A news item involving Sutherland Springs church shooting was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 November 2017.
Wikipedia
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Whoever user(s) keep trying to emphasize his motivation as being anti religious. Please stop it. The sources are not that strong, it's only speculation. We'll never know, he his dead and the evidence is circumstantial ie. the circumstances were that he shot people who were in a church and made a few comments online. The official motivation is a domestic dispute, and this needs to be maintained as the primary motive, for that reason. Everything else is just opinion/speculation. Feel free to discuss here, but stop editing the article until there is consensus to change. -- GreenC14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "motive" field of the infobox in mass shooting articles is traditionally a bit of a disaster area. It should contain only uncontroversial statements by the investigators, not speculation by journalists, blogs, YouTube videos, what John Doe thought etc, etc.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we split the motivation into an official and a speculated? That's what we did with the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings where the official motive by police was the shooter's misogyny while the widely speculated motive was anti-Asian racism. Either the Atlanta spa shooting page is doing it wrong, or the Sutherland Springs Church shooting page is doing it wrong. Hell, the Atlanta shooter has never even made racist comments toward Asians while the Sutherland Springs shooter made numerous anti-theistic comments that made him lose several religious friends. It only makes sense that the speculated motive is either included here, or we remove the speculated motive on the Atlanta shooting page. MountainJew6150 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Option 3 (primary) or Option 2 (secondary): The word "gratuitous" means "lacking good reason", and it's often paired with offensive content - 'gratuitous violence' - because people will include offense content for the sake of it. That is the case here. What purpose does it serve, for this article, what is the reason for inclusion. It is distracting from the primary reason the quote was chosen, "Everyone dies", which demonstrates that his purpose for being there is to kill everyone in the church. The gratuitous "motherfuckers" is excessively emotive to the point of distracting why the quote was chosen for inclusion in the first place. -- GreenC15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 is preferrable and I do think may provide information about the state of mind of the perpetrator. More gratuitous, in my view, is the excessively detailed minute by minute account the shooting. It is arousing/titillating. Perhaps might be viewed as a risk for 'contagion' ie a 'how to'. Not sure, but that is my reaction. Hope those thought are helpful. Birdephant (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – it is neither gratuitous or offensive, it is what he said, it's sourced, and readers won't even remember that minute detail from this article. However, what will really invoke an emotive response to content in this article, and readers will actually remember, is the fact he "should not have been allowed to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition because of a prior domestic violence conviction", and he murdered 26 people, which included multiple children. We're talking about one word here that our readers will not simply care about, in light of the senseless and horrific tragedy this actually was.Isaidnoway(talk)09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak 1 to quote him more completely, if he is quoted at all. It may come across as offensive, but so is "everyone dies", as well as the entire incident for that matter. Senorangel (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 The relevant guidelines here is MOS:VULGAR: "language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative."
I think that the purpose of the quote in the article is to impart the reader with an understanding of the state of mind of the perpetrator. This is important, because it helps contextualize how this event was later seen by authorities and by society at large. With this in mind, I think that "everybody dies" is sufficient to impart the reader with the perpetrator's state of mind without needing the subsequent curse word. spintheer (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, Definitely not option 2, per MOS:PMC: "Vulgarities and obscenities should be shown exactly as they appear in the quoted source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words (G-d d--m it!) [unless the text itself does so]" spintheer (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Spintheer and the most convincing comments from Isaidnoway, "...readers won't even remember that minute detail from this article" (meaning the vulgar wording) and the additional comments, "We're talking about one word here that our readers will not simply care about, in light of the senseless and horrific tragedy this actually was." I agree that vulgar words are not important, and will be less important when any dust settles from possible sensationalism that could happen. There are strange people all over the world. In this case omission would "not" "make the article less accurate or relevant". -- Otr500 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because readers won't remember that detail doesn't automatically make the inclusion of motherfuckers offensive or gratuitous or excessively emotive. And yes, the exclusion of motherfuckers will make the article less accurate, because we are deliberately choosing to misquote what was actually said, which raises a Redflag to our readers who will justifiably think we are feeding them misinformation. Quotes should always be verbatim.Isaidnoway(talk)20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making the article less accurate is not the only condition that's relevant when determining the inclusion or exclusion of curse words. From WP:PROFANE: "[Offensive material] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available" (emphasis mine). I think that using just "Everybody dies" is an equally suitable alternative to "Everybody dies, <cuss word>" in the context of the way that the quote is used in the article. spintheer (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, strongly oppose Option 2 - If this RfC without any prior discussion is going ahead. Wikipedia isn't censored. He said "motherfuckers". BoldGnome (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak 3 - (Summoned by WP:RFC/A) I would have to agree with the other editors on the sentiment that Wikipedia should not be censored, but I do agree more heartily that the detail of the vulgarity does not really elevate this article in any way. Therefore, best to leave it out.
