Talk:Highland Park parade shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Manhunt

There is a current manhunt underway, involving a "stay-at-home" order and the FBI. I see no reason for this to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioticusEdits (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

wikia link

The person of interest has a Wikia page, which is cc-licensed: https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Awake Victor Grigas (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue with citing Wikia isn't a licensing issue, it's a user-generated content issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Lede

I have restored "The shooter, whose motive is not yet known, remains at large." to the lede. It was removed with an edit summary of "WP:NOTNEWS" - but it is indeed, not "news", it is a summary of key, reliably-cited information from the body of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It has now been removed, without discussion here, with the edit summary "WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT this information will not last, better to exclude it". Neither of the cited essays precludes its inclusion, and neither does the fact that we know it will be likely to change. Nor is the information excluded - it's still in the body, which the lede is supposed to summarise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Argument can be made for inclusion in the body for now but it is WP:UNDUE for lede. Anon0098 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That's about the notability of subjects - which nobody is disputing in this case - not about how to write the lede. Of course it is not "undue"; it is you, not me, who is calling for these key facts to be "treated differently from other information". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is for general information, which WP:RECENT supplements with Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included Anon0098 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

. Summarising this key (not "general") information - again, it's in the body - in the lede is far from breaching neutrality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

[ec] You have now removed the text yet again, but with an edit summary of " Per WP:ONUS removed pending consensus". WP:ONUS is about whether or not to include something in an article. These facts are in the article, well cited, and not disputed. WP:ONUS is not about the lede, which - I repeat - is supposed to summarise what is in the article body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

On the one side, I think yes the current status and lack of insight into motive of the shooter is DUE for inclusion, as it is prominent in all of the sources currently available on this shooting. On the other side however, some of that may/will change over time. On balance, as long as there are editors willing to update this as the situation evolves, I don't see much issue including it as long as there is a consensus to do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the sentence until the killer is either arrested or dead. The manhunt is a significant part of the story, and the fact that the killer remains at large nearly eight hours later belongs in the article. WP:NOTNEWS is one of the most misunderstood sections of policy language in the encyclopedia. It does not apply in this situation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm still opposing inclusion but I'm also not touching this again to avoid an edit war, so if people want to keep an eye on this that's fine Anon0098 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Reuters Gunman was dressed as a woman

Reuters is reporting that the gunman was dressed as a woman.

HIGHLAND PARK, Ill., July 5 (Reuters) - The man accused of attacking a Fourth of July parade in a Chicago suburb bought his rifle legally, fired more than 70 rounds from a roof and dressed in women's clothing to blend into the fleeing crowd afterwards, local officials said on Tuesday.

Suspect in Chicago July 4 parade attack fled with crowd in women's clothes | Reuters

39.116.182.33 (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the link if someone wants to add it [1] EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone has added. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Globalizing

I know the sources say "women's clothing" or "dressed as a woman" but can we please call them what they actually are? If it's a dress, say something like "he wore a disguise comprised of a dress, ..."? Saying just "women's clothing" does not completely or accurately describe the clothing to non-Western readers where standards for feminine clothing may not match standards in the USA. Say what it is, and the issue will be resolved. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Great idea! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Of course we can - as soon as you provide a reliable source supporting that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If they list the articles of clothing in sources, I'll share that. But until then, rewording the passage would help globalize it. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's no way to reword it until a reliable source indicates what the "women's clothing" was. Could be a dress. Maybe a skirt and blouse. Maybe a jumpsuit. But there's no way to accurately re-word until someone an RS reports more on this. But I agree that it should be specified as soon as possible. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Error regarding the victims

Three of the dead were identified as a 78-year-old Mexican grandfather who was visiting family in the area 119.56.104.141 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@119.56.104.141 you can't have three of dead identified as a 78 year-old Mexican grandfather 2401:7400:6000:F7A6:2DA4:E872:A737:DCC (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You can if he's Jesus. Anyway, 119's saying that's the error, not the correction. But the sentence continues on about two more, after some jarringly placed footnotes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed by changing the comma to a semicolon and some slight rewording. --05:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think "deceased" is an ill-fitting replacement for "dead", but whatever, it's not the travesty substituting "law enforcement" for "police" is (nor are these opinions even pertinent here). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

