Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

ITN nomination

FYI, I have nominated this article for In The News. The nomination is here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection of some sort?

The vandalism on this page is crazy. it needs some sort of protection.Padsquad2010 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I echo this sentiment, others have reverted numerous obvious IP vandalism. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Semi-protected -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't actually seem out of hand at the moment. Valfontis (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Category w/ location of incident

Hello all - I added this article to Category:Douglas County, Oregon, but it was reverted shortly thereafter. It seems as though categorizing with the location of the incident is appropriate. Any comments on this? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Should be there. It happened there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to add it - Any concerns, let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

name?

What are people's thoughts about the title "Umpqua"? I never heard of it. Perhaps others feel the same way? Maybe 2015 Roseburg Oregon shooting? Maybe something else? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Umpqua" is the name of the school and the river valley where the town is located, and is also the name of a county in Oregon and a bank that I drive past often (I live in Seattle). Is "Roseburg" more familiar for some reason? Why would changing the name to that help? The trending hashtag on Twitter is #UCCshooting – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Umpqua County, Oregon is a former county. Valfontis (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Shows how little I know. What I do know is that "Umpqua" is the name of a tribe native to the area. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The name is common, and it has been cited more than anything else. The current title is fine, no matter how "weird" it sounds. Versus001 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Umpqua is a well-known region locally, and moreover, it is the name of the college. The title is 100% accurate and descriptive, and follows previous instances (like the Virginia Tech Shooting or Columbine Shooting), AND is the current common name. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooting took place specifically on Umpqua Community College property. "Roseburg, Oregon shooting" would be too broad, non-descript and not even associated with the press coverage of this specific incident. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"I never heard of it" is not a reason not to call this by the school at which it occurred. You can learn more at Umpqua. Valfontis (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record this also didn't occur within the city limits of Roseburg, the college is actually north of Winchester, Oregon. Valfontis (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Why can't I edit but some can?

I understand the page is protected, but how do I become a user who can edit? Also, what agenda can there be for edits regarding AMERIXANPSYCHO? Are there people who only believe news from one source and will do anything so others listen to that one source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificaldan (talk • contribs) 15:47, October 1, 2015‎

To edit this page you need to be an autoconfirmed user. This means you need to have an account that is at least four days and has been used to make at least 10 edits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not an autoconfirmed editor. Do you think adding this news story to this article would be appropriate? Or is it to minor? Thanks. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor or not, it's a whole other school. Ashland High School (Oregon) has a "Homecoming tradition" section, with only 2015 discussed. Seems appropriate there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input InedibleHulk, I am new here. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the story. You're off to a good start. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct link to his dating profile

Not sure what to do with it: http://spiritualpassions.com/seeme/ironcross45.html Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Not a Gun Free zone criticism

True (Oregon public) schools cannot ban concealed weapons from campus 'grounds', BUT the very same court opinion held that schools could nevertheless ban concealed weapons from inside buildings (and other areas). These shootings appeared to occur within the classroom so technically, the shootings did meet the definition of a 'gun-free zone'. At best students and/or faculty could have kept their handgun locked in their car in the parking lot. I am citing a source for those of you who want to keep an open mind:

"In an Oregon Court of Appeals case (2011), three judges concluded that Oregon public colleges and universities no longer have authority to ban weapons on the physical grounds of a campus. Each school does however, have discretion as to whether to permit concealed handguns inside buildings, dormitories, event centers, and classrooms. Private colleges and universities may still prohibit weapons throughout the entire campus including grounds.

On March, 2, 2012, the Oregon Higher Education Board voted unanimously to ban weapons in all seven state colleges and universities.

...

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings. No private universities permit weapons on campus grounds.

Source is here: http://www.armedcampuses.org/oregon/ (please note that further cites may be found on the aforementioned website. I would suggest that in the interest of fair play, that these sources be investigated, rather than dismissed out of hand by those who may have a vested interest in promoting a certain political opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Bennett (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

those who may have a vested interest in promoting a certain political opinion Again, please read WP:AGF, focus on content and policy, and leave other editors' suspected motives out of it. Whether those motives exist or not is beside the point, and it is not necessary to know or care. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It was raised in multiple media interviews. It's not clear that it motivates shooters, though, but likely turns a "mass shooting" into "mutual combat" that is not covered the same way by media. It's pretty clear that these events end when people with guns show up. First responders are taught to immediately attack. That tactic is "active shooter" doctrine and explains why 2 police officers immediately took on the shooter and killed him rather than wait for SWAT/negotiators/backup. This is a procedure change implemented virtually everywhere after Columbine. --DHeyward (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Navbox?

