as background for the user in question. What does matter is that the sources support the material. The sources tell us that Atchison posted pro-Trump and pro-Hitler messages online. Not just one source, many sources. Noting this doesn’t equate Trump with Hitler. If we wanted to equate Trump with Hitler in the article, we would have to show how a Trump slogan or idea was related to Hitler and the Nazis. For example, I could show how Hitler used to use the phrase "Make Germany Great Again" in a speech from 1940. Perhaps this phrase was also in a book Trump kept by his bed and read at night, giving him the idea to use MAGA. That would be an attempt to equate Trump with Hitler. Nobody is doing that here.

Is there any doubt that Atchison was posting pro-Trump and pro-Hitler comments online? No. Journalists, researchers, and law enforcement investigators have confirmed it, and these things have been published. Atchison was drawn to Trump just as much as he was to Hitler, and it’s not up to us to equate them or explain the connection in this article on the shooting, and we haven’t. That information is easy to find elsewhere, as I have demonstrated up above. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and I will stop reverting. Mercur70 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motive

[edit]

People keep changing the motive from "unknown" to "Encyclopedia Dramatica". This isn't supported by the sources that I've seen, but if there are new ones, feel free to add them. The police reports (and sources covering them) maintain that the motive is unknown. Initially, I was skeptical, and I read about the role Encyclopedia Dramatica played in the attacks. But after reading all of the available sources, it becomes clear that there's no way to assign a motive to the perpetrator based on the known evidence. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think ED is the one changing them? Think Viriditas, think. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2D Is Better Than 3D ? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Aztec High School shooting → Aztec High School shooting – Year is not needed as the name of the school distinguishes it enough. MountainDew20 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it was moved to the title with the year included by the user “Love of Corey”, who had done this multiple times before with different school shooting articles and is now banned for using sockpuppet accounts. MountainDew20 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MountainDew20 As (one of) the main authors of this page: eh I wouldn't prefer it. It's a pretty obscure one that most people don't know about, so I think the year is helpful and informative even if it's not strictly needed to distinguish it. Most people when they hear about this do not automatically know about it. I think only the really famous cases should not have the year in the title. But I don't care that much.
No offense intended at all, but I think you have a misunderstanding of how events are usually named: usually they include the year by default and this is only overruled if its more commonly referred to (so the really famous cases) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice to lose the unsightly year from the title. The year is unnecessary (was there a 2023 or 1994 Aztec High School shooting?) and including it does not, prima facia, aid the recognition of the event, one's recall of it. I'd support a move. BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BowlAndSpoon Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) says "In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened." Only "in historic perspective" should it not include it. Quite frankly this one is not well known enough to exclude it PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There doesn’t seem any other high profile incident involving a shooting at this particular school. A quick google search shows results for this event only. From my understanding, the only reason why we include a year is if there was more than 1 high profile incident like this at the same place (i.e. 2009 & 2014 Fort Hood shootings), or if the event wasn’t at a specific location and rather just the general area of a city or town (i.e. 2022 Philadelphia shooting & 2022 Chattanooga shooting.) This is like if we put 1999 in the title for the Columbine shooting and there obviously hasn’t been another big crime like that at the school since then. The year for something like this just seems pointless.
YatesTucker00090 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YatesTucker00090 Per policy, that's not the case. Events contain the year by default and only don't have year if they have an otherwise common title. WP:NCEVENTS PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2024 (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.

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 Aztec High School shooting/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review this. I can't guarantee that I will get to it before Wednesday afternoon but I will do what I can to give this a look before too long. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • I think a link to the high school itself in the lead would be helpful
done
  • move full stop after "notoreity" outside of the quotes per MOS:LQ
done

Background

  • First sentence is a little long, lots of commas
done (I accidentally interpreted this as a criticism of the first sentence of the lead, so i changed that too. i think it might be a bit better this way, but opinions? i can change it back if not)
was US, fixed
  • Did Atchison suddenly stop seeing the counselor shortly before the shooting or was this several years before?
the article places it before he dropped out of school so around 2012 - i rearranged it a bit to make it more chronological
  • "after the suspension, and dropped out" → remove comma
done
  • "for being a troll, and was at times" → remove comma
done
  • "...who several months later..." → reads as redundant with this quote and "in July of that year" are both in the same sentence
fixed
  • "Together, he and Sonboly" → since Sonboly was the last person being talked about, it sounds like "he" refers to Sonboly; recommend "Together, Atchison and Sonboly"
fixed, but i removed the "together" since i feel that is redundant
  • "killing a lot of people within a budget."" → move full stop outside quotes
done

