Jump to content

Talk:2021 Boulder shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move 23 March 2021

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: Moved. Not actually a requested move, only a technical move of the talk page. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


2021 Boulder, Colorado shooting → 2021 Boulder shooting – The main article was already moved back to this original title, but the talk page somehow didn't follow suit. I tried moving it, but it wouldn't work, so I had to open this to get around the technical issue. Love of Corey (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Love of Corey (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 March 2021

Procedural Close. There is already an RM discussion in process. It is not allowed to have more than one RM request open at a time. Non-Admin closure. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

2021 Boulder shooting → Boulder-King Soopers shooting – Since it's mostly reported that it happened at the King Soopers in question, it will probably make more sense to most. Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

"According to...." language

Please note that because Wikipedia has the refs system, WP:INTEXT says "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal" — in other words, news media has to say "According to..." due to journalistic considerations of who got the scoop, plus their inability to put lengthy references in the midst of their media stream. Wikipedia has refs, and is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT#NEWS, so Wikipedia articles simply report what the sources says while leaving it to the refs to indicate who said it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Map in infobox

I have no clue how to reformat the infobox map to move the first pushpin below the map itself and not to its left. Anyone able to help? Thanks, Cran32 (talk | contributions) 01:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC).

Fixed it. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 03:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help finding new source for "unrelated incident"

I added the original claim that became "Around the time of the shooting, reports emerged of another armed individual in the city. Boulder Police later confirmed that this incident was unrelated." Another user informed me that they couldn't find the source, which turns out to be because the NY Times edited that bit out of their article (see the original [[1]], which says, "The Boulder Police Department also sent out an emergency alert for another area of town, asking residents there to shelter in place while they investigated a report of an “armed, dangerous individual.”) NY Times linked to a [[2]] tweet which doesn't appear to sufficiently back up the claim. However I pretty certain that the claim is true; I just can't track it down one of the other sources that say so. Does anybody know of something else that could corroborate this? Perhaps a BPD tweet or a press release? Driftybiscuit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, found it. BPD did have a separate tweet about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20210323042934/https://twitter.com/boulderpolice/status/1374163137193205762 Driftybiscuit (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Name change

Perhaps change the article name to 2021 Boulder King Soopers shooting or Boulder King Soopers shooting. Even possible King Soopers shooting. Although that may be general, it is the only shooting to occur at a King Soopers. These new titles name the specific place rather just in general Boulder, Colorado. For reference: San Ysidro McDonald's massacre Noahg12345 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I favor "Boulder King Soopers shooting". Driftybiscuit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Those names are too wordy and give the impression that the location targeted is called "Boulder King Soopers" for those who are uninformed. The San Ysidro article is only named that way because it's apparently a WP:COMMONNAME. Love of Corey (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying to call it. -Elliottharvickfan94 1:08 AM (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliottharvickfan94 (talk • contribs)

media BS alert

one out-of-state news article reported "officers massed outside the store… at least three helicopters landed on the roof". I heard some helicopters - presumably air ambulances - were staging at nearby Fairview High. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

They probably mixed that up with the fact that there were SWAT officers on the roof, not helicopters... Driftybiscuit (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request on 23 March 2021

Hello,

I would like to edit the charge of murder, to make it more specific. In this case, the subject was charged with ten counts of "1st-degree murder".

Thank you. Haydenhodges (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC(talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

Under the "Aftermath" heading, please change "irregardless" to "regardless" in the last sentence of the first paragraph:


"...context to remain, irregardless of the violence shown.[37]"

TO

"context to remain, regardless of the violence shown.[37]" Giggsteve (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential details to add

Do you guys think it's worth mentioning that this is the seventh mass shooting in the US in the past 7 days? Here is a ref specifically about it: CNN And here's two that mention it as well: KIRO7 and ABC News.

Also, there was a proposed ban on assault style weapons that was blocked in Boulder 10 days prior to this incident. Ref: WaPo and NY Times.

For anyone interested, there should be another press conference at 10:30 ET/7:30 PT this morning. We should get some more details then. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 12:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I found it interesting and useful, I support the inclusion in a sentence. On the subject of the proposed ban, maybe it should go under aftermath? Heart (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

School/Career

According to the article the accused had problems with classmates in 2018. Now At 21 it would seem he could be in college and a career path.Septagram (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

unfortunately one has to be a subscriber to read the article.--142.163.194.190 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Eric Talley listing of victim

Is officer necessary as denoted in the victim list? Heart (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep. The designation is fine / appropriate. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, WP:RS is extremely likely to report on his name all across the board, rather than the name being confined to specific articles/sources, so inclusion is appropriate. Love of Corey (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Mugshot addition

Would it be a good idea to add Alissa's mugshot since it was released by Boulder County PD, or should we wait for an indictment to add it? Kellis7 21:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd hold off regardless. Love of Corey (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Outline of Events

"The incident was partially livestreamed by a witness". I saw this after the fact when it was linked to on Reddit (since taken down). The first few seconds of footage clearly shows two bodies on the ground outside the store: one in the parking lot out front, another closer to the door at the base of the wheelchair access ramp. On this basis I think the outline of events should be revised, since the livestream footage suggests he opened fire on people before entering the building. 165.1.202.247 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. Love of Corey (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Background

The entire background section sounds extremely POV. ("Reading between the lines") ... it seems like it is "casting blame" on that judge, on that court decision, on the NRA. Etc. I question the appropriateness of that section ... and/or the way it is worded. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, I agree. I've tried to clarify the actual judge's ruling, but it's not really related to the shooting at all. Natureium (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't think it belongs in the article. And certainly not as a separate section. And certainly not the very first section. It is like "setting up a prelude" to the murder events. (Maybe it merits one brief sentence, "hidden away" somewhere.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
That sounds better, but how would the sentence read and where would it go? X-Editor (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, I believe the best place to put it would be in aftermath, where the ruling was criticized after the fact. Kellis7 21:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
What source are we talking about, exactly? Love of Corey (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
These sources [3][4]. X-Editor (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Anyway, it looks like the material is being implemented already. Love of Corey (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Over disputes on including the "Reactions" section

I have seen numerous attempts to add a "Reactions" section and would like to come to a consensus on this issue. Heart (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the full version of the contested material. I personally believe any material that doesn't have any direct relevance to the shooting should be kept off until/unless a vast majority of verifiable WP:RS keeps reporting on it within the specific context of the shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
As seen with the Atlanta shooting however that opens Wikipedia up to bias. Despite law enforcement, acquaintances, and the suspect all denying a hate crime motivation, the Reactions section is near exclusively focused on White supremacy, and anti-Asian hate (crime). Are we going for narrative based or fact based articles? While it is true there is more narrative coverage than fact coverage should undue weight be given to this?
While I can't comment on numerous attempts to add a reactions sections, I have added it twice myself - an initial section + small entry, then a more extensive one. This article will need one as the reactions and coverage is growing. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
You really need to let go of Atlanta. Many, many RS have predominantly reported on the racism/hate crime angle within the context of those shootings, no matter how false said angle may be, so the article has to follow suit. If you don't like how this process goes, then you need to take it to the broader Wikipedia community for more productive and appropriate discussion.
In contrast, there's nothing here as of now to suggest the material that you tried to add about conservative backlash of liberal misconceptions about the shooter's race will be of lasting, influential importance to the story and therefore this article, nor is the tidbit about Lauren Boebert's comments (which is already quite tangential on its face). Love of Corey (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a matter of reading. The sources I read are mostly conservative rather than liberal and thus what I point out is considered a major issue. Atlanta's anti-Asian\White supremacy thing? Largely off the radar, disputed - or noted as a weird liberal thing. The problem here is that the conservative view is ignored, the liberal view treated as gospel. Given a 50:50 split in the population - and frankly it's more like 33:33:33, Wikipedia is missing half the response. I'll accept the Boebert material was tangential, I was looking at gun control stuff which seems to be the second wave liberal response after White terrorism. 人族 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Religion and sect

Rank speculation by IP without a speck of sourcing, plus some patient responses

"Boulder Police Chief Maris Herold identified the suspected gunman as 21-year-old Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa...." [5] The Arabic name "Al Aliwi" translates to "The Aliwi". It's likely that he belongs to the Alawite branch of Shia Islam. This is relevant information.[6]--39.41.81.119 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A. This is at best speculation right now and B. Unless this is related somehow to motive/method/etc. of the shooting it is not encyclopedically relevant. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Bashar al-Assad (leader of Syria) and his top administration officials are of the same Alawi group. The recent war in Syria, which involved Americans who wanted to oust al-Assad and his Alawi followers from power.--39.41.81.119 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, two issues: no sources confirm this, and it is speculation to determine it from the perpetrator's name alone; moreover, unless this is proven to be in any way related to the motive (which as of now seems highly unlikely), it has no business being in this article. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 19:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree it’s best to keep out for now since even if he is from the same sect of Islam as the the rulers of Syria there’s currently no evidence the war is the motivation for the shooting.--67.70.100.30 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and WP:TALK. Please confine comments to discussion about how to improve the article, not general musings and speculation about the topic. Mathglot (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Race of shooter

A suspect is in custody, but there is no mention of their race. This implies that the shooter is non-white. Why isn't this mentioned? 2600:1012:B048:D4F0:0:53:8F82:B801 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We avoid mentioning races of any kind if the shooting does not appear to be racially motivated, which would excuse mentioning races for the sake of context. There's no proof right now that the shooting was indeed that. Love of Corey (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
How does no mention of their race imply that they are non-white? Or imply anything other than we don't know their race. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspect looks pretty white here: https://abcnews.go.com/US/active-shooter-reported-grocery-store-colorado-boulder-police/story?id=766144882600:1700:F91:FAA0:B107:2358:45A8:888E (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Simply "looking" white does not mean someone is. There are many fair-skinned people color that could pass for white. We can't make assumptions simply based on one grainy image. --Editor760 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
There was a Tweet storm about it being another White supremacist shooting until the facts came out - Asian\Muslim\Anti-Trump killer, all White victims. Since the article specifics the suspect Al-Issa is Syrian, race is already implied. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You'd be surprised of the existence of White Hispanic and Latino Americans, apparently. Love of Corey (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh no I'm quite aware that the census asks about White race but distinguishes this from Hispanic ethnicity. Not quite sure your point. If you're arguing that skin tones denote whiteness then should we be adding Chinese and Japanese to membership of the 'White race'? Some of them are whiter than White people. I'm open to the debate, but it really would mess with peoples' heads, not to mention complicate discussions and comparisons given it's atypical usage. 人族 (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that "white" until the 1960s was a legal and juridical category, invented in the 17th century (as for example in the colony of Virginia), and refined during the Jim Crow era (see Winthrop Jordan, [1]; George Frederickson, [2] and Thomas Gossett, [3]; see also the opening section of John Hope Franklin's source-book [4]): if you were going to criminalize, say, inter-racial marriage in Georgia or Virginia or wherever you had to have a legal definition of "white" and of "black" and / or "person of color" (the terms varied). The folly of all that was amply demonstrated in hundreds of cases when apparently white folk were judged "black" for purposes of law. See Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. Since the old Jim Crow legal codes were dismantled, "white" is generally understood to mean: "chiefly of European ancestry," or "chiefly of western European ancestry"; etc. "Skin tone" should have nothing to do with this, I think. The suspect has, as has been pointed out above, been identified as of Syrian birth. That is enough. He may or may not be "Arabic," which in any case, as per Wikipedia usage, designates an identity based on language use (like "Hispanic") not "race" (B/t/w: In American English usage, for many decades, *omission* of a designation as to race was taken to mean the person referred to was white.)User: MarkinKyoto. — Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "White Over Black"
  2. ^ "The Black Image in the White Mind"
  3. ^ "Race"
  4. ^ "The Negro in the 20th Century: A Reader on the Struggle for Civil Rights"

Information about perpetrator.