Shouldn't we create a navbox for world mass attacks by year? (Like earthquakes have) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's an intrinsic problem with the idea, but there may be too many of them; remember, while we have a tendency to be biased towards Western mass killings, they're happening constantly in places like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. For example, the 2014 Peshawar school massacre claimed 145 victims. So far this year, only 15 people have died in all school shootings (including individual one on one things, which are much more common) in the US this year. We'd also have to determine how many people need to be injured/killed to warrant inclusion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for media file that may be useful to add to the article

The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon

WEBM - The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon

Suggestion that this file may be useful to add to the article: File:The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon.ogv. — Cirt (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support - Highly relevant with very clear public domain licensing.--Melmann^(talk) 06:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

On the second thought, why is the quality of the clip so low? YouTube original is in 720p at 60fps, given that there is no fair use rationale since it is public domain content, why is the quality significantly lower? Are any technical limitations on Wikipedia hosting high quality video content? If not, can we re-host a better version? --Melmann^(talk) 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Original https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2015/10/01/president-delivers-statement-shooting-oregon - will convert to WebM -- Callinus (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The link to the president's statement should also be added to the references list: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon 73.42.240.18 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded File:The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon.webm -- Callinus (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Gun free zone"

Earlier today, someone repeatedly tried to edit this page to indicate that the college was a "gun free zone", as though this could've been prevented by some upstanding citizen who decided to pack heat. A CNN commentator repeated the claim. It's bogus; the courts ruled guns were allowed on college campuses in 2011. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"The [school] system still has authority to control its property and facilities and can make and enforce internal policies that ban guns from university classrooms, dormitories and sports stadiums, said Chancellor George Pernsteiner on Tuesday." As I read that source, it's unclear whether the school has found a way to prevent guns on campus. But, if I were involved with this article, I would oppose including this until we know more. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150316175339/http://umpqua.edu/safety-security-information I guess the very school in question never received that "information" that they can't ban guns?? :D It was indeed a gun-free zone or "guns prohibited unless you have a special permit"-zone if you will. You, and so many others, can try to distort this to fit an anti-gun (ie anti self-defense) agenda as much as you please, but that doesn't actually change reality! 90.227.183.88 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Please read WP:AGF and stay off this page if you can't observe it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No thank you. And absolutely.. I shall also assume then, in good faith, that this information will not be omitted, but rather added to the article? 90.227.183.88 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well first, I'm curious why we have to go to archive for that source. The school's website does not respond, but I'll assume for now that that's because it can't handle the workload. I'd like to see the same page on its website. Then I'd like to solicit other opinions as to whether the school's website, as a primary source, is adequate sourcing by itself. If not, we'll need to look for other reliable published sources. My current feel is that we will reach a consensus for adding it, without the loaded and unencyclopedic words "gun-free zone". For now, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is under discussion, there is no rush, and that is not evidence of any "agenda". As is usually the case with these breaking news articles, in my opinion there is too much editing going on and not enough discussing. As I suggested above, I don't have much interest in this article, so I wouldn't raise a stink if my opinions on this were completely disregarded. I'd just crawl back into my hole, eat a donut, and take a nap. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw a tweet asking non-students not to go to the UCC website because it, like most other institutions, isn't prepared to handle a mass shooter. I was bringing this up to say we should keep it off the page entirely. It has no bearing on the events. "Gun free zones" don't stop shooters, and armed civilians don't stop them either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I'd suggest letting RS decide whether it's significant. If included, it could be written in a way that does not imply a political statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Time will ultimately tell its significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

These shootings end when people with guns show up. That's a pretty common denominator. The police had the same type of weapons as the shooter. They don't ride in on magic unicorns and their ballistic vest is useless against a rifle.--DHeyward (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The key issues here are (as usual) WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. In particular, we cannot highlight the gun rules in effect in the area (or try to present our own research on them from primary sources), since that would be original research and synthesis. We can highlight quotes from experts about the subject, but we have to consider the appropriate WP:DUE weight -- if eg. professional police or academics on mass shootings say that it's important, we should probably cover it; if it's just one or two talking heads using it as a talking point to make the same arguments they always make, then it is less relevant unless their comments attract significant coverage or otherwise seem to have major impact. We definitely can't use the school's website as a source for something like this, because its relevance is pure synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in Obama Quote Edit