Shooting

  • Recommend mentioning briefly that Fernandez and Marquez were students
added
  • "student occupied" → "student-occupied"
done
  • not sure that you need the exact quotes from Hill, just that he was yelling about a shooter - this would also help simplify that formatting with the quotes and commas
done
  • "announcement calling for a lock-down" → recommend removing hyphen in "lockdown" and linking to Lockdown
done
  • "As a substitute teacher, Ms. Potter" → don't need "Ms."
done
  • "office, and barricaded" → remove comma
done
  • "were in there, and fired several" → remove comma
done
  • "the hallway, before" → remove comma
done
  • "locked classrooms, until they were" → remove comma
done
  • "Teachers and students hid in locked classrooms" (plural) ... "walk out of the room" (singular)
fixed
  • "toward the back of the building and toward the parking lot" → repetitive; "toward the back of the building and the parking lot"
done
  • "they were later picked up by their parents" → the teachers and students were both picked up by their parents?
source says both students and staff were "reunited with family", fixed
  • "at Aztec High School" → I don't think the school needs its long-form name at this point in the article; I think "at Aztec" or "at the school" suffices
done
  • "was an American football player" → link is good but recommend piping it to read "was a football player" since we're talking about the U.S. and the other sport would be soccer
done

Aftermath

  • "take care of each other"." → full sentence, so move full stop inside quotes
done
  • "the shooting, and called for action" → remove comma
fixed
  • "to be safe at school"." → full stop outside quotes
done
  • "the perpetrator, but was surprised" → remove comma
done
  • "against the Aztec school district" → if this is the name of the school district then it needs caps
it's called "Aztec Municipal School District", and i think it's weird to fully name that as well as the police department
  • First paragraph of "Lawsuits" is a bit repetitive; consecutive sentences start with "The suit claimed..." and "The lawsuit claimed..."
fixed
  • "the death of her daughter" → "the family" does not agree with "her"
the second lawsuit is, as far as i can tell, just from the mother, so fixed
  • "who would go on to kill nine people" → I don't think this detail needs to be repeated
fixed, changed sentence
  • "and determined he wasn't a threat" → "wasn't" is a little too informal
fixed
  • "December 14, 2020 for technical" → comma after "2020" per MOS:DATECOMMA
done
  • "a security door was enacted" → sounds strange, maybe "was installed"?
done
  • "online, and had praised" → remove comma
done
  • "Peter Langman. a counseling" → wrong punctuation
fixed

Sorry for the delay in getting this done - this is what I have from my first read-through. Nice work, no rush in getting to these. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Done, I think. Hope I didn't create any new problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that the ordering of this article is a bit off in that, despite the FBI investigation preceding the Munich shooting, the Munich info precedes it in the article. Maybe I should flip it? Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more things:

  • "Atchison opened fire in the upper level hallway of the 800-900 student-occupied building" → does this mean there were 800 to 900 students in the building? If so I would recommend a reword to make this clear
  • "officials to walk out toward the back of the building and the parking lot," → replace comma here with a semicolon

A couple minor prose/punctuation things I picked up on my second time through. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Fixed the second one. The first one confused me too, but it actually has nothing to do with the number of people in the building. 800-900 or 800/900 is the name/code of the main part of the building, according to the lawsuit. I rearranged things to fix that (I hope). PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2024 (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 01:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by PARAKANYAA (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article upgraded to GA-status. However, the hook is mentioned in both introduction and in the investigation section with mention as "personal notoriety" rather than "trolling". However, I am with assumption that both have the same meaning and hence, the article is good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
FWIW, They're two different things, but the "trolling" bit is mentioned only in the March 2016 FBI section. The personal notoriety part was mentioned by the sheriff in the post-shooting investigation.
The part in the article where this same information is put is this: "He convinced FBI investigators that he was simply "trolling", and that he was "not the type to actually do any of this stuff". Cited to the same source for the first half of the sentence, which is the relevant part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Aztec_High_School_shooting&oldid=1260344581"