WP:BLP is paramount and good WP:RS are required to make any controversial claim about living persons EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://heavy.com/news/ahmad-al-issa/

https://heavy.com/news/ahmad-alissa-trump-politics-democrat/

He appears to be a Muslim immigrant from Syria. In social media posts, he derided Trump and praised the Democratic Party for its diversity. Sinsoto (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's why I didn't include it in the article. Other sites are starting to report on it as well, but it will still be a while before we get a full picture. Sinsoto (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Until/unless the perpetrator's religion, nationality, or political positions are tied to the motive for and/or the execution of the mass shooting, or widespread media speculation and/or backlash appears as a result of any of those factors, it doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to include I don't think. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Information about the alleged perpetrator will be fleshed out in reliable sources and integrated into the article shortly thereafter. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and has to wait for a consensus to develop, so the article will lag behind the media, and that's how it should be. Abductive (reasoning) 20:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)'
This is not a reliable source and a violation of WP:RSBREAKING. No other major reliable news sources are stating this. And even if this is true, this information does not seem as of now a significant factor to the shooting. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The powers that be at Wikipedia are just like the mainstream media, doing all they can to suppress that al-Issa is a Muslim who hated Trump supporters.2600:1012:B022:38E5:0:49:2967:AD01 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
By suppressing you mean actually not believing and using every source that you find just because it's on internet and published on a website? This is questionable source and cannot be used. Find a REAL reliable source to verify these claims about the shooter. If not, Leave these cheap political scapegoat comments to yourself, because it is NOT productive to the discussion or improving the article's content. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
That's like saying that not talking about Donald Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un in History of aviation is suppressing information. Unless this is proven by media and officials to be connected to the motive, and unless a consensus is then reached on this talk page to include this information, this is unequivocally not relevant. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 22:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Daily Beast article[7], in referencing the suspect's Facebook posts, describes his politics as "mixed", and mentions that he also expressed opposition to abortion and gay marriage. It's unclear at this point if any of this info is really releveant. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Boulder ban and gun purchase

Unless there is reference that the suspect bought the gun in Boulder city, the mention of the city's ban is irrelevant. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I do think mentioning the city's ban is important, but with a revised version I have provided. The ban has been widely criticized as the cause of the shooting, and while it may or may not be wrong, it is important to clarify. Kellis7 23:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit is pure original research though. Thank you Moncrief for undoing it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. As for the larger issue: I agree that the mention of the ban seems kind of out of place, particularly in the "Reactions" section, since it's not a reaction. As I've made clear with my edits, the obvious fact that the suspect could not have bought his weapon in Boulder had the ban been in place is not particularly relevant. I mean, obviously that's true, but then it's also obvious that Boulder is just one city in a sprawling metropolitan area, so the fact that he lived in Arvada is also irrelevant as well. Nobody is saying the ban would have prevented the shooting, or that he couldn't have just driven five extra miles even if he had lived in Boulder. All of it seems pretty irrelevant and decontextualized, and I'd vote for removing the mention of the ban if it's just going to be a factoid floating out at the end of the "Reaction" section. The mention of this ban in media, to the extent I've seen it, seems mostly tied to making political points that are POV for this article. Moncrief (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
" The ban has been widely criticized as the cause of the shooting" or the repeal of it? Got any WP:RS to back that up? I do agree that until details of where the weapon was purchased are released, it's premature to include. If confirmed that it was within the city limits, then sure. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove. I agree that until we can determine how the ban could possibly have had an effect on the shooting (e.g., Did it cause the suspect to choose Boulder? Did he try to buy his weapon there during the time the ban was in effect?), it's better left out. Re his residency in Arvada, this is wholly irrelevant. He could have bought the weapon anywhere in Colorado where they were sold; who cares where he lived? Moncrief (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about Wikiproject banner

Why is the Wikiproject about the Serial killer management on here? This guy isn't a serial killer like the Unibomber or Ted Bundy, he's a spree killer like the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Heart (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who created the talk page. I believe I copy-and-pasted it from the talk page of 2019 El Paso shooting, which also still has the Serial Killer WikiProject tag. I didn't really know if there was a WikiProject tag for spree killers or mass murderers, so I let it stick in the meantime. Love of Corey (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Love of Corey, nvm: "Welcome to the Serial Killer Task Force. (A work group of the Crime and Criminal Biography WikiProject). The goal of this task force is to update and maintain all articles relating to serial killers, mass murderers, and spree killers." Heart (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
P.S.: They should really rename that task force. Heart (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I was pretty confused when I saw it on the El Paso talk page. Love of Corey (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I 100% agree. I'm part of this task force, and the name is very misleading in my opinion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The banner has been removed from many talk pages of articles which are clearly within the project's scope - but aren't about serial killers - by editors who have seen the project's name but haven't read the banner. I've replaced many of them, stating in edit summaries that the project has a wider scope than its name. Perhaps it should be renamed Multiple Killer task force? Jim Michael (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox criminal

From the template doc: This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals... Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.

@Octoberwoodland: regarding "he was convicted in 2018 template is proper" are you seriously suggesting that Alissa is a) most notable for his 2018 assault conviction, and that b) a single assault warrants it's place on the list above? Volteer1 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your removal is NOT an improvement to Wikipedia. What other templates do you feel would be appropriate for this individual? He is charged with a crime, and there is a link to the arrest warrant in the template. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
We do not need any biography infobox, just like every other mass shooting. Volteer1 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It's clear you do not understand how the infobox criminal template works. Infobox criminal is simply a wrapper of Infobox person. There is no BLP violation of cited content from an arrest warrant. And just about every notable person has an infobox in related articles. See 2020 Nashville bombing for one example. So you are totally out in the weeds on this one. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The Nashville bomber was proven to be the perpetrator. While he may not have been convicted, he was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be the perpetrator. The template doc bolds the word "convicted" for a reason. It has been one day since the shooting, and I feel we should wait until an indictment is presented. Kellis7 21:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, this comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of how criminal law works in the US. There are two means by which a person can be charged with a crime in the US, through "grand jury indictment", or through law enforcement filing a "statement of probable cause". In this case the Boulder Police filed a statement of probable cause and the Court issued a warrant. Grand Jury indictments are for very high crimes and result from an investigation by an attorney general who then forwards the investigation to a grand jury for indictment. There is no need to take this matter to a Grand Jury in this case because the courts have already issued a warrant based on a probable cause affidavit. So at this point the shooter is under formal criminal charges, no grand jury indictment is required. Some offenses require grand jury action because the police cannot allege probable cause for them based on statute. That's why they require a Grand Jury to find fact that probable cause exists for an offense. Murder in the United States is for the most part is a state offense and under the Doctrine of Abstention the federal courts will not prosecute a crime which the State has original jurisdiction of. He is formally charged at this point and now goes to trial. A grand jury indictment is not required here. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Shooter Concerns?

While motivation is still to be determined, isn't it worth mentioning that the suspect was known to have a thing about Islamophobia and adamantly anti-Trump?

Also, given the victims are all (majority?) White shouldn't we start listing this as an anti-White hate crime, or do we only report the fact that it was considered another White supremacist shooting until the facts came in? 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the perpetrator's political opinions, see above discussions on the same page. Especially given the fact that the area where this occurred and where the suspect lived is majority white, there isn't any evidence to suggest that this was racially motivated. If that changes, the article will be updated accordingly. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 人族, you'd definitely need to include reliable references to confirm this. But I'm not sure if it's necessary to include these details yet. What does him disliking former President Trump have to do with the shooting? Just because the people that were shot were white doesn't mean that he it was an anti-white hate crime by any means. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Until we receive confirmation on a motive from the Boulder PD, we shouldn't mention a motive or lack thereof.
Anti-Trump nor Islamophobia have any relevance as of right now to the shooting, and as far as we know, it was just a senseless killing. Kellis7 23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2020 Nashville bombing mentions several conspiracy theories espoused by the perpetrator but not considered a motive by authorities. It may be worth including if it can be cited to WP:RS and not WP:RS reporting what some neighbor believed. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The shooter's FB page - now unavailable, repeatedly refers to Islamophobia and is anti-Trump. Given the timeline comparable treatment to [[8]] is reasonable. Reactions such as this https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-liberals-rush-to-blame-boulder-shooting-on-white-men-before-suspect-ahmad-al-aliwi-alissa-identified should be included. I might try drafting something using Atlanta as a reference. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Well the shooters FB page on it's own would be a WP:PRIMARY source and Fox "News" is rather biased (article titles like "twitter liberals" certainly reek of POV) and in the Atlanta case there is the suspects own words and eyewitness reports so when you've got something better than the Faux outrage machine go ahead and propose. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Are there any sources which are not biased? Most sources are liberal, Fox is one of the few whose bias is ... disputed. The Atlanta case was a day spa\massage parlor shooting, yet that isn't the spin reported in reactions. This is the reverse situation, and yet the response is inconsistent. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This confirms that this is nothing more than a continuation of the WP:POINTy, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude this user has shown on the talk page of 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, specifically in this discussion. Love of Corey (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Am I unique in expecting equal treatment between articles? I am referencing various RS to support my additions and am open to discussion. Or is a double standard supposed to apply and I'm wasting my time here? 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You only have a small handful of RS to this issue's name. If a vast majority of verifiable RS doesn't back up your content at this time, then it should be held off until more can be shed on the issue. Love of Corey (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Let me add that the RS needs to directly, reliably link this information to the suspect's motive, or otherwise be reported by a vast plethora of RS across the board within the context of the shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Try [[9]]. Are my points and references exhaustive? Of course not, and nobody is claiming that. So long as a significant minority can be shown to express views then it's relevant. The fact that NYT\WaPo\HuffPo\Whatever articles don't cover certain material simply reflects the Left:Right political divide in the media. Note I'm looking at Reactions so motive doesn't factor in. From what I can tell the gun control issue will explode. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

So there are reliable sources, we can't just selectively choose when to include mention of motivation, so here are the sources I think 人族 ought to take a stab of including it.

From Associate Press -https://apnews.com/article/ahmad-al-aliwi-alissa-1st-court-appearance-boulder-shooting-d870b03a763d8b20fdfa04a26a1379a1 and Baltimore Sun - https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-boulder-shooting-suspect-20210325-ydyjzzou5ramtporvezedhgv7a-story.html

"After a white supremacist killed 51 people in the 2019 New Zealand mosque massacre, Alissa called the dead “victims of the entire Islamophobia industry that vilified them.” Three months later, he posted a link to a PBS story about how immigrants help the economy, writing, “Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.”“What Islam is really about,” he wrote in one Facebook post that referred to a list of teachings from the Koran, including to “be good to others” and “restrain anger.”

From National Review -https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/after-the-boulder-mass-shooting-comes-the-debate-about-motive/ "For Al Issa, the significance of his Islamic faith was that it made him a target. He obsessed about possible surveillance. In 2019, he railed about “racist homophobes hacking my phone” — though it’s not clear what he was talking about. He loathed Donald Trump, particularly on the matter of immigration, the former president having notoriously fixated on the fear that jihadists would infiltrate large-scale migrations from Islamic societies" Pformenti (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Posting facebook photo of suspect

What do people think on the benefits vs downsides of including a facebook photo of the suspected shooter in the article? I personally do not see much value added, the textual description of him is more than enough to tell the story, meanwhile having a photo of him merely gives the impression of giving the notoriety that is known to motivate mass shooters. Theyoyomaster (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it seems inappropriate. If any photo is used, it should be a booking photo. A Facebook photo that the suspect himself chose, because he liked the way he looks in it, is not right for an article about a mass murder he perpetuated. Moncrief (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a booking photo available. It only differs in that he has a beard and is noticeably overweight compared to his facebook photo. A picture is worth a 1000 words, and there is no substitute to having one. I can download his booking photo and try to tag it for fair use. Hard to do because for living people there is a presumption a free photo can be obtained. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Please note that both the facebook photo and the booking photo from the Boulder County Sheriff's office are copyrighted and using them in the article would be a copyright violation. Under WP:NFC#UUI, fair use claims are not allowed for photos of living individuals (with a few narrow exceptions that are not applicable here). One would have to wait for a court appearance of the suspect or a similar occurrence where a free image could be taken. If the suspect is eventually charged with any federal crime, then an FBI booking photo would be in public domain as the work of the federal government and its use would be allowable. Nsk92 (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
On the merits of the idea of including the photo of the perpertrator, I don't think that a photo should be included even if a free image were available. Almost none of the articles listed in List of mass shootings in the United States have images of the perpetrators. Usually a textual description is sufficient for understanding the event. One the other hand, it is well known that too much personal focus on the perpetrator, especially things like including an image, can result in glorification of the shooter and even in copycat attempts. There is a 2016 statement [10] by the American Psychological Association that refers to this phenomenon as "mass shooting contagion" or "media contagion" (there is also a 2015 statistical study analyzing the same phenomenon [11]). The APA recommends that the face (and even the name) of the shooter be withheld when the story is covered. We are not really in a position to exclude the name, as this would veer too far into violating WP:NOTCENSORED and would require too much verbal contortions when using the sources. However, an image is a different matter. Nsk92 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I personally think we should keep photos of the suspect off this article altogether. If people want to know what the suspect looks like, they can just use Google Images. Love of Corey (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Reactions Reverts\Revert War

Please don't start revert wars. See WP:RV. If there are issues with the changes please discuss here. I'm not claiming the sentences are perfect but what is written is consistent with the references. 人族 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A first reversion is not warring. See WP:BRD. If another editor reverts your contribution, the appropriate response is the resolve the matter on the talk page. Reverting a reversion is the start of an edit war. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sports teams condolences

Sports teams condolences are a nice sentiment but really not relevant. Everything on this article seems to require consensus in triplicate, any objection to removing that line? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Moncrief (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see this. I've taken out it out for the same reason as you mentioned above. Volteer1 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I checked here after undoing the removal by Volteer1. Personally other mass shooting articles have mentions of messages of condolence from local politicians, leadership, sports teams etc but it does vary. However, since the section is titled Tributes I feel that maybe it should stay, or at the very least the sentence about other mass shooting victims and first responders should stay. Leaky.Solar (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The mention is fine in my opinion, listing each individual team in state sometimes look bulky and unnecessary, but a blanket mention that the sports teams reaction and one source to indicate that works. I think it was better when it said sports teams around the state, rather than how it is now just saying "sports teams", which could be the New York Yankees or Barcelona FC which I would agree being less relevant to mention. I'll probably adjust it later if no one else does. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Facebook posts paragraph