In 'Reactions', President Obama is quoted as "[Thoughts and prayers] does not capture...". Evidently, this was edited when added to the Wikipedia Article, which is fine, but that edit apparently introduced a number mismatch, which probably does not exist in the original quote. (nbcnews.com, the referenced source, has revised their article; the original quote is no longer there.) Please revise to "[Thoughts and prayers do] not capture...". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.22 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I've changed grammar and switched the reference from NBC to Whitehouse.gov per your comments. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Social media posts

There is a long history of the media dashing off to make speculative claims of social media posts on the basis of limited information in the first 24 hours after a shooting. The post about Vester Flanagan is here and the media cannot know for sure who posted it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

His step-sister Carmen Nesnick spoke to CBS and NBC and confirmed that the accounts are his. -- Callinus (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/chris-harper-mercer-ucc-shooting/#LGLs7JfR3iqH

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/man-suspected-in-school-shooting-massacre-in-oregon-had-ties-to-torrance-relatives-in-tarzana/

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Oregon-Mass-Shooters-Sister-From-SoCal-Speaks-Out-330352981.html

It is somewhere between possible or likely that the accounts are his, but caution is needed. The media has assumed that account names with lithium_love or similar are his. The source here says that the Flanagan post is attributed to him rather than saying that it was. The Mashable article is misleading as the external links it gives does not confirm the claim that he is the person behind the posts. Sources like the Daily Beast and Mashable are not really reliable enough for claims like this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Are you happy with the sourcing for the claim that he uploaded a Newtown shooting doucumentary? I earlier had a more qualified claim that accounts linked to his email had statements published, that was changed by someone to an assertion that he wrote it. -- Callinus (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the claim that he operated the lithium_love account on KickassTorrents needs some time to develop. It may be true but the media has jumped the gun to some extent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post and other major media are reporting that the kuller was a bi-racial man targeted Christians. I am passing by to read this entry and do not see anti-Christian hate discussed as motive. It's a highly dishonest omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.151.84 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to take information directly from these accounts. His "dating profile," for example, said he was in college but that is false. I've removed the information that was gleaned straight from that profile without other sources. "Targeting Christians" appears to be from a single eyewitness account based on a question he asked. . . --DHeyward (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There actually seems to be at least three eyewitness reports, although all I've seen are second hand. One is mentioned in NY Post [1] and is from a Twitter account from someone who said they were relaying their grandmother's story [2]. Another, more wide spread, was from someone who underwent surgery after being shot in their spine, relayed by their father to CNN and possibly other media sources [3] (CNN's interview [4]). A third account, relayed to NBC (also mentioned in the earlier source) was from a sibling.

The widespread CNN account relayed by a father would seem to definitely involve a victim (the interview appears to have taken place outside a hospital etc), I'm not sure how much checking those reporting the first or third accounts did to ensure that the people relaying them really had connections with someone who was present at the shooting.

From what I can tell the 2nd eyewitness who's account as relayed by their father reported that people who identified as Christians when asked, were told they would be seeing god soon and then shot. This doesn't confirm that they were a major target since it's possible that non Christians were simply shot without being told they would met god soon or after the Christians were shot. However more complete accounts, allegedly coming from the first and third eyewitnesses is that people who said they weren't Christians were generally shot in ways far less likely to be fatal (often in the leg).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also nobody knows the English professor's religious beliefs, if any, and at least one of the second hand reports says that the shooter's comment was made after shooting the English professor at point blank range.

Second hand witness testimony can be unreliable. I think it's highly likely that a shooter would have mocked people he killed by declaring that Christians would "see god in one second" but asserting that second hand witness testimony asserting that people replied if they were Chrisitan and weren't shot if they didn't reply is highly dubious and reeks of the myths that were invented after Columbine. -- Callinus (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any testimony suggesting that people who didn't reply (or who said they weren't Christian) weren't shot. Instead the suggestion appears to be that people who said they were Christians were shot with the aim to kill, whereas people who said they weren't were shot in the leg, or in other ways less likely to be fatal. It also also clear some people like the aforementioned professor, were shot with the aim to kill regardless, normally without questioning who they were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

4chan misidentification

CNN journalists were told that a 23 year old did the crime and they reported that before issuing a correction. I don't see this as passing the 10 year test.