Add to Accused-section: He is of Italian decent. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10487202/bio/ Staebo (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDB can't be used as source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. See WP:IMDB. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022 (2)

Add to Accused-section: He is of Italian decent. Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/07/05/robert-crimo-iii-chicago-shooting-highland-park-parade-suspect/ Staebo (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That seems WP:UNDUE given only 1 source is mentioning it EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

His ethnic heritage is completely irrelevant and has no business in the article. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022 (3)

Change in Victims section, last sentence of first paragraph, for grammar: and was found wondering unaccompanied -> and was found wandering unaccompanied 96.241.206.101 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

YTeeVeeed (talk) TeeVeeed (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A few photos here are watermarked 'EPA'

Are the EPA photos from the Environmental Protection Agency? Are they public domain? Can anyone find the original source? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980973/Highland-Park-July-4th-parade-halted-shots-fired-crowd.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Not. EPA means European Pressphoto Agency, a wire service like AFP, Reuters, etc. and almost certainly copyright protected. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Victor Grigas (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Images

The lead image isn't great, but shows some police vehicles on scene. I removed two other images that also just showed police cars along wooded streets, adding no new information to the article. But what is the value of the current remaining image of an empty fairground? Sure, the fair got cancelled, but do we need such an image to convey that? ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Whatever works is fine with me. I don't really care if we have one image, all four, or something in-between. User:Meme Star27, what are your thoughts? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I've been busy. Honestly my images suck and I'm surprised they're still in the article. I don't really care about their placement/organization but I think if nobody else has images that there should at least be one of the police cars and the one of the fairgrounds. Meme Star27 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For more info about them in case anyone is curious, I live in a town nearby and have been active on Wikipedia recently. I went to Highland Park after waking up and hearing about the shooting since I'm close to it and go there often. Even though I live close I felt very disconnected from the shooting and wanted to see and document the scene myself. I have many relatives who live there including my grandparents who live on one of the streets in the zone. My visit was about an hour and thirty minutes after the shooting. I drove through neighboring Deerfield which was, in my opinion, even stranger than Highland Park since there were chairs and things on the sidewalk just abandoned. People must've left Deerfield's parade immediately after hearing about what happened in Highland Park. When I got to Highland Park, I did not realize the shooter was still at large. I made sure to stay out of the way of the police and did not go on Central, the main street where it happened. But I imagine the parts I didn't see parallel what I witnessed in Deerfield. I just went in the neighborhoods next to Central and took photos and videos. I also went to a park nearby (Sunset Park, I think) where the fairgrounds picture was taken. Later I went to Highland Park hospital. Even with the shooter I still felt very safe since as I said I live in the area. Many neighbors were walking, biking, and sitting in their garages on lawn chairs with phones tuned in to the news. One lady who had no clue what was going on came up to me and asked me what was happening. I told her there was a shooter and she said "oh, that's sad, I'm going to a nursing home". She was probably going to visit a relative. When I got home, my parents were very concerned and upset, but I do not regret what I did. Meme Star27 (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously there were many police and ambulance sirens and some helicopters. It felt very surreal. Meme Star27 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to ask, can you clarify the importance of the fairgrounds image? --Super Goku V (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it shows the impact of the shooting and the devastation it caused. I didn't go on the main street (Central) so I didn't get to see/take pictures of all the chairs, strollers, etc. left abandoned everywhere so I think this is a good substitute for that. It shows how life just stopped immediately as people ran to seek safety and left everything behind. Meme Star27 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I just went back to Highland Park and will upload some more images to Wikimedia Commons/this article later. Meme Star27 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Crimo's affiliation