There is now a fairly lengthy paragraph about the suspect's facebook posts in the article. This info is in fact widely reported on by many WP:RS and at this point it seems reasonable to include something as a part of general background info about the suspect, even if we don't know the motive yet. Most of the info currently in the paragraph concerns the suspect's posts regarding Islamophobia. I have added[12] a sentence mentioning his other views expressed in the facebook posts, namely his opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion and his transphobic views. (Here are some sample sources Buzzfeed Daily BeastAP.) That addition was reverted by User:WWGB with the summary "no relevance to the shootings". At this point we don't know if the posts regarding Islamophobia are related to the shooting either. As long as this paragraph is in the article, I think it needs to provide a more complete and balanced picture of the suspect's views expressed in his posts and not arbitrarily concentrate on a single aspect. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Those posts would only be relevant if he shot up an abortion clinic or a gay bar. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The suspect's other posts aren't relevant at this point. Maybe that will change. For now, his posts about Islamophobia are relevant because it has been widely reported he believed he was being targeted for harassment due to that. JJMM (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
His belief that he was targeted for harassment in high school is not known to have anything to do with the motive for the shooting at this point either. Nsk92 (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. That's an extremely narrow view of what "relevant" means. This information is a part of the general background info about the suspect and it is no less relevant than his views on Islamophobia and racism that are currently discussed in the article. The info also provides actual context for the otherwise abstract claims by SITE that the suspect was not a radical anti-Trump extremist of some sort. The info that I tried to add is widely covered by many WP:RS, including many other sources beyond those I cited (e.g. CNN and WaPo). Nsk92 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Without a motive, either all of the suspects posts are relevant or none of them are. Otherwise it's assembling a false narrative. We should err on the side of less for now. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that either all of his posts are relevant or none of them are, but I don't think we should omit the info about the FB posts now. First, it has been very widely covered by WP:RS. Second, there are already lots of rumors flying around on the web portraying the suspect as some sort of an anti-Trump Democratic extremist. See quite a few posts about it above at this very talk page. Since his views, expressed in his FB posts, are covered by WP:RS in substantial detail, I think it is important to provide some actual context here and not simply defer to the generic opinion of SITE currently cited in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
There is currently mentions of three different Facebook posts about Islamophobia, seems unnecessary to actually quote all three or any of them. The first line of paragraph Al-Issa expressed on his now-deleted Facebook page and to his high school wrestling teammates that he believed he was being targeted for harassment due to racism and Islamophobia. is probably all that is needed to include. Could probably change "expressed on" to "expressed in multiple post on" and it can go in paragraph above after his brother mentions his behavior change after being bullied in high school. The post about the mosque shooting and about his phone being "hacked", don't add any useful detail. We currently don't have a motive section as we currently don't have a verifiable motive, but the last two sentences about analysis of his FB account and his brother saying shooting wasn't politically motivated, could be use to balance if any argument speculating that the shooting was political was included in article. I don't think including anything that is just speculation is particularly useful especially so recent after that event. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Since we have no information about the motive, in terms of relevancy it is very hard to argue at this point that any bits of this info are any more relevant than the other bits. That includes the bit about racism and Islamophobia. I think we have to view all of this info simply as general background information about the suspect right now. As long as it is covered neutrally and evenly, without picking some specific bits and not others, I think the info about his views expressed in his facebook posts can be included. WP:RS are widely reporting this information. Including it would help dispel various rumors flying around, and would also provide useful concrete context for the othewise abstract statements by SITE regarding the suspect's views quoted in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
As I said, we don't have a motive so including speculation about his motives makes no sense. I also said that the SITE statements shouldn't be there unless it was to balance any statement about motive speculations which we currently don't nor should have. Also I'm not suggesting anything is relevant or not relevant, my suggestion was removing that entire 2nd paragraph. The only part I mentioned keeping was to show the reason why he believed he was bullied in highschool. Then again can do that if we expand his brother's quote about him being bullied due to his Muslim name, and exclude the mention of facebook posts entirely. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Change “multiple injuries to several police officers” To “Only injury confirmed is gunshot wound to shooters leg”

No additional injuries have been reported. Multiple sources: CNN, FOX, MSNBC & local channel 6 boulder Colorado have confirmed. 73.196.28.175 (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The police chief said "a number of other officers were injured". I expect she would know the truth. WWGB (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"a majority of mass shooters are white"

The last sentence in this article reads: "The subsequent announcement that the suspect, Al-Issa, is a Syrian-American Muslim resulted in a move to delete the original tweets, or to note that a majority of mass shooters are white."

The source provided for this claim is: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/flurry-of-white-male-shooter-tweets-spark-backlash-after-boulder-suspects-identity-released/ar-BB1eSXdz

Which itself sources: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

This source says the following: "Between 1982 and March 2021, 66 out of the 121 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was African American in 21 mass shootings, and Latino in 10. When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 54 percent, 17 percent and eight percent respectively." Meaning that the claim that a majority (54%) of shootings in the US are carried out by whites is correct. However, the source also states the following:

"Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population
Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors the racial distribution of the U.S. population as a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around five percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated means no such conclusions should be drawn."

Including the first statement from the source and not the second is misleading the reader into believing white people are over-represented in mass shootings, when in fact the source used says the race of shootings is related to demographic split, and that it also appears that Whites, who are about 60% or so of the US population at the moment (but have historically been higher, up to ~85%, since data dates back to 1982) but 54% of the shooters, are actually under-represented in shootings. The article should be modified to add the disclaimer that whites in the US are not more likely to carry out mass shootings per capita, as the current statement is only a half truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TKJ30 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The source quote "A recent analysis by Statista found that white shooters accounted for more than half of the suspects in the 121 mass shootings that occurred between 1982 and this year" means, quite literally, that "a majority of mass shooters are white." "More than half" = "a majority."
This whole discussion of what "white" means is absurd in anything but the US context. American viewers saw for themselves what the shooter looked like as he was taken into custody and self-described him as "white" based on their own firsthand viewing. Then suddenly he's not "white" because he's from Syria. It highlights how non-fact-based these discussions are and how "white" is a slippery, certainly subjectively defined category. It likely looks bizarre to non-US observers not already steeped in our terminology. It doesn't seem NPOV for a global audience. I know it seems clear to many of us why he would be considered white one minute and not white the next, but it's not clear in a NPOV way to those who don't live in the American categorization system, and thus I find the current wording in the article not ideal and decontextualized. Moncrief (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is a problem or that we have to dig up more sources or else clarify. A majority is a majority, and we already know that America is a majority white country. A slight dip in white representation is barely notable, and there's absolutely no relevance to this article to point out the overrepresentation of blacks and underrepresentation of Latinos in these statistics. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Whites form a majority of the population so Whites forming a majority of mass shooters is entirely logical. The fact they are under-represented amongst mass shooters, and Blacks grossly over-represented, would constitute original research, and isn't really relevant to this article - not sure which one it would to be honest. While the White\not-White debate is indeed complicated, I'm not sure why Al-Issi's status as Asian rather than White would be confusing. Per one of the links upthread (Hill perhaps?), Middle Easterners often do not consider themselves White and object to being so classified. 人族 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

why no mention of suspect's religion and politics？

2021 Atlanta spa shootingsThe third paragraph of the article：Although Long has not been charged with a hate crime as part of the ongoing investigation, some commentators have characterized the shootings as a hate crime, noting the backdrop of rising anti-Asian sentiment in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021 Boulder shooting,The suspect is a Muslim and an anti-Trump Democratic supporter. Why can't it be stated in the main text of Wikipedia? Why do you ignore such important information?——209.150.148.39 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your point?
Because so far they are both irrelevant to the shooting. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
If you think this shooting has nothing to do with religion and race, then I also think2021 Atlanta spa shootingshas nothing to do with hatred of Asians, so this paragraph should be deleted.The two shootings should be treated equally, not double standards.——209.150.148.39 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 Atlanta spa shooting are different in the fact that most killed were Asians, and the "rising anti-Asian sentiment in the United States" due to COVID-19 would warrant merit for the claim that this was a hate crime. However, there is no clear pattern to Al-Issa attack on the King Soopers, and the race of the victims are not heavily publicized as they were with the Atlanta shootings. Kellis7 12:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Many of the victims are Asian, so this case involves hatred of Asian? According to your logic, many of the victims of 2021 boulder shooting are white, that is, they hate white people. But now why don't you think 2021 boulder shooting involves white hatred? Because your view is double standard.——209.150.148.39 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I did not say that it was a case of Asian hatred, I said that it warrants the case for the motive of Asian hatred. Asian businesses were targeted in the shooting, but King Soopers is not a race-dominant business. Kellis7 13:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
No, the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings entry is NOT significantly different in that most killed were Asians, but in that many reliable sources have focused on the narrative of hate crime against Asians, warranting its inclusion. Time will tell if they were on the mark - there are other complementary/alternative motives, several already introduced in the entry. Terjen (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Start with a section heading that summarizes why you're outraged and we can go from there. "Why?" Is about as useless as a heading as possible. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about what we think; it's about using reliable sources to present facts. If you have a reliable source you think should be cited in this article, then tell us what it is. Moncrief (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Boulder was an Asian\Muslim\anti-Trumper killing Whites. The reason it is not characterised as a hate crime is because the MSM are not writing that angle, and frankly we don't know the motivation. The Atlanta shooting was a sex addict shooting up brothels (technically day spas and massage parlors) but because the shooter is White and enough of the victims are Asian the MSM are writing about White Supremacy and anti-Asian hate crimes. That the facts and stats do not support their contention is irrelevant - narrative not facts is what matters. Since Wikipedia relies on MSM sources for its facts, articles such as the Atlanta one are frustratingly skewed. There is no simple solution for this however. 人族 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any actual evidence that anti-Trump and/or anti-White beliefs were the motive behind the Boulder shooting? Targeting a supermarket full of people isn't exactly the same thing as targeting a Republican Party office or a right-wing event like the Conservative Political Action Conference. Love of Corey (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Was this directed at me or the OP? I am not arguing anti-Trump and\or anti-White beliefs have been shown to be the motivation behind the shooting, merely that they are facts which pertain to the case, unlike the racism claims of the Atlanta case. 人族 (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It was directed at you, hence the indentation. "Boulder was an Asian\Muslim\anti-Trumper killing Whites. The reason it is not characterised as a hate crime is because the MSM are not writing that angle..." It most certainly sounds like you were trying to make that argument first before refuting it in the same sentence. Love of Corey (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Al-Issi is Asian\Muslim\an anti-Trumper, his victims were all White. These are all factual. Whether they're pertinent or incidental to Boulder is unclear. The problem is the Atlanta standard. The White\Evangelical\anti-Asian angle is strong in the article, and yet how much of that is relevant as opposed to incidental? Hate crime status appears to be dependent on media reporting - neither case is yet described by law enforcement as a hate crime, and yet the treatment of them is still significantly different. 人族 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no "Atlanta standard". That article is not trying to argue a hate crime has been committed; it's only reflecting the media reports of the outrage by the Asian-American community and the deluge of op-eds arguing such. If authorities say no hate crime has been committed in that case, then the article will make that clear. But if the Asian-American community continues to be outraged and WP:RS all across the board continues to report on it, then the article will reflect that as well. Once again, your concerns relate to a broader process of Wikipedia that needs to be discussed with the community at large, not on individual talk pages. If you've got nothing else productive to discuss about this article in particular, then you're wasting your time. Love of Corey (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok but you still haven't given this section a title about why you're outraged --LaserLegs (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I added to the reactions section the fact that the initial reports were of a white male because if the right wing hysteria over "tweets" from irrelevant an nobody are somehow significant, then I guess we should clarify that it's the information Boulder police had to go on at the time. This should take care of it right? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we know that was public information though? The public figures who made the tweets did not refer to the dispatcher's claims, instead relying on the belief that it's always White shooters, despite the fact that stats prove otherwise. Why is the ACLU's 2c relevant to this article? I mean we have a random YouTuber given 2 lines, another for the ACLU, and have completely rewritten the political\racial bias of the original tweet pieces (and the sources) out of the article, yet that story is still ongoing. Hemal Jhaveri, one of the members of the media who claimed 'White shooter' has been sacked for her racism - and that's just results from a 2 second search. Jhaveri blames the alt-right of course, but given that definition would seem to include left-wing publications ... Anyhow I'm advocating a restoration of the missing content! 人族 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