-- Callinus (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, I added the bit in CNN Newsroom#Gaffes when they did a seven minute live cross to a terrorism correspondent to analyse the dildos in a gay dildo flag at a gay parade. It's not exactly a surprise that CNN badly bungles a lot of their reporting. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's useful to give the flavor of the media response to this debacle; it is particularly relevant in this case because the shooter was apparently motivated by media response. Also, it's chaos out there, and I think it is useful to immunize people against any misinformation they're reading by making it clear just how much so. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point. Although CNN never gave many details about an earlier suspect, they spend a considerable section of programming time making vague comments relating to attitudes on 4chan as though they were setting themselves up for a later announcement that 'Eggman' was the shooter. Of course, this is very difficult to source/comment on accurately, but I still think the inclusion of this section is valid taking into account that a great deal of reporting on both traditional and social revolved around this kind of discussion. Also, could someone with the necessary priviledges change "member" to "user" in this section, since I don't think the site has membership. Esurlaw (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed member to user in my text, but the sentence before it is a direct quote. Nor is it really misinformation: die hard 4chan users are pretty site-loyal, more so I think than many sites that actually require formal registration but nonetheless have many fake/multiple accounts, and are probably more recognizable in their patterns to other users. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sister link at Wikisource

I've created a document at Wikisource:

s:Statement by the President on the Shootings at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon.

You may wish to add to the article the template:

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't include both that and the reference in the video caption. We should decide which is more useful to the reader. I'd suggest the ref, it being with the video. I've added archive parms in case that page goes away. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Near vs in

There was a recent change from listing the college as being "in" instead of "near" Roseburg. While the college has a mailing address that uses that city, that does not mean it's inside the city. If you look at the city limits[5], the city ends a good ways away from there. 74.69.36.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've stated before but will say again for clarity--the school, while within the Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area or "greater Roseburg" (which comprises the entirety of Douglas County), is actually north of Winchester, Oregon, which is an unincorporated community north of Roseburg. It is not within the Roseburg city limits. Valfontis (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Harper-Mercer was a UCC student

• http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/umpqua_community_college_shoot_1.html#incart_maj-story-1 "Harper-Mercer was enrolled in the college class where the shooting occurred, the sheriff's office said."

• http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/new_details_emerge_on_umpqua_c.html "He enrolled at Umpqua in the summer term taking a writing course and a theater class, confirmed Dr. Rita Calvin [sic], Umpqua Community College interim president. He was listed as a production assistant the college's production of "Blithe Spirit," slated to debut later this month."

--12.180.133.18 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris Harper Mercer or Chris Harper-Mercer?

There seems to be discrepancy in the name of the perpetrator: "Chris Harper Mercer" or "Chris Harper-Mercer" (with hyphen). The Daily Beast article [6] cited no longer verifies that his mother hyphenated the name. Is there perhaps a transatlantic difference?: while British sources like Mirror and Daily Mail use Harper-Mercer, CNN, New York Times, PBS, LA Times, etc. are all referring to the perpetrator as Mercer, Chris Harper Mercer, and Mr. Mercer. The Daily Breeze (American) unhelpfully uses both hyphenated and un-hyphenated versions in the same article. Consensus? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Go with the highest quality American sources, since it's an American event. That would appear to mean no hyphen and Mercer. If the hyphen is actually more correct, I'd expect those sources to change within a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the name to unhyphenated Chris Harper Mercer, for now. Also I see the unverified bit about the mother hyphenating the name has been removed, which is fine (fairly trivial). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times reports that Army records list him as "Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer". --12.180.133.18 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I heard