BLP requires that we follow reliable sources when discussing living people. Speculation and polemics about which side he buttered toast is not allowed. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Crimo has been cited as a follower of Joe Biden. It should be mentioned that he's a leftist. Robert ‘Bobby’ Crimo, ‘Person of Interest’ in Highland Park Parade Massacre, Is Rapper With Creepy Videos (thedailybeast.com) 14.46.200.34 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC) This Daily Beast article describes his creepy social media posts but says nothing about Joe Biden or the left. Please provide a link to a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC) It points out that he liked Biden's videos. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC) There was a photo of him at a Trump rally, dressed as Waldo, but he also liked a Twitter video of President Biden. -- There seems to be nothing noteworthy at all you can gleam from that. Endwise (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) The argument made at the top in this section (that supporting Joe Biden means that someone is automatically a "Leftist") is WP:Synth and has no place in this article. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 06:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Crimo was 100% on the far right. I personally know the person pictured next to him at the Trump rally and he is extremely right leaning. Meme Star27 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Endwise (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC) We would still need a reliable source for any of the claims above to be able to add that claim to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Instead of wikipedians calling it a "reliable source" can they call it something else? A person who was friends with the person is not called a "reliable source" by wikipedians which is stupid. 50.45.10.80 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Multiple photos/videos of him at Trump MAGA rallies, but he liked one Biden tweet so that makes him a leftist. Screw your head on a bit tighter buddy, your brain's leaking. 2A02:C7F:2CAD:E000:E4B4:CE19:9DDB:2F26 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC) The article you cite does note some of Crimo's (ostensible) political activities, but does not describe him as "a leftist", nor is that a necessary implication of having liked one Biden video. Statements about Crimo's "affiliation", if any, should be directly sourced and not inferred by editors from random factoids. 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC) The rush to politicize this mass murder by various ghouls needs to be shut down until multiple WP:RS have been found to support the claims. Let's follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

May 2018 article submission for Bobby Crimo

See User_talk:2dgirl#Your submission at Articles for creation: Bobby Crimo (May 3)

Also note [2]: "Lo-fi_music artist Awake The Rapper has a tattoo of the left eye of horus on his left forearm." Andreas JN466 07:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit unnerving, to say the least. But, even if it is someone connected to the suspect or the suspect themselves, there isn't anything that can be added without it being Original Research, right? --Super Goku V (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Super Goku V news outlets have made the connection: WaPo, Fox. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind then. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of removal

The article says "The parade had not reached the intersection when the shooter began his attack" which I got from the NYT but didn't cite because I can't get past the paywall, and then says "...the parade, which was about three‑quarters of the way through when the shooting began...". Given that the parade started at 10:00, I think that there's no way that it could be three‑quarters of the way through 14 minutes later. I wonder if that report meant that three‑quarters of the marchers had left the starting point but even that seems unlikely as it would mean the whole parade would take only 20 minutes to pass by. So I'm going to remove that sentence. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Overlink

We all know what a parade is. No need to link it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F5:91FA:F616:62D4 (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned Toddler

How do we want to go about including or not including the information about an orphaned toddler, after both his parents were reportedly killed in the shooting. There are now stories about his parents deaths, how he was found and the fundraiser for him topping 1 million.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/us/aiden-mccarthy-parents-highland-park-shooting/index.html

https://www.wane.com/news/over-2m-raised-for-toddler-whose-parents-were-killed-in-highland-park-shooting/

https://www.wxyz.com/news/in-the-midst-of-chaotic-shooting-strangers-save-a-young-boy Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The orphan should be mentioned, not by name, in the victims section. Collections would be a subsection under Response. gidonb (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

First degree murder information repeat.

Information about the accuse of first degree murder is stated multiple time in Accused and Legal section QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed from the "Accused" section, moved references to the "Legal" section. --MuZemike 20:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. QiuLiming1 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Weapon Type

It seems like there's a lot of speculation in the media about the weapon type. But no clear answer on what the make/model of the gun was. I found my way here looking for facts on the topic, but coming up short so far. Curious if it's just your usual rifle you'd use to take out a deer or not plus media spin? I wish I had something useful to cite here. If I find anything useful, I'll place it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.207.194.38 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