List of victims to tables

Would it be appropriate to make the list of victims into a table? Heart (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The victims shouldn't be named in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This difference of opinion comes up in every similar article. My opinion is that the victims should be named in the article. I am indifferent to a table. What we have now is fine -- a simple, basic, bullet list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Listing the victims is appropriate on the grounds of verifiability and the need for comprehensive coverage of the article topic. The current list is fine, but it could perhaps be broken down into columns to remove unnecessary white space. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
For the over 99% of readers who didn't know any of the victims, how do the names help them understand what happened? Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
More than 99% do not know the name of the killer ... do not know the name of the supermarket ... do not know the town ... do not know that hospital ... etc., etc., etc. Why identify those details, then? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not like we are teachers and readers are students. Information is valuable simply on the basis of truth, unless some other reason suggests it should not be carried in the article. Information doesn't need some special justification. Unless there is a countervailing reason that the information should not be included, it should be part of the article. This information is publicly available. One must present a valid reason this information in particular should not be part of the article. I will also point out that the person suspected of committing this crime has their name included in this article. That notoriety might be exactly what they are seeking. Publicly available information should be valid for inclusion unless countervailing reasons suggest it should not be included. 108.53.222.173 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This issue always comes up in articles of this nature and the only way to settle it is to establish a consensus via a structured discussion poll. So let's have one. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The name of the shooter is in the article. The name of the people the shooter killed should be in the article as well. There is one victim's name mentioned. There was a list of victims earlier but somebody took the list down. Other websites have some background on the people killed so you do not think of them as just statistics, but also as human beings. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion poll on including victims' names

Should victim names be included in the article? WWGB (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Include the names, ages, and brief info about the victims. We should follow WP:RS in the coverage of this event, and most WP:RS include the names as well as the info on the victims. E.g. NYT, NPR, CNN, and others. Given how widely this info is covered by the sources, we should not presume that it will not be interesting to our readers. Also, providing a bit of extra info about the victims balances the article from being focused too much on the shooter. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The victim names mean nothing to readers. The deceased were not notable in life; being shot does not convey notability. Wikipedia does not memorialise the dead. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
That victim was a police officer who died in the line of duty. The others were shoppers and staff who happened to be in a bad place. WWGB (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Being at work and shopping is being in a bad place? How do you know the other victims did not sacrifice themselves to save others? So if the police officer was shopping, then he would not be included? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Those kind of distinctions can easily get pretty blurry. Two of the victims were employees at that grocery store and a third victim was a technician fixing the coffee machines there. While they were not there to protect the public like the slain police officer, they were still serving the public (let's not forget that grocery store employees are considered essential workers) and they were killed while doing their job. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Include The names are reported in the news by numerous sources and I believe should be included. The argument that the persons who died are not notable does not apply as this was a notable event and the names of those killed should be included if the names were released publicly. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Include Why was the list removed, while this specific question is under consensus discussion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@WWGB: Why are you saying that inclusion of the list requires consensus? I thought that an edit to the status quo of an article required consensus? Who has added the "extra burden" requirement that we need consensus to include, as opposed to exclude? Where is this policy? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: The list was removed in accordance with WP:BRD. You Boldly added the names, I Reverted the addition and now the community Discusses to reach consensus. That consensus will be determined in accordance with the policy WP:ONUS wherein "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". I agree that an edit to the status quo of an article required consensus, hence consensus has been requested for your edit to the (name free) status quo. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@WWGB: You are mis-characterizing and/or misleading. And I am curious why. That's not what happened at all. I did not add the names. They were there. And they were there -- with stability and consistency -- for "quite a while". This discussion eventually started, while the names were there ... and had been there. While this discussion was ongoing, the names disappeared out of the blue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: This edit sure looks like an addition to me. WWGB (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, you are saying that no one can add something to an article, unless they get consensus first? That's silly. What if I say that I "dispute" or "contest" adding the name of the shooter? Or, let's say, the name of his high school. Or whatever. If I claim that I object, we'd have to achieve consensus first before adding in, say, the name of his high school (for example)? This approach makes no sense, is one-sided, and is set up to "game the system". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
As someone on the opposite side of this discussion, I agree that WWGB's interpretation of policy is correct. Under ONUS, those wanting to include disputed content have the burden of establishing consensus. That's our rule and we need to follow it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: No, every addition does not require consensus. But contested additions do. If you disagree with the inclusion of the perp's high school and remove it, then it remains out until (1) you are convinced by the arguments of others that its inclusion is relevant, or (2) your removal is deemed to be vandalism, or (3) discussion and consensus among interested editors decides the inclusion. Thus, it is a matter for those seeking to include the high school name to justify it. Same goes for victim names. That is how Wikipedia works. WWGB (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
And many others do not list victims. That's why inclusion of names is decided on a case-by-case basis. WWGB (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The current consensus is 13-3 for including a list of the victims. Shall we end the debate? Kellis7 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The RfC template was only added yesterday. Too soon to close. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you. Kellis7 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The names of people none of us had heard of before the shooting do not add anything to the readers' understanding of the topic, which is the shooting itself. Lists of victims further impede the readability of the article and detract from the visual appeal by taking up a large amount of visual space. I do not find the arguments for inclusion particularly persuasive; they tend to boil down to either (1) other similar articles include the names or (2) the names are reported by WP:Reliable sources. The first I consider irrelevant, because I think this is an instance where quality is more important than consistency. The second seems to me to be rooted in a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work; the fact that some piece of information can be found in reliable sources does not in and of itself constitute a reason to add it to Wikipedia, let alone any specific article (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.), or to put it another way: verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being included. I think everyone understands this intuitively—the weather is mentioned in WP:Reliable sources every day, but I don't believe anybody thinks that that means that we should add each day's weather to Wikipedia—but some people fail to apply this in some instances.
    In the absence of good reasons to include the information, we should refrain from including it. The existence of reasons to exclude the information gives further weight to the case for not including the information. One example of a good reason to exclude the names is that these are all WP:LOWPROFILE individuals for whom privacy concerns are strong, even in death.
    Describing the demographic characteristics of the victims as a group is of course a completely different story. TompaDompa (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Under the featured article criteria, articles are required to be comprehensive (meaning they neglect no major fact or detail) and well-researched (meaning it provides a representative survey of the relevant literature). While not policy, the idea that articles should be comprehensive and incorporate relevant sources are both foundational standards. Here, the victims of the shooting are a major aspect of the event and to exclude their names would be to exclude major facts as reported in the relevant literature. As such, they should be included. (As an aside, people that are reported on by national and international news sources are not low-profile. This would be a stronger argument if the only sources covering the victims were local obituaries). Also, I’m well aware that we have the ability to exclude. However, the fact that we can do a thing is not proof that we should do that thing. (Case in point, I could write a twenty-page legal memorandum on why I have the right to spend my life savings on bubblegum. This however would not change the fact that spending one’s life savings on bubblegum is a terrible idea). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The victims' names aren't a major fact. The victims were unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Jim Michael (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Mass shootings and the illegal discharge of a firearm are both crimes under American law. We have few if any any articles on illegal discharges but hundreds of articles on mass shootings in the United States alone. The difference is that reliable sources care a lot more about human beings being murdered than a weapon being handled illegally. The argument that the victims are incidental to the article topic makes no sense. Also, the media certainly disagree about victims not being a major fact as they always give substantial coverage to the victims of mass shootings. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Include for all the reasons listed above. The names and descriptions of the victims are an incredibly important part of any article on a shooting like this, since it documents the impacts of the crime. We're not proposing creating an individual article on each of these people, so the notability arguments made above don't really apply – the victims are absolutely relevant within the scope of this particular article. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The impact is explained just as much without their names. Jim Michael (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. People can just look up the victims' names if they're that curious; it's not like the media's actively trying to censor them. Love of Corey (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It is incredibly important to include the names of the victims so the article isn't weighted so heavily in favor of the gunman. I agree it helps to document the impact of the crime. It also humanizes the victims. Focusing too much on the shooter glorifies him. JJMM (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
My comment was about having a balanced article that is not overly weighted with a focus on the shooter. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement..." WP:NPOV JJMM (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"I agree it helps to document the impact of the crime. It also humanizes the victims."? Love of Corey (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Ha, I understand your confusion. Okay, let me try to clarify. The article the way it stands is weighted too heavily on the shooter in terms of the amount of details and prominence of details about who he was/is as a person. There is only one paragraph about the victims, and it is mostly in the form of statistics. They were people, not just numbers. To humanize the victims just as editors are humanizing the shooter doesn't mean there is a memorial for the victims. Hope that makes sense. JJMM (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
In a case such as this in which the victims were ordinary people, the main person is the attacker. They're the cause; the active person. Hence there should be a great deal more info in the article about him than of the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is on the shooting, not the shooter. It is a mistake to make the shooter notable for murdering people. The shooting is notable because of the nature of the mass shooting and the number of people killed. However, I have been thinking more about this and want to add that it is important not to add too many details about victims so as not to re-victimize their families, friends, and co-workers. Maybe WP:AVOIDVICTIM can apply because WP:BDP says this policy can extend to people that have recently died from a "particularly gruesome crime." I think names and ages are an appropriate amount of detail to add in a table format, but any other important details about victims should be added only if there are high quality, reliable sources. JJMM (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Include - Widely reported in RSs. I find it a bit weird that some people think the victims of a crime are an "irrelevant" part of a crime. As if this is a spherical shooting in a void, with no victim and perpetrator. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
No-one's saying the victims are irrelevant. The discussion in this section is about whether or not to include their names. Jim Michael (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There is strong consensus to include victim names. I am therefore removing the RfC that I commenced. WWGB (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.236.204 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For what? Love of Corey (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
My guess is the WP:NOTRS in Reactions. Frankly it's turning into something of a mess IMHO. 人族 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
How? Love of Corey (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, this is what they meant by that. Love of Corey (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-White Reaction?

Seems like I'm getting push back for noting the anti-White Reaction shown after the Boulder shooting was announced. Since numerous reliable sources are being demanded I'll do a dump here and I'd ask folk to point out which (if any) are considered unreliable - my standards\knowledge clearly differ.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/liberals-blame-white-man-boulder-shooting (Right wing, mixed reporting)

https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-says-calling-boulder-shooter-white-christian-terrorist-ok-1578284 (I'm assuming this one isn't okay but a bias check lists it as mostly factual Left.)

https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/kamala-harris-niece-slammed-for-presuming-boulder-shooter-was-white/ (Right wing, mixed reporting)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/flurry-of-white-male-shooter-tweets-spark-backlash-after-boulder-suspects-identity-released/ar-BB1eSXdz (Newsweek origin)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/boulder-shooting-laura-ingraham-lefists-race-baiting (Right wing, mixed reporting)

https://newsone.com/4115727/boulder-shooting-suspect-white-male/ (Far Left, mostly factual - minimal relevance but article is tagged White Domestic Terrorism)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ilhan-omar-faces-backlash-for-tweet-about-boulder-massacre-suspects-race/vi-BB1eTrOc (Fox video)

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/leftists-rush-to-delete-tweets-blaming-whites-for-boulder-shooting-once-identity-of-perp-revealed/ (Right wing, high quality reporting).

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/23/meena-harris-kamala-harris-niece-walks-back-tweet-/ (Right wing, mixed reporting)

So almost exclusively Right rather than Left sources, and sufficiently numerous IMHO to consider the claim verified - not that I'd bother referencing most. Concur, disagree ...? 人族 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a careful paragraph would be appropriate under Reactions, including the initial speculation / misinformation, comparisons with Atlanta, and whether the shooter really is "white". StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Legal Insurrection is a blog, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS from what I've heard. The FOX source with Laura Ingraham should also be avoided since it primarily summarizes her opinions. Other than that, everything else looks fine. Love of Corey (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This certainly seems discussed enough to be due, especially e.g. criticism of Meena Harris. Volteer1 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Minus Laura Ingraham's opinion, Fox News reporting on her opinion, MSN reposting a FOX News video clip and a blog post from Legal Insurrection, the remaining coverage is too sparse and insufficiently focused for this topic to be included in the article at this point. Also, if and when something about this were to be included, we'd have to also include some info about whether the suspect is actually white. From what I can tell, he is, at least according to the definitions currently used in the U.S. [13], but I don't see any of the sources actually address this point. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia article he's actually Asian - from Syria. The LA Times link refers to an Iranian woman but that's a bad example as Iran is part of the Indo-European family. Yes I see the table showing Syria through Morocco identifying as White on censuses, but that reflects an unusual use of the term. White refers to those of British or European ancestry ... Okay apparently those of Middle Eastern and North African ancestry are included in the census term, but not the term as regularly used. Note Wikipedia's page on White Americans states those who identify as Muslim, by race, are classified White. If the US Census definition is used that makes Al Qaeda and ISIS the world's most dangerous White terrorist groups. I think we can all agree that's silly! :-) 人族 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The courts ruled Middle Easterners as not white in the following cases: In re Halladjian (1909), Ex parte Shahid (1913), Ex Parte Dow (1914), In re Dow (1914), and In re Ahmed Hassan (1942). The courts ruled Arabs, Syrians, Middle Easterners, or Armenians to be white in the following cases: In re Najour (1909), In re Mudarri (1910), In re Ellis (1910), Dow v. United States (1915), United States v. Cartozian, and Ex Parte Mohriez (1944).