He was purposely targeting Christians please add that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlenameisfrank (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple sources indicating something to that effect. The Daily Mail and The New York Post, for example, has some details here and here, respectively. If that is part of the motive, it would likely be worth noting. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The article already notes that he asked victims to state their religion, and that his dating profile stated that he hated "organized religion". You can draw your own conclusions, but per WP:SYNTH, we can't on the page. Not unless we learn more about his motives. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't speculate per WP:SYNTH. However the current article, at least as of this talk reply, appears to make no reference to him asking that the "victims to state their religion".--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The article say he shot indiscriminately where it seems the contrary. He was discriminatory in his shooting. Why leave that wrong impression? Middlenameisfrank (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't speculate on his motives despite multiple national news agencies and eyewitnesses reporting that he targeted Christians, but you can speculate that he's a Nazi sympathizer and a "conservative, Republican" based on a dating profile even though he supports the IRA, a left-wing terrorist group? That's rich. Sy9045 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The asking people their religion section was removed by editor Alvandria with the edit summary "Only 1 article claimed he asked for people's religion. Let's wait for more reports." Given that this aspect of the incident has been covered by multiple news reports, it should be re-inserted. -- 120.23.149.249 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are they independent sources, or just copying each other? Not saying this wasn't the case, but if it is just one source that is getting copied, we should be cautious - especially given that a similar incident in the past (at Columbine) ended up being confused in media reports. It isn't like we're not going to get a lot more details over the next few days/weeks. Another issue is whether he was targeting Christians in general, or specific sects of Christians; the Irish Republican Army (which he is apparently affiliated with) was Catholic, so it might be he was targeting certain sects in particular. Or he might have been targeting religious people in general - is there any confirmation that he actually spared/killed people based on their answers? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He also may have operated a Facebook account that was friends with a profile that posted pro-Jihadist propaganda - the meaning of all of his social media profiles aren't 100% proof of anything. -- Callinus (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Controversial claims often need to be qualified with who said them - some news media report that two people who were not in the room claim that Chrisitans were shot - witness testimony is not always reliable, and it's better to wait for an official report that brings together disparate witness accounts. -- Callinus (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the (of questionable 'encyclopedic' value) "conservative Republican" comment (the shooter made in an obscure on-line post) gets right in, but the multiple eye-witness accounts that the shooter was deliberately targeting Christians is being kept out (for now), speaks volumes about the 'progressive' bias of Wikipedia entries where there is a 'progressive vs. conservative' divergence of talking points. I ask the people keeping the deliberate targeting of Christians out (for as long as possible) - would you be keeping accounts that a shooter was targeting Muslims out with similar fervor, had a shooter been targeting Muslims instead? Or African-Americans? Doubt it. That type of targeting would have been in the lead too, had that been the case. Recall also the CBS Lara Logan Egypt attack Wikipedia entries - where, for months, 'progressive' forces edit-warred to keep out mention that anti-Jewish hatered played a role (Logan's attackers thought she was Jewish and were attacking her for it - but Wikipedia-warriers fought to hide that). And yes, I know, this is a talk page, not a discussion forum, so please consider the above a vote in favor of including the relevent (and legitimate) fact that this guy was motivated by a desire to murder Christians, as per eyewitness accounts. And no, just saying he "hated religion" isn't "good enough", if our goal is to describe the facts of what is known.71.190.1.60 (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that we don't know his motives, and there's a history of sensationalism about Christian martyrdom in relation to shootings. Many of these have turned out to be inaccurate or misrepresented in the past, as in the case of Columbine, where there was a urban legend about the shooters asking someone if they believed in God, then shooting them after they said yes... and then, it turned out, the person who had been asked the question wasn't shot at all (and apparently changed her answer several times in the hopes of finding the one the shooters wanted). Some other girl was shot, but not after being asked the question. The shooters, as far as anyone knows, were simply being sadistic and trying to mess with people - not terribly surprising behavior out of mass murderers.

There's no harm in waiting until we get more independent confirmation of what went on - there was more than one person there, so we'll likely have a better picture of what went on in there. If the motive was religious in nature, it will come out, and we'll include it in the article appropriately. This is especially true as right now, we're not hearing from eyewitnesses - we're hearing from secondhand sources, who are saying what they say they were told by victims.

As far as his political allegiance goes - it is not uncommon for the politics of spree killers to be mentioned. Whether or not it needs to stay in the article, we'll probably make some sort of better determination on that in the future. Frankly, a lot of stuff about stuff like this suffers from major recentism issues, as people rush to throw in as many details as possible very quickly, despite the fact that in many cases we don't get a really good idea of what is going on for days, sometimes weeks. Not all of this information may be relevant. Frankly, a lot of the responses to the issue are entirely generic and cookie cutter - heck, Obama gave a speech about how cookie-cutter it all was.