ABC News is reporting that Crimo was seen in possession of a "Smith and Wesson M&P 15 semi-automatic rifle" and that police found a second weapon in his car. There is no confirmation what type of weapon was used in the actual attack. Mindfrieze (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The police did confirm that the rifle used was the Keltec sub 2000 see you tube video titled "POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPON USED IN HIGHLAND PARK JULY 4TH MASS SHOOTING" Lachann MacÙisdean (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The weapon type was changed to "AR-15 style rifle" but the source provided does not support this change. The quote from the article is that it was "similar to an AR-15" which is not the same as being an off brand version of it. Theyoyomaster (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling it a "rifle" is correct for the WP:RS. The only other information provided by law enforcement so far is that it was "high-powered", which is an utterly meaningless term perpetually misused by officials and the media. I say leave it as simply "rifle". If the weapon is further described in detail at some point that detail can be added, I suppose. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The source used to change it to AR-15 does have a slight elaboration where it said "similar to an AR-15" but that could generally mean any semi auto magazine fed rifle. It also calls them "high velocity rifle rounds" but I would be surprised if they are different from any other normal rifle round. The fact that they still won't just say what it is makes it seem a bit weird though. I wonder what the reason is for not just saying what it is. Theyoyomaster (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Eighth person had died

An eighth victim has died, news broke around 20 mins ago https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/eduardo-uvaldo-highland-park-shooting-victim-b2117214.html Parzival2101 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this also makes it the deadliest mass shooting in Illinois? Not sure if needed on article. Parzival2101 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Eduardo Uvaldo's was later clarified as the seventh death. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

More details

This ABC (Australia) article gives out more details in regards to the victims. It also reveals that nine (now eight) people remain in hospital (one critical, likely the person who just died) and a 2-year-old boy had been orphaned in the attack. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:1D79:2CE1:EBEA:4F8B (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Crimo 21 or 22?

On the footnote link I see 22, not 21. The age is important, since the claim has been made that such shooters are typically like 18-21 in age. And some seem to think that a solution to the shootings is to limit the age of those who buy guns. I have temporarily erased the age from the article until confirmation may be made of age (2 reliable sources). (AltheaCase (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC))

@AltheaCase:, where are you seeing 22, the cited source. The Guardian says 21 in caption and article, even the archive[3] from yesterday says 21 in both places. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Times of Israel says, "Police arrest 22-year-old suspect in Chicago-area parade shooting Suspect identified as ‘rapper’ Robert E. Crimo III; . . . " NY Post says, "Bobby Crimo, 22, ID’d as person of interest in deadly Highland Park parade shooting" (AltheaCase (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC))

The cited source in the lead, Guardian linked above, said 21 which was why I was confused you removed it from there. The Accused section lists BBC and FBI for the 21 years old, a local CBS station also mistakenly put 22. The FBI included his birthday which puts him at 21. More sources out there used 21 than 22. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL We won't argue with the FBI; even if Fox, the UK Telegraph, & IndianExpress say 22. But what if Homeland Security has another opinion? I suppose we could vote on his age. But for amusement, it may be noted first that FBI says (on Google search) on birthday date USED (not ACTUAL date of birth) & what the Highland Park website says: "

July 4, 2022, 5:12 PM – Investigators from the City of Highland Park Police Department, the FBI, the Lake County Major Crime Task Force and law enforcement agencies throughout the area have been working tirelessly on the investigation of the active shooter at the Highland Park (IL) Fourth of July Parade.

Through law enforcement partnerships and community information and leads, a person of interest has been identified as Robert (Bobby) E. Crimo III. He is twenty-two years old." (AltheaCase (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC))

Alleged gunman supporting Donald Trump

I stumbled upon several websites that claimed that the alleged gunman had attended rallies held by former U.S. President Donald Trump, as well as being a proponent of QAnon. The most reputable of these websites was Newsweek (see citation below).

Should this be mentioned in the article, or should we wait for additional sources to report this?

References

• Palmer, Ewan (5 July 2022). "Robert E. Crimo Seen Attending Trump Rally Dressed as Where's Waldo". U.S. Newsweek. ISSN 0028-9604. LCCN 35009615. OCLC 818916146. Archived from the original on 5 July 2022. Retrieved 7 July 2022. Robert "Bobby" Crimo, the man accused of killing six people and injuring at least 38 more in a mass shooting Illinois, posted videos and images online featuring former president Donald Trump, and attended a rally dressed the character from the children's books Where's Waldo. [...] Crimo, 22, who was taken into custody on Monday in connection to the Fourth of July shooting, was also found to have uploaded a number of disturbing posts and imagery on various social media and websites.