What is this obsession with race and ethnicity? Gold333 (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The census might leave them out or define them as white Americans, but that has been subject to controversy itself. I don't think we should be relying on it. CaliIndie (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I think debating over who is and isn't "white" is extremely unhelpful. If reliable sources give prominence to his description as "white", we can call him that. If they give prominence to his description as [something else], then we can call him [something else]. If they don't give any prominence to a racial descriptor then we don't need to either. For this section specifically, just that people assumed he was white and were criticized by conservatives for doing so is probably all that needs to be said, unless reliable sources start describing things differently. Volteer1 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Volteer1: I was responding to a reply asserting he was white, going off U.S. census which suggests so, whilst providing historical court evidence that displays constant contradictions whether Americans of Middle Eastern descent are white or not, putting "white" in quotations is being ignorant of the situation and in turn being "extremely unhelpful". CaliIndie (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, I just meant this thread in general. Your comment was actually quite helpful. Volteer1 (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
All good, and yes I agree, this thread is pointless. If RS provides reasonable coverage that assumptions of the shooter's race prior to the incident proved wrong in the eyes of the mainstream or even just by prominent U.S. conservatives, especially when assumptions were publicly uttered by individuals such as the niece to the incumbent vice president, than it should be included. CaliIndie (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm WP:BOLDly removing the bit about conservative outrage over Meena Harris for the same reason that the comments from Leticia James were removed from the Atlanta spa shootings article: it has nothing to do with the shooting. A bit of phony conservative outrage over statements made by someone who wasn't present at the event is more WP:SOAPBOX than news. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: I disagree with your reasoning and have reverted your removal. I don't believe it violates WP:SOAPBOX, I'm not aware of what Leticia James said but unless it had something to do with assuming the identity of the shooter or the motive before the details were devulged I don't believe it is comparable. Nor do I believe it is "phony", I think that is a personal opinion which shouldn't apply when making these decisions of what to keep and what not to. CaliIndie (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with LaserLegs that the paragraph does not belong in the article, at least not now. The reaction to Meena Harris's comment seems cherry-picked. Why was her opinion important? I've never heard of her until now. If the problem with jumping to conclusions about the shooter's race that the conservative media was trying trying to address was sufficiently significant, there would be a lot more coverage of this issue and that coverage would be more substantive than what we are seeing here. The adjective "phony" also seems at least somewhat justified. To the extent that people were jumpting to conclusions here, it was most likely based on the widely circulated in the media at the time video of the suspect (although then he was not identified as such) being detained and put in a police car in handcuffs. Nsk92 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Stricken. Would you restore my removal of the questionable content? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
To the extent that people were jumpting to conclusions here, it was most likely based on the widely circulated in the media at the time video of the suspect (although then he was not identified as such) being detained and put in a police car in handcuffs.
This is speculative WP:OR, and it isn't our role to provide explanations behind the motives of individuals' actions. Her being the niece of the incumbent vice president, a very vocal one at that, warrants notability. Her having her own article more or less gets that point across. CaliIndie (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The niece of a vice president? Nope, that's a bridge too far for notability and she wasn't there. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
That's utterly ridiculous, it's in "Reactions" for a reason, if you think she needs to be personally invovled to warrant inclusion than you're clearly not arguing on realistic ground. CaliIndie (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Either involved or have some actual authority. You're contending that the reaction of the niece of the VP with no standing in the government or the campaign has a place in the article -- and that the conservative reaction to that reaction belongs here as well. No, neither of them do. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere is it policed that a "Reactions" section needs to come from a position of authority, and even then you're suggesting she doesn't wield considerable influence which she most certainly does, and with that she spread misinformation, intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter. "[O]r the campaign", excuse me? CaliIndie (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:RELEVANCE applies at the VPs niece, with no official standing in the VPs campaign or office, is not relevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
And Laura Ingraham holds no political office, so should I go and remove her from the article too? You're not being realistic, you want her to have a political position but you're ignoring the fact of the matter was her spreading misinformation via her public status, not via public office. CaliIndie (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you should remove Laura Ingraham's opinion from the article since she's utterly irrelevant and the conspiracy theory that Democrats' "political objective" was to take away all guns is unsubstantiated. In fact, that whole statement should probably go. I don't know who Meena Harris is, I don't care if she has a political position or not, all I know is that her commentary and the reactions to it are not relevant to the shooting and that's about as realistic as it gets. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I have removed again the paragraph in question from the articlle. Its addition was new and has been formally challenged. We need to establish WP:CONSENSUS here before this info can be re-added to the article. I am still against including it at this point. I believe that the coverage of this topic is insifficiently substantive, and its relevance to the article is questionable. I'd want to see more significant and deeper coverage, from a broader array of sources, before this topic is included. Nsk92 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
We can only obtain WP:CONSENSUS if you engage in the discussion, you brought up a point and didn't follow up on it, then came back to agree with someone who was arguing your position and proceeded to revert the edit even though a majority of editors, via discussion, agreed on its inclusion. It's just moving the goalposts at this point. CaliIndie (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
No, that's how WP:BRD works. I didn't challenge the addition of this material to the article because I didn't realize that it had actually been added (I think it happened overnight). Another editor did chalenge it and removed it. Now we have to discuss and establish what the consensus is. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion goes both ways, you didn't respond to any of the responses to the posts you made here, including the one I made to you following the initial revert. I'll cover your main points here:
I've never heard of her until now.
I can't know who and what you are aware of, nor does it really matter since this isn't about you but an outside incident where a woman who wields considerable power and connections spread misinformation about the event on social media, which saw a reaction covered by RS.
If the problem with jumping to conclusions about the shooter's race that the conservative media was trying trying to address was sufficiently significant, there would be a lot more coverage of this issue and that coverage would be more substantive than what we are seeing here.
We have Newsweek and Mediaite covering it, understand most attention will focus on the incident itself, but the coverage is there and it isn't any less notable because it involves a larger situation. We are only writing a sentence or two, it doesn't need a biblography by itself, otherwise it wouldn't be a mere mention at the bottom of the article.
The adjective "phony" also seems at least somewhat justified. To the extent that people were jumpting to conclusions here, it was most likely based on the widely circulated in the media at the time video of the suspect (although then he was not identified as such) being detained and put in a police car in handcuffs.
I've already said how this is WP:OR, but it also makes no sense either. She did say this, it was wrong and thousands of people saw it. Nothing "phony" there. CaliIndie (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am responding now, that a specific text has been included and then challenged. Instantaneous responses cannot be expected or required here. We all have lives outside Wikipedia. Regarding Meena Harris, what I mean is that she is not a sufficiently prominent figure in the U.S. politics for her opinion alone to merit coverage of this kind in the article. If the problem that the conservative media is complaining about here has been sufficiently significant and widespread, there would be more coverage of this issue, extending well beyong Meena Harris' comments. Otherwise, it looks like an isolated cherry-picked incident of artificially manufactured outrage that is not sufficiently notable for inclusion here. Nsk92 (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You're arguing from a personal perspective, left or right wing, it's not "artifically manufactered outrage" and I implore you to not box this incident in buzzwords to downplay it. Not being a "prominent figure in the [sic] U.S politics" is not criteria for one to be included or excluded, she's nevertheless a known political figure (again, having her own article) who made headlines after she spread misinformation about this then-recent shooting before she had her facts, which reached a large audience and spawned a sizable backlash. Terms to describe it like "cherry-picked" are impossible for me to counter to any reasonable degree, how exactly is this cherry-picked? To prevent it from being "isolated" would she have had to continue to lie about it, did the original falsehood garnering tens of thousands of responses not suffice? CaliIndie (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am arguing from the prospective of not giving the episode WP:UNDUE weight. Having a Wikipedia article about somebody is an extremely low bar of notability and does not, in and of itself, indicate that that that person is an important political figure. In the case of Atlanta shooting, in rather short order there were lots and lots of articles in the media discussing whether or not the reaction of the press and the politicians labeling (or not labeling) the incident as a hate crime was warranted. In this case what I see so far is something that looks like an isolated incident, related to an opinion of a person who is not politicaly important, that is being used to manufacture selective outrage by a couple of hyper-partisan outlets. As things stand, the Meena Harris episode is just not notable enough to be included. If there was a bigger problem here, then there will be more, broader and more substantive, coverage that will appear shortly and it will be easy enough to write something based on such coverage. But the Meena Harris episode is not it. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Btw, the police affidavit charging the suspect with the shooting after his arrest described him as "a white male, 5 feet, 6 inches tall, and 200 pounds, with brown hair and green eyes."[14] Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are a couple more sources regarding criticisms that have been voiced over the initial rush to speculate on breaking news, in this case particularly over race:
  • The Hill op-ed: In much the same vein, the Twitter mob rushed to slam the “white male” gunman who murdered 10 at a Boulder, Co., supermarket. Many armchair commentators argued that white men are overrepresented among mass shooters. But, once again, there is a flaw in the narrative: Accounting for population, white men are underrepresented among mass shooters. To make matters worse, revelations that the Boulder shooter was born in Syria – rather than Nebraska or Wyoming – resulted in swift and merciless scorn from conservative media outlets... by rushing to attack the “white, male” identity of the perpetrator, the Twitter mob made it far more difficult for some modicum of good to emerge from an unspeakably horrific act of violence.
  • Forbes contributor piece: Early news reports, and much of the initial commentary on Twitter, coalesced around early indications that 6 people had been killed, and that the gunman appeared to be white... For journalists and news consumers alike, the immediate aftermath of events like these often presents a fog of conflicting, sometimes contradictory data and facts that can have a tenuous connection to any kind of authoritative sourcing... Speculation about a shooter’s ethnicity also can generate unproductive trolling online that only obscures the facts of an incident... All of which is to say, crowd-sourcing the closest approximation to the truth is less than ideal
Note WP:FORBESCON. Of course along with those we still have the old (mostly conservative) sources, criticising Meena Harris specifically [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] and social media/"liberals" generally [20] [21]. Regardless of the debate above about Meena Harris (I think it can be noteworthy in a larger paragraph about this matter in general), It seems uncontroversial that the sources above establish that the ensuing discussion that has resulted from this mass shooting about race and breaking news/social media are due and deserve a mention. Not just because of the piece from The Hill – though it's probably the best source – but the articles from conservative media outlets as well. Volteer1 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the WP:RSP link. I was looking for it earlier and couldn't recall it. Green\liberal approved sources are generally ones I won't touch - Playboy, HuffPo, Al Jazeera etc. :-) This section seems to have exploded since last I looked at it and, as I see it, there are 2 basic positions - those who contend the matter should not be mentioned because conservative coverage doesn't constitute substantive coverage (note this is the inverse of the Atlanta shooting's anti-Asian\White supremacy skew), and those who consider the coverage threshold met, with the only debate being over the phrasing. I agree that exclusively criticising Kamala's niece wouldn't make sense, but in the context of a wider paragraph noting groups or classes of folk rushing to scream about White shooter it would be perfectly acceptable. I'll relook over the links in my OP and draft a short paragraph for the start of the Reactions section later. 人族 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The Forbes contributor pieces are not WP:RS, see WP:FORBESCON. The Hill op-ed piece advances an argument that is invalid on its face: that somebody was born in Syria rather than in the U.S. makes one non-white. The place of birth does not determine one's race. Moreover, in this case we have the Boulder police themselves officially listing the suspect as white in the charging documents, as I noted above [22]. The Meena Harris episode by itself stands as an overblown isolated example concerning an unimportant figure pounced upon by a few hyperpartisan sources. Overall there is just not enough coverage to include this topic at the moment. If and when there is wider and more substantive coverage, then something might be included, but it would have to be written differently and not focus on Mena Harris. Nsk92 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay dropped a paragraph in I was going to add a subparagraph about the White not White debate but realised I have no evidence of police charging Al-Issi as White.
Radically complicating the discussion however is that, unlike standard usage, White is defined by the U.S. Census as including people of Middle Eastern and North African descent, and that police charging documents list Al-Issa as White.WP:NOR
Okay some random tried to revert the change despite the discussion here. 人族 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@人族: - Green\liberal approved sources are generally ones I won't touch - you are free to avoid certain green WP:RSP sources, but if you generally won’t touch green sources on WP:RSP, you are not suited for editing Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 03:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: you'll note I listed Playboy, HuffPo, and Al Jazeera which are respectively a porn magazine, a far left source with mixed factual reporting, and a left wing source with mixed credibility. There are 100+ green listed sources and while I may reject most of them, at least of those I recognise, that is not all - generally =/= all. Unless the rules have changed Wikipedia still subscribes to WP:NPOV meaning conservative\non-liberal and non-mainstream e.g. foreign English publications such as the Tokyo Times or The Jerusalem Post could provide useful perspectives on articles. You'll note amongst the sources I mentioned in my OP were Fox - Green coded, and Washington Times\Examiner - both Yellow listed - right-wing equivalents of Al Jazeera perhaps? 人族 (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@人族: - (1) Fox is yellow-coded for politics at WP:RSP (no consensus on reliability) - (2) you linked to a Fox News article regarding Laura Ingraham, and Fox talk shows are red-coded as generally unreliable. (3) If you doubt the reliability of any source, take it to WP:RSN. (4) You were using sources which have no consensus on reliability, or generally unreliable. You should be generally using green sources instead of yellow/red, if you don't want any left bias, you have Reuters, AFP, The Wall Street Journal news, The Hill (newspaper) news, Financial Times, Forbes staff, Reason, Christian Science Monitor. The Daily Telegraph. starship.paint (exalt) 12:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I researched online to try to address concerns about including conservative media about this issue, and I have not been able to find any reliable unbiased sources. I edited the inclusion of the The Hill source to clarify it is an opinion piece. I think we can keep it because of the notability of the author. The MSN article that was added seemed to be the best one to use, but it was actually a Newsweek reprint. Newsweek after 2013 isn’t generally a reliable source. Here is a link to an opinion piece that isn’t by a notable author, at least not yet ("Zaina Ujayli is an MA student at The University of Virginia focusing on nineteenth and twentieth century Arab and Arab American writers"), but it is well written and informative so I am adding it to the discussion here for perspective. It is from a "progressive, non-partisan news outlet": https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2021/3/25/whether-boulder-shooter-was-white-is-the-wrong-question JJMM (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Fine then here are apparently liberal approved versions of the links above:
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/544719-atlanta-boulder-and-the-exploitation-of-violence-for-political-gain (Piece already mentioned. Myth of white supremacist anti-Asian violence. Deals with Twitter mob rush to call shooter White, reality is White males are statistically under-represented as mass shooters. Notability of author is disputed.)
https://www.ft.com/content/0f5845e7-2e10-4f22-916f-c1c970131d34 (Paywalled but deals with racial obsession)
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/kamala-harris-niece-slammed-for-assuming-the-colorado-mass-shooter-is-white/video/cac190cb1676cc602a0713edf4979517 (Video - Not actually limited to Harris' niece)
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/the-claim-black-killers-are-shot-white-killers-arrested-is-not-true-at-all/video/68cabf2db0d8079df39c80ff81e43078 (Video - Assorted false claims and other issues)
Really the issue is beyond dispute so the only question is will the facts be included?