Option 1: I see no reason why the inclusion of this word, and thus restitution of the full quote, should be avoided. Apart from not causing personal harm to anyone, it gives some type of insight as to the speaker’s mental state and general disdain for people, which seems to me to be an important piece of information to include about them. -Konanen (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - I feel that the principle that wikipedia is not censored trumps the preference to avoid vulgarity when unnecessary. It does have a useful and informative purpose here, as mentioned above by Konanen and Isaidnoway particularly. Fieari (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1I don't see any reason not to quote him in full The fact that "motherfuckers" is … emotive and has no literal meaning or possible synonym is why it more fully conveys the shooter's angry state of mind, than the slightly doom-laden, nihilistic "Everyone die/s", if we are going to quote, let's do it fully and accurately. Like another editor I can see a case for omitting profanity in cases where it is directly disparaging or hurtful towards a distinct person or directed at a specific group of people, or is simply an extended rant, but that is not the case here. Am I watching too many of the 'wrong' movies if I say that, in such public arenas, if not in private discourse, the word is no longer as shocking as it once might have been.Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't you say that "everybody dies" sufficiently captures the speaker's mental state (anger, callous disdain for others' lives)? What further insight does including the curse word give the reader here? This is what the argument revolves around. spintheer (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not including the expletive does change the meaning of the statement. “Everybody dies” may read as more calculated than heated. The reader, rather than the writer should decide how to weight this in context. Option 1 is my vote Birdephant (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we already say Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies .... I think that the yelling is sufficient to get across the heated (as opposed to cold, calculated) nature of the statement, without the curse word. spintheer (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Per MOS:VULGAR "quotes should always be verbatim" and "omission would make an article less accurate". "Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies, motherfuckers"" is more accurate than "Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies"". Option 2 is out of the question per WP:NOTCENSORED. Charcoal feather (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Wikipedia is not censored, and it's better to include the full quote so as to speak to the perpetrator's state of mind, should we wish to include the quote at all. Some half measure does not make sense—either we should include the whole thing, or we should include none of it. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend participants stay focused on the content of this article, and not turn it into a general discussion about censorship, to only make a point that Wikipedia is not censored. It lacks reason for inclusion in this article for this quote and sentence. -- GreenC15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history of the article shows it unlikely to be resolved in a talk discussion. The purpose of RFCBEFORE is to avoid wasting time, that discussion would only lead back to an RfC. -- GreenC17:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're approaching that the right way. You've had a very brief exchange of reversions with MrsKoma (talk·contribs), & you can't extrapolate from interactions with other editors to how they will engage a Talk page discussion. WP:RFCBEFORE suggests multiple options before an RfC, a conversation on the Talk page is only the first of which. None of these have happened. I really think you guys are jumping the gun on this. Pathawi (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this RfC seems a tad tendentious. And "per the source" next to one of the options preferred by the RfC opener is non-neutral. And personally as someone who reverted GreenC on this matter it would have been nice to have been notified. BoldGnome (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future discussion (inside or outside this RFC), the relevant guidelines to this case is MOS:VULGAR: "language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative." The discussion should revolve around how this policy applies here.spintheer (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. MOS:VULGAR is conceptually my concern when I started this RfC. I was unaware it had been codified. I think you are right this is the relevant guideline it's right on point. BTW for Option 2, the cited source uses "Motherf---r" thus MOS:PMC would apply "unless the text itself does so". There might be other sources that use the complete word, I have not analyzed for common usage. -- GreenC16:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question here seems to be whether Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source is considered to trump However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. And furthermore, what purpose does the relativising provision of not including profanity serve? I can see a case for omitting profanity in cases where it is directly disparaging or hurtful towards a distinct person or directed at a specific group of people (while being immaterial to the subject matter), but that is not the case here.
I'm using this to illustrate that a significant portion of sources decided that reporting "everybody die" is sufficient to get the idea across without also including the curse word. spintheer (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is terrible. Are you saying that he was following a car chase, during which he killed himself? Or that he killed himself after a car chase was over? Who was chasing who? The entire episode requires significant expansion to make sense to a reader with zero background information. Then you are looking at a weight problem in the lead section. Trying to cram complicated sequences of events like this into the first sentence or two makes for bad writing. And it's unnecessary, are we writing a script for a dramatic thriller? Why does it matter for the second sentence that he killed himself after a car chase, which raises more questions for the reader, like how did the car chase begin and the other sequences of events. The important thing to emphasize early on is how many people he killed, including himself. -- GreenC13:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Redflag to our readers who will justifiably think we are feeding them misinformation. Quotes should always be verbatim. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