KD5TVI (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not the Newsweek of yesteryear, and Id suggest you wait till you have stronger sources and ones that tie that support in with this shooting, as this is an article on the mass shooting, not on Crimo. nableezy - 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable... consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". I'd say wait - and for sources which do more than merely note that Crimo attended a rally, since that may do little to indicate anything of significance. There seems to be an unseemly urge amongst sections of the U.S. media (and the population in general) to look for deep political motivations in such cases, despite any real evidence that such motivations were involved. Wikipedia is under no obligation to participate in such speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Relevant Federal, Illinois and Highland Park Laws

Illinois has some of the most stringent firearms laws in the nation.

1. Illinois adopted a red flag law in 2019 that allows family members or law enforcement officials to petition courts to issue “firearm restraining orders,” which prevent people from buying or possessing firearms if they pose a danger to themselves or others. But an order was never sought in the suspect’s case, even though he had threatened to harm himself and others. Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act

2. Highland Park, Illinois ban on 'Assualt Weapons.' [4]

3. Illinois Firearm Owner ID law Illinois Firearm Laws 45.26.194.254 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of this has nothing to do with the article. This is basically a WP:NOTFORUM post. --MuZemike 06:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the article. Several states adjoining the Chicago area have more lenient gun laws, and reliable sources are reporting that the murder weapon was purchased legally in Illinois, with the assistance of the father of the accused. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

picture of suspect

i haven't been able to track any information on this in the manual of style, so i would love if somebody could please help me here.

the fbi posted a 'most wanted' alert which includes the picture of the suspect.[5] what's the policy of including said photo in the article ? is it relevant (or not) ? is it legal ?

(additionally, the fbi traced violent and suggestive drawings and photos to him that relate to his crimes. [6] there may be SOME value in including some of these in the article. not all though: some are irrelevant and straight up obscene.) Ayyydoc (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

FBI photo is likely public domain and ok to use. Crimo's art is not. Also, we likely will need something about his art because sources are mentioning it, but we need to be careful that we don't imply anything about his alleged crimes EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd oppose including a photo at this stage as it doesn't really enhance the readers understanding of what happened or who the suspect is. Ultimately it also gives attention to the suspect, attention that might encourage others to behave the same. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the alleged killer's photo adds nothing to the article. And Wikipedia often (not always, but often) chooses not to write biographies about criminal suspects-- in order not to give these individuals the notoriety that they crave. Why not do the same with suspect photos? Only include the relevent info in the article but then otherwise deprive these individuals of their WP:Soapbox.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 06:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You need irrefutable proof that a picture is definitely PD to use it. Just because the FBI used a photo of him in a post, doesn't mean the FBI holds the rights to the photo. It looks like a driver's license, which, depending on the state, are typically not PD. If someone were to get an undisputed PD photo of him, I would be fine with its inclusion in the article. Wikipedia is not here to strike a blow for social justice. -- Veggies (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I said it was likely PD, but not necessarily. It would need to be checked. Anyway, how is this RGW at all? I don't even think we should have a picture of him, just telling Ayyydoc that we indeed could. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The RGW issue is mostly directed at others who argue that including the photo encourages more prospective mass shooters. That's factually dubious, and irrelevant, ultimately, given that "discouraging" shooters and "denying" them their "notoriety" are not the purposes of Wikipedia. -- Veggies (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's actually not factually dubious, there have been studies on just this very phenomenon. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There have been studies that mass shooters want Wikipedia clout? I'd love to read that. If you mean losers often want fame-through-infamy, you didn't need a "study" to tell us that. -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Number of people shot and wounded