James, Progressive non-partisan is an oxymoron. Progressive means ultra partisan i.e. Far Left. You cannot be Far Left and non-partisan. The Comment section is, as I understand it, simply the Opinions section. The difficulty is not in finding conservative sources regarding this article, but whether Wikipedia will tolerate their use. That indeed is a frustrating challenge. 人族 (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
We will have to agree to disagree about what "progressive, non-partisan" means. I only linked to the article above to add to the Talk discussion, and not to add it as a reference in the article. The real issue here is about using reliable unbiased sources for Wikipedia articles, as has already been explained above multiple times. The Hill op-ed by Marik von Rennenkampff is fine to keep, IMO. JJMM (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@James James Morrison Morrison: - bias is acceptable, but reliability is key. The Alaraby article is an opinion piece. @人族: - (5) The Hill article is an opinion piece, not a news piece. (6) The Financial Times article is an opinion piece. (7) You didn't link to the British version of the Daily Telegraph, but the Australian version of another company The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), which is a tabloid newspaper with low (pg 96) public trust. One of those links is a blog (opinion). (8) Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia doesn't cover everything reported in the news. But this doesn't even rise to the level of news, apparently, it's mostly opinion, which is less important. These aren't opinions of the shooting, they are opinions on the reaction to the shooting. Before we include opinions on the reaction, we must first establish that the reaction is important. There must be news pieces covering the reaction but we have only one reliable source doing that: The Hill news piece. We need more of these news pieces from reliable sources. Newsweek, Insider, W.Examiner, W.Times, Fox do not cut it. starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I completely agree. JJMM (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Starship.paint:, so to clarify, no matter how much conservatives cover the story, if the liberal media do not report on liberal racism then for the purposes of Wikipedia it never happened? That is some major 1984 level privilege happening there!!! Think this is a dead argument then. Perhaps as you say I really shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia for facts. :-( 人族 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you probably shouldn't. If you want an encyclopedia that's more up to speed with your political views and preferences, I recommend Conservapedia for starters. Love of Corey (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@人族: - actually, no. If Wall Street Journal covers it as news, it's eligible. If Reason covers it as news, it's eligible. If OANN covers it for the rest of 2021, it's not eligible. Unfortunately, many prominent conservative sources fall short of our reliability standards. If we relied on them, factual problems could arise. It is true that we are lacking in reliable conservative sources, but that is up to the sources to improve. If you want a conservative narrative that is not necessarily based on facts, you should go to Conservapedia or Infogalactic. starship.paint (exalt) 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Hemal Jhaveri story has been reflected in countless media outlets. Also, the Harris circus has received international attention, unless you don't like India and Europe.213.233.189.201 (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Hill news article by Thomas Moore has already been included as a reference. The other links are to unreliable sources and/or articles that include controversial statements of fact about living persons in violation of WP:BLP. This is especially true about Hemal Jhaveri getting fired from USA Today, because in the CNN article you linked to she said she faced "constant micro-aggressions and outright racist remarks" while working at USA Today, as well as "threats and harassment online" after her inaccurate tweet about the mass shooter. This is not something that belongs in the article about the Boulder shooting. As for the other sources: Sky News Australia No, Newsweek no, Fox opinion No, Fox News about politics No, Federalist No, NY Post No. Not sure about The Wrap, because it isn't listed on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. Also, not sure about ThePrint...it's also not listed and there was controversy about its founder Shekhar Gupta in 2019. Also, these articles seem to belong more with Wikipedia articles about the specific individuals whose tweets have created the media reporting, and not in this article's section about reactions to the shooting itself. Find news articles (not opinion pieces) from reliable sources on Wikipedia’s list WP:RSP that adhere to WP:BLP about the reactions to the mass shooting itself, and not just articles about reactions to specific tweets by individuals that were reactions to the shooting. JJMM (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed TheWrap is on Wikipedia's list as a reliable source for media analysis. But the article linked to has the same issue as the CNN article...they are both too much about the conflict between Hemal Jhaveri and USA Today. The Hill news article seemed best to include as a reference because it didn't go into as much detail about the conflict and was a little more focused on the Boulder shooting. JJMM (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Just back to mention a few points.
  1. None of the above are opinion pieces (Apparently you've mixed up the lins above and those previously mentioned by others?)
  2. "No consensus" does not equal "unreliable". (Apparently mixed up again. Too many!)
  3. Sky, thePrint, and thefederalist are not listed in RSP. They might not be your taste, but not listed. This talk page is most obviously not the best place to solve personal issues with Shekhar Gupta.
  4. Washingtontimes, newsweek, and fox(pol) are mentioned with a "No consensus" statue, not "unreliable". Again, they might not be your taste, but absolutely fine for use.
  5. theWrap, the Hill, CNN, fox(media), and dailybeast have "Generally reliable" status.
  6. Writing in BOLD won't help you push your ideas. Chill out. 213.233.189.165 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@213 and James James Morrison Morrison Wrap, Hill, CNN, Daily Beast are all acceptable news articles, but the focus is primarily on Hemal Jhaveri. As such, if we were to cover it, the focus would be on Hemal Jhaveri. It wouldn't be on anyone else's reaction. It would not satisfy many people tweeted assumptions about the threat of white, male mass shooters and/or how the shooter was arrested and not killed because he was white. These reactions sparked backlash... starship.paint (exalt) 12:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@213, Using BOLD helps to highlight the most important takeaways from comments, and it's easier to read. I find it helpful read the descriptions for each publication on Wikipedia's list. For example, it says, "There is consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons." I didn't realize that until trying to find good sources for this article. I will step away now. JJMM (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mention of event in the Boulder, Colorado article

Am I missing something? I don't see the shooting mentioned there. There's not even a link to this article under "See also". I don't want to do any of this if there's a reason not to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This would be a question to ask on the talk page of that article, not this one, if I'm reading your question correctly. Moncrief (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone did, but the answer was there's another article about the shooting.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: See Recentism as well as WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Not everything that happens in a place deserves mention on the article. Just as World War II doesn't mention every notable soldier who fought in it, and London doesn't mention every event that happened there, existing articles need not be rewritten or expanded because of recent or fleeting events. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Gun Control Polling?

I'm probably wasting my time here\casting pearls before swine, but:
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/most_voters_don_t_think_gun_control_can_prevent_mass_shootings
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/03/26/heres-whats-sure-to-upset-the-gun-control-narrative-n2586980

According to polling of likely voters 64% do not believe it possible to completely prevent mass shootings, and less than a quarter believe they can be. Likewise a majority of likely voters do not believe stricter gun control laws would have stopped the Boulder shooting. Support for\against further control largely followed party lines - roughly three-quarters of Republican opposing, and Democrats supporting. Elsewhere an Ipsos poll (not of likely voters & I can't recall which article) found far greater support for control, but again a political divide based on party affiliation. Given Republican voter and Republican state opposition to greater federal\gun control any efforts by Biden are likely to be opposed all the way to SCOTUS. 人族 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Obviously, short of confiscating every gun in a country and melting it down, shutting down every gun manufacturer, and banning the import of guns completely (not to mention 3D printers), it isn't possible to completely prevent mass shootings. In fact I'm amazed 20-odd percent think it can happen. (On the other hand, Great Britain has had precisely one fatal mass shooting in the 25 years since the gun ban, so ...) Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:RS concerns aside, the information you just provided is more suited for an article of a broader focus, like gun politics in the United States. Not an article of a narrower focus like this mass shooting article. Love of Corey (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Officer and other Injuries

With this edit[23], I removed three mentions of responding officers being injured at scene. This source [24] police chief states other officers were injured, but that was the day after the shooting. Since then, on city website[25] they put in timeline *Officers arrived on scene within minutes and immediately entered the store and engaged the suspect. There was an exchange of gunfire during which the suspect was shot. No other officers were injured., and from more recent NYT article[26] it mentions police chief quote:Chief Herold said at a news conference that police officers had run into the King Soopers grocery store within minutes of the shooting and had shot at the suspect. No other officers were injured during the response, she said. I have left a line under victims section mentioning how initially they said there were injured, but since clarified there weren't. I found this while searching articles to see if there were any other confirmed injured but other than the gunman so far I can't. Has anyone seen injuries that can be sourced? What was the attempted murder charge, from someone he shot at an missed? WikiVirusC(talk) 13:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981134760/boulder-shooting-suspect-will-appear-in-court-thursday-morning
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-shooting/colorado-mass-shooting-suspect-moved-to-another-jail-over-safety-concerns-idUSKBN2BI2KA
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boulder-police-faced-significant-amount-gunfire-they-responded-grocery-da-n1262170
I agree with your edit, thanks. No other confirmed injuries so far. NPR reported on March 25th, "Explaining the attempted murder charge Alissa is facing, the prosecutor said the charge refers to a police officer whom the suspect fired at but did not injure." The Reuters article from March 26th said that Al-Issa was charged with a "single count of attempted murder, stemming from gunshots he allegedly fired at a second police officer." The Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty said "the suspect would face further attempted-murder charges in the coming weeks." The NBC News article quoted the DA as saying that officers "charged into the store and immediately faced a very significant amount of gunfire from the shooter." I don’t think this amount of detail is necessary to include in the article, at least not until more attempted murder charges are announced. We also need to wait to see what Al-Issa's defense attorneys (Colorado public defenders) say about any additional attempted murder charges. His next court hearing is in May. JJMM (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2021 (2nd discussion)

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: Consensus not to move. While the numbers for against are comparable, opposing arguments based on WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME are far more convincing. No such user (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cosigned by
As per reasons above. The balance of opinions favors no changes. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Boulder shooting → 2021 Boulder, Colorado shooting – The title Boulder isn't the article on the location of this shooting. It's not even a redirect to the article on the location. It's an article on a totally different topic, completely unrelated to the location of the shooting. Animal lover 666 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This article already switched back from "2021 Boulder, Colorado shooting". I am indifferent. Kellis7 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Either article name can work, but the article boulder really doesn't matter when making this decision. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I doubt anyone is going to assume that the article is about a shooting that took place on a rock so I don’t see the issue there.--67.70.100.30 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Count: 17–22 in favor of Oppose, please be cautious as this is WP:NOTVOTE, and this should only guide closure of this matter. Updated as of 02:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC). Heart (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak oppose — I don't see this getting confused with any shootings in another city named Boulder, especially not one that happened in 2021. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@User:Octoberwoodland: Then what title do you suggest? —Lowellian (reply) 23:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"2021 King Soopers shooting" is the most concise and the most precise. The location of the shooting is Boulder, CO and calling it "King Soopers" also provides the location of the shooting, but in a more precise way. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a comma in the title just doesn't seem natural. It sounds better for either 2021 Boulder shooting or just Boulder shooting. 76.190.88.66 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Coming from someone who has lived in the US all my life, I know where and what Boulder is, so I'm not too worried about confusion. (Consider all the attacks that have occurred in Nice, France. I don't think most readers think they were 'nice'). There are conventions and guidelines that go over this sort of thing, but we should be serious: no one follows the Wikipedia guidelines like they were divine commandments. For example, the WP:USPLACE guideline states that after an article title with the city, state layout, there should be a second comma after the state in the title. So, in fact, the proposed title should be 2021 Boulder, Colorado, shooting. But we see that this kind of convention is rarely followed. Another editor made the point above that Wikipedia follows the AP Stylebook in city, state naming conventions. But do editors actually abide by it? Of course not: 2018 Tallahassee shooting, 2017 Plano shooting, 2016 Kalamazoo shootings, 2015 San Bernardino attack, 2015 Lafayette shooting, 2015 Tyrone shooting, 2015 Waco shootout. I'm neutral on this, personally. I just wish US-centric articles would pick one standard and go with it, rather than opening the same, boring move-discussion every time a new article gets made. -- Veggies (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. If we go with the new title, there should be a second comma between "Colorado" and "shooting". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The point made in the proposal is not relevant - people are not going to think it's about a boulder as in a rock. That's why the word is capitalized as Boulder. Also the proposer has only been editing for about 3 months so may not be familiar with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:MOSNAME which are actual policies dictating that we use shorter, more findable, names in creating articles. In short: we prefer pragmatic over pedantic. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As mentioned previously by multiple users, Boulder does not have a lot of name recognition outside of the US, unlike a city like Atlanta. It would be useful to change the title to this so this area is easily identified. PastramiSandwich4456 (talk) 7:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is the only notable settlement in the U.S. to be named "Boulder". Yes, there are other cities and towns named "Boulder" out there, but if one were to mention Boulder as a settlement, one would be more likely to settle on Colorado as the home state (if they knew) rather than Utah or Montana. Inclusion of states in the article title only happens for disambiguation purposes (such as what happened with 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, and Aurora, Illinois shooting); if the settlement in question is not particularly well-known (such as 2021 Sunrise, Florida shootout); or if the settlement is distinctly different from a more well-known settlement with the same name (such as Buffalo, Minnesota clinic shooting, which is to be distinguished from any shooting in Buffalo, New York, for example). Love of Corey (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
None of those are good examples, but this isn't simply because of these massacres/shootings being "infamous," but rather because of the towns where they happened all being the primary (if not only) towns of that name. I checked several of them, and they all were either the direct title of the town in question or redirected to it. Also, none of these town names are common English words. So it's simply not an apt comparison. -2003:CA:8721:1BF:8108:AC3:46F6:7482 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Since plenty of place names are also common nouns, I'm not sure where we're meant to draw the line on this. Should we clarify in the title Orange wine region that Orange refers to the Australian city of Orange rather than the fruit? Is the title Buffalo wing unclear because it doesn't state explicitly that it has nothing to do with buffaloes? It will be clear in the first sentence of this article (and also from the capitalization of the word in the title) that Boulder does not refer to a rock but to the city in Colorado; putting the state in the title is not necessary, per WP:CONCISE. Moncrief (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course there's always going to be some nuance. "Buffalo Wings" have become ubiquitous and at a certain point WP:CommonName takes over, but if they'd just been invented, or come to the attention of the public a few days ago then a more clear and specific title would probably be needed. I'm neither Australian, nor a wine aficionado, so I'd actually never heard of the "Orange Wine Region," and if someone randomly told me that name I might think it was a region where they made wine out of orange juice, or perhaps where they made orange colored wine, or maybe a wine region in Orange County California or along South Africa's Orange River. (Even when it comes to "Orange" as a place name, the Australian town isn't one of the most promenent.) So again, I wouldn't think that it was a great title if that wine region had just been established (or publicized) a few days ago, but if it's become well known (at least within the wine world) then it's probably fitting. Again though, there's no clear reason at this point to believe that "Boulder Shooting," rather than "Boulder, Colorado Shooting" has become the common name - certainly not at this point, just a few days afterwards! -93.222.158.240 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. As others have mentioned, Boulder, Colorado is not a particularly well-known city, particularly outside of the US, but I would even say within many parts of the US. I bet if one just said "Boulder Shooting" to some random person on the subway in New York (who hadn't heard the news about this shooting), they might think that one was talking about a shooting that happened on or near a large rock, or maybe even somebody shooting at a rock! -2003:CA:8721:1BF:8108:AC3:46F6:7482 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the above. Unless an American in a place like New York is completely unaware of the major cities of other states, which indeed is sometimes the case, they would likely know Boulder. I can't argue anecdotes as I have no hard data to prove this, but Boulder is the home to the massive University of Colorado, is widely known as an educated and liberal outpost in the same breath as a university city like Berkeley, Ann Arbor, and Madison, and was the setting for a top-three TV show four decades ago (not that everyone alive today knows anything about Mork & Mindy, but I'm just noting that Boulder has hardly been an obscure, unknown city these past decades). Regardless, whether people in New York have heard of Boulder is not the criteria we should use to name articles. Moncrief (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The NYC subway was just a random example. My point was simply that "Boulder" isn't exactly a household name for the average American living in a state far from Colorado. Yes, it's not a tiny village or anything, but it's not exactly a big metropolis either, and its close proximity to Denver makes it even less well known. There's a good chance that if one were to say "Boulder, Colorado," the average American would have some vague notion that the town exists or a memory of hearing about it at some point, but for most it's not like if you just say "Boulder" that they'll be like "oh yeah, that's a city in Colorado!" - certainly not in the way that if you say "Phoenix" they automatically think "Arizona!" or automatically "Georgia!" with "Atlanta." -2003:CA:8721:1BF:8108:AC3:46F6:7482 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
As has been noted, the rationale for giving that article the name it has is to disambiguate it from two other shootings. If a similar disambiguation were needed for this article in the future, then the name can be changed. Moncrief (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The year numbers alone are enough disambiguation, as the Illinois case happened in 2019. Animal lover 666 (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: A number of those commenting above to oppose have suggested that "Boulder Shooting" is the WP:CommonName, but it's not clear this is the case. I just did a quick Google search, and "Boulder shooting" (in quotes) actually had fewer results [27] than "Boulder Colorado shooting" (also in quotes) [28], despite the latter being longer. Of course Google search numbers aren't definitive, but I would say that there's little basis at this point (just a few days afterwards) to assert that "Boulder Shooting" is the more commonly used name. -93.222.158.240 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with your data. Running the same search now, "Boulder shooting" has 5.99 million Ghits and "Boulder Colorado shooting" has 3.8 million Ghits. So, for me, "Boulder shooting" is the more common name. WWGB (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Simple google searches aren't the best way to look at things as google will search the entire article, and Something the refers to it as "Boulder Shooting" in title, and 5 times in article, but says Boulder Colorado shooting once, will still show up under the "Boulder Colorado shooting" search. Try intitle:"boulder shooting" which will only show results that use that in its title. That has just under 30k results when I searched, and intitle:"boulder colorado shooting" has just under 2k. Now both these are omitting ones that are phrased differently such as Shooting in Boulder or other variations. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Uhhhhh, no need to go that far to prove a point, but okay... Love of Corey (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Have their been notable shootings in any of them this year? Should we clarify Boston Tea Party to avoid confusion with Boston, Indiana? --Animalparty! (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is not on familiar terms with the location "Boulder". As an encyclopedia we should prefer the more formal (less familiar) city plus state method of referring to that location. 108.53.222.173 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I asked the encyclopedia myself, and she said they've recently become acquainted. Moncrief (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
How have you determined the gender identity? 108.53.222.173 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Huh? Love of Corey (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victims list

Since there has been consensus to list the deceased, the list is currently in multiple columns. It should be single column, like 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting (Section Fatalities), which lists 12 names. Or at most two columns. Three columns seems unnecessarily space-conserving.

The list is sorted by last name which is arbitrary and yields no information to the reader. To sort by age is much more informative. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: There had already been consensus about the way the list was formatted by name (alphabetized by last name, which is standard) and then age, and also in the two-column format. It looks great the way it is, and the proposed change is not an improvement, IMO. JJMM (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest moving to a table then, because this seems to set the column width and I get three columns on my screen. To be clear, a table of two columns and one row with lists contained. UserTwoSix (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Single column or multiple column neither is disrespectful, so I don't know why you are trying to convince anyone that is the case. Aurora may be in a single column, but other articles have done multi column, it really just depends what is designed per case. I personally feel the multiple columns make the article look cleaner. The sorting isn't meant to give information just through how it is sorted, but sorting by age also gives no information to the reader. All the information is there regardless of how it is sorted, and sorting by last name is common on and outside of Wikipedia. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Consensus was to keep it in a list as it is now. I checked in both Firefox and Chrome, and when I resize my browser window I see either one column or two columns. JJMM (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you at 125%? Because the text is small? UserTwoSix (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No, actual size. Even if I zoom in, that doesn't change the column widths...I see either 1 or 2 depending on browser window size. JJMM (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC:, I would say 2 multi-columns is the best formatting. But 3 columns I object to because I almost didn't even see the last two names off to the side. UserTwoSix (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Right now the columns depends on the users, on the phone it will show up as one column. On computer monitor depending on your resolution or what your browser tab is set to it will come up as multiple columns so it spans the width of your screen. This is the best way because it shows up readable for everyone based on their settings. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
IF we do sort by last name can we list the victims as "Last name, First name..."? UserTwoSix (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel that would be really useful. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The way it is now is standard on and off Wikipedia. JJMM (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

40em columns work for me? Do they work for you? Also, I've made a table just in case here it is:

  • Tralona Bartkowiak, age 49; customer
  • Suzanne Fountain, 59; customer
  • Teri Leiker, 51; employee
  • Kevin Mahoney, 61; customer
  • Lynn Murray, 62; customer
  • Rikki Olds, 25; manager
  • Neven Stanisic, 23; repairman
  • Denny Stong, 20; employee
  • Eric Talley, 51; police officer
  • Jody Waters, 65; customer

UserTwoSix (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, let me know how you see the formatting I just added. Please do not make any other changes to formatting or text (including changing punctuation) without getting consensus. Thank you. JJMM (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, with 40em columns I could see the list in two columns on the Talk page but only in a single column on the Article page. I used a column break to create two columns, so if that doesn't work for anyone let us know. As for sorting by ages, I personally think we should stick with alphabetizing by surname since that is a more common standard than listing by ages...first name, then last name. An article list is not a list of references like in a bibliography, in which names would alphabetized by last name, first name. However, the names are sorted by age in the [29] CNN reference from youngest to oldest...it is just a different way of presenting the information. The previous consensus had been to list alphabetically by surname, and I think we should keep that. JJMM (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I like the list we have now. It looks fine. We don't need to make the list flashy with any tables. Love of Corey (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@James James Morrison Morrison: Sorting by surname is an archaic convention along the lines of MDY dates. In this case it is nontransparent (the names are listed "First Last" rather than "Last, First"), arbitrary, and decidedly less informative than sorting by age. Even sorting by first name would be preferable as it would be obvious, also arbitrary, but there are no repeats and so it is not problematic. Oftentimes people only know people's first name so it even makes more sense to sort by the name they go by. UserTwoSix (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
How on earth is sorting by last name archaic? It's very, very normal, and the norm throughout Wikipedia. The list is fine as it is now. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Just because it is "normal" doesn't mean it is right. In this case there is nothing to be gained by doing so other than an appeal to tradition and history. The list may be "fine" as it is now, but it could be better. UserTwoSix (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This debate about sorting is just sad. We are talking about dead people, not books on a library shelf. If you cannot look at the list and work out who is youngest and oldest, you need to go back to school. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's have this discussion without personal attacks :) @UserTwoSix: We have standards on Wikipedia to make things easier to reach consensus. However, that doesn't mean they are always right...and I know that listing people's names in a way that alphabetizes by surname can be triggering for some people for all sorts of personal, political, and cultural reasons. If you have a recent article you can share with me about why listing people's names by first name, last name in an article (encyclopedic or newspaper/magazine) is an archaic convention, I would be interested to read it. This is just for my personal learning, and will not change the consensus decision. JJMM (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't listing the victims' names enough for anyone? Another reason why I oppose including victims' names overall, because now we have disrespectful conversations like how the list must look and must be organized. Love of Corey (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think sorting by occupation would be the most useful in this article, but, I acknowledge that alphabetizing by surname is the more (if not most) common standard. To prevent unnecessary arguments across articles on how to sort victims, we should keep to the standard of alphabetizing by surname. There were 10 victims here. It is trivial to re-sort them in your own minds - or on your own computers. starship.paint (exalt) 13:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ten people were killed in the shooting. Five were customers, two were employees, one was a manager, one was a repairman, and one was a police officer. Three were between the ages of 20 and 25; three were between the ages of 49 and 51; four were between 59 and 65. Six were women; four were men. No children were killed.