In the "Victims" section of the current version of the article it says "Seven people were killed and 46 others were injured during the attack." It also says "Twenty-five of the injured suffered gunshot wounds, while 11 others were injured as the result of the panicked evacuation of the parade route," which adds up to 36 people injured, not 46. Do we have a reliable reference for how many people were shot and wounded, whether that's 25 or some other number? The article should state clearly, with footnotes, how many were shot and killed (which is seven), how many were shot and wounded, and how many were not shot but were otherwise injured during the shooting. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Previous interactions with law enforcement

Information about the suspects previous interactions with law enforcement:https://isp.illinois.gov/Media/CompletePressRelease/748

1. April, 2019: Police were called a week after a reported suicide. [7] [8]
2. September 2019: A family member reported that the suspect was threatening to "kill everyone." [9] [10]
3. The Illinois State Police said that the suspect passed background checks when purchasing guns four times, on June 9, July 18 and July 31, 2020, and on Sept. 20, 2021. [11]
4. The suspects family has a long history of interaction with the police. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.26.194.254 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

45.26.194.254 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Victim nationalities breakdown

Can a table of nationalities be added to show how the victims, wounded or dead, can be divided by country of citizenship? (ie. how many non-Americans and from where) Other incident articles have such information. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about the shooter

Trolling

Why isn't more emphasis being placed on the shooter being a morphodite? As sitting Congresswoman Greene (GA) stated on good authority, no shootings occurred during Pride Month. Wouldn't that reinforce the morphodite angle? 39.116.182.33 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC) That is worth including! That would be the second mass shooting by a morphodite in a month. 14.45.240.197 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC) The Pride Month comment was a cheap homophobic jibe with no relevance here. As for your "morphodite" claim, please provide a reliable citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC) It's in the article itself that he wore woman's clothing as a man. It's a logical conclusion.39.116.182.33 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC) This is Wikipedia, so any supposedly logical conclusions would be considered original research and should be left out of the article. What's needed is a reliable reference. Note also that any statement by sitting Congresswoman Greene would not be considered one of those. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References should not be in infobox

With a few exceptions (which do not apply here) references do not belong in the infobox, nor in the lede.

I have again removed a reference for "Motive Under investigation" from the infobox. The editor who persists in readding it has given the following reasons in edit summaries:

• Keep ref in info box for time being. See Talk page and WP:INFOBOXREF
• Have patience and please read the current Talk page discussion in the "Jewish area" section. WP:INFOBOXREF says "If the material requires a reference and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox."

Note that INFOBXREF is being misapplied in these edit summaries; what that page-section says (my emboldening) is:

References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.

In this case, the information is cited (to the same source) in the body of the article.

There is also nothing in the talk page section referred to (which has only "Currently the info box [sic] says 'Motive Under investigation', and I just added a citation for that (using the USA Today article I linked to above)." to say on the topic) that supports or requires that this be cited specifically, and redundantly, in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war with you over this. However, for the record, citations have commonly been used in info boxes for mass shootings (even when the information wasn't under question or investigation as it is in this article). Here are 3 examples: Oxford High School shooting, 2021 Boulder shooting, and Robb Elementary School shooting. To clarify, the citation had been added to the info box for this article because the suspect's motivation is currently unclear and is under investigation, and this partly has to do with the previous discussion in the "Jewish area" section. There is information in the USA Today article used for the citation that editors by consensus had decided to leave out of this article while the case is under investigation. Therefore, "If the material requires a reference...and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox." JJMM (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the policy. If other editors want to chime in, that's fine. But I am actually retired from Wikipedia editing, and only helped edit this article because an editor had asked me to (see "Jewish area" section), and then I decided to do other helpful editing while I was here. So I will say farewell. JJMM (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You have already edit warred over this. The fact that other articles are badly formatted does not mean that this one needs to be. Nothing in what you now say provides justification for ignoring what is in the MoS, nor requires us to duplicate a reference that is in the body for the same claim in the infobox. There is nothing in the infobox, at least in this regard, that is not in the body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"You have already edit warred over this." As have you, Andy. Last I checked that was only allowable in cases of vandalism or BLP violations, not when someone is failing to follow the MOS. OrgoneBox (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel that parameter should be left blank. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox should only contain key information about the topic. I feel that "Motive Under investigation" is not a defining characteristic of the crime event. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)