But these need to be backed up by sources that explicitly say that, though. Love of Corey (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Docket

Retain in talk until after sentencing. Additional sources to actual case documents and links welcome. Several are circulating on the Internet but its unclear if the full set of docket documents is freely available. Editors should be cautious at citing court documents directly as Wikipedia "policy" is murky at best. Policy: Wikipedia:No original research Not vetted: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. On the other hand court documents are rich sources of information, and admitted evidence has indeed been vetted by third parties.

County/District Court, Boulder County, Colorado

Case number variants [with notes]
2021CR497 [simple: year, CR for criminal, 497 is the serial number]
D0072021CR000497 [D007 padded with zeros, significance unknown, case serial number padded]
D72021CR497 [similar to above]

Michael T. Dougherty, District Attorney
Adam Kendall, Chief Trial Deputy District Attorney
1777 Sixth Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Atty. Reg. #38905 [may be used to search other cases handled]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Dockets.cfm?County_ID=62
Next court action: 5/25/21 8:15 AM 1Hr IN PERSON ALISSA, AHMAD Status Conference D72021CR497 Boulder County Courtroom G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.200.231 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

So...what exactly do you want us to do with this information...? Love of Corey (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

The gun was not a pistol. The gun is called a rifle by its own manufacturer. Change pistol to rifle.

https://ruger.com/products/ar556/models.html 71.218.249.219 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the sources in the article, as well as this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

City's Weapon Ban

Okay user XavierItzm (talk · contribs) remove the mention of the assualt weapon ban, then I added it back in with an additional source saying how it is relevant. But after some additional research, maybe some more discussion should be had. The ban included rifles and pistols, but from two sources, it might be in questions wheter it actually included the weapon used.

  • From Washington Post(cited in article now)[30]: Police have yet to say whether the ordinance would have prevented him from buying or possessing the weapon within city limits....Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr declined to comment to The Washington Post, but pointed to language in the city’s code on assault weapons suggesting that the AR-556 pistol linked to the suspected shooter would have been included in the ban that was recently overturned. - Police haven't commented if it was covered, while city attorney points to text in the ordinance.
  • From USA Today[31] Even if bought in Boulder, it's unclear whether it would have definitively been covered by the town’s former ban, which included many semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Unclear if it was definetly covered.

Figure should at least bring back up here on talk page. I feel it should still be mentioned but wording might need to be adjusted until we can determine for sure if it was covered. Sources are saying that some pistols were included in the ban, but whether this one was or not we need to figure out. Also see previous discussion: here. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the previous discussion and per the horse's mouth, the gun was not purchased in Boulder.[1] Which means the whole Boulder thing is political spin irrelevant to this shooting. I thank you for your thoroughness and will now delete on account of WP:UNDUE. XavierItzm (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am in process of trying to read the ordinance, if you don't mind holding off on removing. its available here [[32]], but it does say: No person shall knowingly possess or sell or otherwise transfer an illegal weapon. Wasn't strictly for purchasing. I am going to quote some stuff form it in a minute for more review. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Found better links that let me copy and paste Ordinance 8259[33] Ordinance 8245[34] I am not a lawyer, so I am just linking the text for any and all to read, and pasting relevant info for the discussion:

  • Illegal weapon means an assault weapon, large-capacity magazine, multi-burst trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife or switchblade knife.
  • 5-8-10. – Possession and Sale of Illegal Weapons. (a) No person shall knowingly possess or sell or otherwise transfer an illegal weapon.
  • Assault weapon means: ..... (b) All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have any of the following characteristics: (1) Have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip; or (2) Have a secondary protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.... (d) Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein.
  • Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 5, 2017: a shooter killed 26 and wounded 20 at the First Baptist Church with a Ruger AR-556 assault rifle. Note: From list of shootings that they referenced, but this was with the rifle variant, not the pistol.

I see I was too late to ask you not to remove, but I've reverted it once already today, so I won't be adding it back in. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I had already deleted when I saw this post, sorry if I stepped on. Look, I am sure the ordinance says you can't possess a nuclear weapon in Boulder. So what? Boulder law also probably says it is illegal to kill 10 white people (which the guy did). So what? Evidently killing people is already illegal everywhere in the world. Are you going to cite the Bible and say: "The guy killed 10 white people even though a Commandment says "Thou shall not kill." ???? XavierItzm (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to ignore the mention of the Bible, nuclear weapons and laws against killing white people, because that is not what I came to talk page to discuss, nor do any sources discuss. The information about the ban was in article and you removed it saying it wasn't relevant because it was a pistol. I clarified that pistols were included in the ordinance, and then you said it is not relevant because the gun wasn't purchased in Boulder. I then updated you that both possession or purchase was mentioned in ordinance. I understand you don't think it needs a mention. Plenty of sources mention it and this is a ordinance from the relevant city itself so I think should be mentioned. I don't see how we can have a gun control section and not mention it. Also I suggest letting the discussion happen a little while longer before making reverts, would be useful for other input. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
This is what the text had been before it was deleted:
  • Ten days before the shooting, a judge had blocked a ban on assault rifles in a lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association. The ban had been passed in Boulder in 2018 after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
That text was based on March 22nd Associated Press reports. The WPost and USA Today sources above are also relevant. If there is no original research in terms of the ordinances (WP:NOR), and there are sources that mention a similar ban in Arvada, I think you can put information about the ban back in. It would be helpful for readers to understand that the assault rifles ban relates to the issue about how Al-Issa's gun was a "pistol" and not a "rifle." There is already information about the Ruger AR-556 pistol in the gun control debate section. But all that section says now in terms of the debate is: "Particular discussion was raised over the weapon used in the shooting, a pistol which looks as if it were an AR-15 style rifle, but short. The weapon used is legally a pistol, since can be fired with one hand." This is somewhat confusing. JJMM (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree it should go back in, and also to clarify we should change it from "blocked a ban on assault rifles" to blocked a ban on assault weapons because it wasn't just on rifles. We'd need to update the source use as the one used I believe was before clarification on the gun used was released. The CNN[35] one works. Also that line you said was confusing, I agree could be reworded I think. I don't think the second sentence defining a pistol is needed, as it is described and said multiple times throughout article that is pistol.. "Particular discussion was raised over the weapon used in the shooting, a pistol whose design looks similar to an AR-15 style rifle but is able to be held and fired with one hand. could be an option. WikiVirusC(talk) 11:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Go ahead and make edits with references. I will also do some research on this...just came across a Wikipedia article on Gun laws in Colorado. JJMM (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Denver Post article from March 18th explaining the assault weapons bans in Boulder and Denver. Arvada is a suburb of Denver: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2021_Boulder_shooting#cite_note-DP-Schmelzer-2021-69 JJMM (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Also forgot earlier to reply to the Arvada purchase mention. I wasn't concerned with a ban there as the Boulder ban banned possession in Boulder so that would be relevant issue. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Here's a link maybe to use to refer to ordinances without doing original research: [2] JJMM (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Below are some options for wording about Boulder's assault weapons ban:
  • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has provisions on semi-automatic rifle purchases that include an extensive background check and registration process, which can take months. Al-Issa purchased his Ruger AR-556 pistol 10 days after a judge blocked a 2018 Boulder ban on the possession or sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, in a lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association. The ban, which was passed after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, was overturned because federal and Colorado state laws preempt city ordinances. Denver has an exemption to the local preemption, and thus has had an assault weapons ban since 1989.
  • Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr suggested the city's ban would have prevented Al-Issa's Ruger AR-556 purchase had the ban not been overturned, although police have yet to confirm this.
  • NRA member Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis Medical Center physician who is director of the university's Violence Prevention Research Program, said about the Ruger AR-556 AR-style pistol, "There's definitely no purpose for it except killing. That's what it was designed for." quoted from USA Today ref linked above JJMM (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Still waiting(hoping) for more discussion from others before I add it back in, but wasn't planning to go into too much detail, just a mention. First option seems too detailed for me, but if we used it or some version, should change purchased 10 days after, to the shooting happened 10 days after(or purchased 4(?) days after). Second option is focusing on the purchase instead of possession(in Boulder), so just adjusting that if we used. Third options seems better for article on the gun itself. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. Yes, should be: Al-Issa purchased his Ruger AR-556 pistol four days after a judge blocked a 2018 Boulder ban...
  • From CNN ref linked to above: "In an opinion dated March 12, Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman wrote that the court found 'only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.' He added that Colorado state law preempts local governments from enacting ordinances that prohibit the possession or sale of firearms, and so provisions of Boulder's two ordinances 'are invalid.'" Thanks for your help! JJMM (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Another correction...the Garen Wintemute quote above was said by "Christopher Herrmann, a former New York City police officer and an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice." I added a different quote from Wintemute. JJMM (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The matter remains WP:UNDUE insofar as it is unrelated to this shooting and only dragged over by political speculators, including some media. Anyway the following ought to be dispositive:
It appears the Boulder law, had it been in place, would not have stopped the shooting[3]
XavierItzm (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The gun control debate section is for relevant gun control debate discussion. Gun control discussions are always going to include political people and the media. No one is arguing or implying that the law would have stopped the shooting as clearly this guy was fully intending to break laws. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's another good source: "The gun used in the Boulder, Colorado mass killing looked like an assault-style rifle, but it's actually a pistol. That complicates the firearm definitions as lawmakers try to pass gun control laws...SIMON: 'Colorado lawmakers are considering a ban on assault-style weapons. Would this pistol, as we have to call it, be affected by what they're contemplating?' MARKUS: 'We don't know the exact language of what they're considering, but usually pistols aren't included in their definitions of assault-style weapons. The distinction seems a little ridiculous to some people, but to gun law, this does make a difference. I think that for the first time, some of these lawmakers are thinking about pistolized versions of rifles, and so I would not be surprised if there was some attempt to get at this.'" https://www.npr.org/2021/03/27/981875175/boulder-colorado-suspects-gun-reveals-limits-of-gun-control-legislation I don't know how to add this to the References box below. JJMM (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Something good to keep an eye out if any new laws are proposed, assuming we can show they were done as a result of this shooting. Any standard ref tag used above it will show up in box below. Makes it so all reference from all topics don't just go to bottom of talk page. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, trying this out: [4] JJMM (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It is still unclear whether Al-Issa's possession of the Ruger AR-556 in Boulder would have been illegal under Boulder's assault weapons ban, or even currently under the Boulder City Municipal Code or Colorado state law. We don't know yet if Al-Issa used a 10-round, 15-round, or 30-round magazine in the shooting. The Denver Post article linked to above, which is already referenced in the gun control debate section, says, "Some retailers sell a Colorado-specific version of the gun that comes with a magazine that holds fewer than 15 rounds. State law bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. It’s unclear what kind of magazine the King Soopers suspect purchased...A gun like the Ruger AR-556 pistol was banned in Boulder until March 12, when a Boulder County District Court judge ruled the city’s ban on assault weapons and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds was illegal. The city’s definition of prohibited assault weapons included semi-automatic pistols that can accept a magazine outside of the pistol grip." The investigation will reveal more info soon hopefully. JJMM (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It is still unclear, was suggesting either way to indicate that, why I'm in no rush to add back in. We don't know what kind of magazine he had which depending could be illegal in Colorado law and the overturned Boulder law. The gun itself most likely would have been banned as well in the overturned Boulder ban but not state law. So far according to Post article you mentioned gun was illegal, magazine legality is unknown until we know it's size. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. I looked at the City of Boulder Municipal Code again, and pistols that have "the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip" are considered assault weapons.[2] So there are two issues: the gun itself and the magazine. JJMM (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Update: I added that on June 7, the Justice Department announced that Attorney General Merrick Garland signed proposed rule 2021R-08, "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces.'" The proposed criteria would amend Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations – ATF is accepting comments until September 8, 2021.[5] Please keep this talk section open until at least September 9th. JJMM (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ MATT SEBASTIAN (25 March 2021). "Arvada shop that sold gun to Boulder shooting suspect says he passed background check". The Denver Post. Retrieved 27 March 2021. The Eagles Nest Armory in Arvada confirmed Thursday night that it sold the Boulder mass-shooting suspect a gun and that he passed the required background check, leading the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to clear him to buy the weapon
  2. ^ a b "Boulder, Colorado - Municipal Code TITLE 5 - GENERAL OFFENSES Chapter 8 - Weapons". City of Boulder Colorado. 25 March 2021. Retrieved 1 April 2021.
  3. ^ https://coloradosun.com/2021/03/26/police-accused-boulder-gunman-used-the-assault-weapon-he-legally-purchased-last-week-from-arvada-gun-store/
  4. ^ Simon, Scott (27 March 2021). "Boulder, Colorado Suspect's Gun Reveals Limits Of Gun Control Legislation". NPR. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
  5. ^ "Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached 'Stabilizing Braces'". Federal Register. 10 June 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Boulder_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1245911157"