TL; DR; the reason the "shooting Christians" thing isn't in the article yet is that we're lacking in details and external confirmation. Every article I've seen so far has noted we don't know his motives, and we don't know that his victims were exclusively Christians (or members of any other denomination). We likely won't know for some time. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue, yes. My main concern with the eagerness to highlight this is that it's putting incredibly heavy emphasis on one person's account while cutting the context that the more reputable sources append in saying that his motivations "may never be known." If we're going to cover it, we probably need an entire 'motives' section that can go into depth rather than just using one quote to imply (inaccurately) that his motives are known. But that should probably wait until there's been at least some time for proper investigation. --Aquillion (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

His motivations may never be known? Really? When he posted them online? -- 120.23.54.67 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He only posted that he would attack, he didn't post a long manifesto like the other wankers. -- Callinus (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not online perhaps, but it sounds like he did have something of that sort. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is known for sensationalising or fabricating claims, so I wouldn't suggest using it as a source especially for foriegn events. They're the ones who talked of "Sharia zones" in the UK. Banak (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And The New York Post? Are they "known for sensationalising or fabricating claims" too? -- 120.23.54.67 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently yes, see New York Post#Criticism, "The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias.", "Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs", "According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York". All these are cited to reliable sources in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Post is a legitimate newspaper, and in fact multiple witnesses confirm the targeting of Christians in this shooting: the story has also been covered by the Bangor Daily news, the Washington Post, CNN, and other media. Removal of the section on targeting of Christians from the article in the face of such extensive coverage in WP:RS demonstrates extreme bias and WP:POV. -- 120.23.5.154 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The NY Post definitely isn't a good RS and should be used with care. I'm not completely opposed to including this info, although it should be treated with caution as the story is still relatively latebreaking news, and we've all seen many instances, including here with CNN et al reporting the wrong perpetrator, of how poorly even good sources can handle latebreaking news in their rush to be first. Many of these reports are coming from only a small number of alleged eyewitnesses (I count 3 or perhaps 4), and they are generally relayed second hand and it isn't even necessarily clear how much checking the sources relaying them actually did to ensure the people the report are coming from really have a connection to an eyewitness. (The CNN/person who was shot in the spine account seems to be definitely seems to be, and perhaps the NBC. The report from Twitter and from SMS seem unclear.) Many of the sources you cite actually similar treat these reports with caution. Note also the most widespread CNN account doesn't actually confirm Christians were a major target, the accounts I've seen only say that people who identified as Christians were told they would be meeting god soon and then shot, it doesn't confirm what happened to people who said they were Christians. It's only the less widespread accounts that suggest people who said they weren't Christians were partially spared (shot in ways less likely to be fatal). Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be used with caution even though you are allowing the bit that he's a Nazi sympathizer and a conservative Republican based on a dating profile? You are dismissing reports from the BBC, Washington Post, CNN, USA Today and several other national news organizations and multiple eyewitnesses that said he targeted Christians. He also supported the left-wing terrorist group, IRA, but apparently "Nazi" made the cut but not "left wing" -- probably to no one's surprise. Maybe I'm a dreamer but I wish Wikipedia editors would rely more on objectivity than speculation based on some preconceived political narratives. Sy9045 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned below, I'm not commenting on whether that info is sufficiently sourced. If you want to discuss those details, I suggest you start a seperate discussion since this is a discussion about the inclusion of him targetting Christians. However, again without commenting on whether the info is sufficiently sourced there's an obvious difference between reporting what someone said on their own profiles, presuming we trust the verification of these profiles as belonging to him (which is the big issue) vs reporting second hand accounts, some of which I'm not even sure we can be sure are second hand accounts, of what was said during a shooting (and the resulting panic and emotinal turmoil likely to be present during those times). Also, the current article doesn't say anything about him being a Nazi. I suspect it never did. It does say he made a reference to Nazi Germany. Whether the Iron Cross 45 being clearly linked to Nazi Germany, is something that I will again not comment on since it's best dealt with elsewhere. But if it is, there's a big difference there. (If it isn't we have a problem, but your example is still mostly unhelpful.) Nazi Germany is simply the common name for what it's alleged he was referring to. It's not an unnecessary description. A comparitive example would be if were to say, far-right or fascist Nazi Germany. These are unnecessary descriptors, which may be challenged for a variety of reasons. By the same token, if the perpetrator had said something about Tiocfaidh ár lá, it would be resonable to say this is a phrase associated with Irish Republicanism or the IRA if this could be sufficiently source, but there would still be no need for additional descriptors like left wing, just as I already mentioned, we don't say far-right or fascist Nazi Germany. And the fact is, we already say he expressed sympathy for the IRA, you're apparent complaint is you want to put your own spin on the IRA bit, even though there is no spin on any of the other parts, simply a report of what his profiles said. P.S. The history of the IRA is complicated, something which you seem to be oversimplifying. Unsurprisingly plenty of parts of the IRA are associated with Catholicism, and as the article you linked to says, historically some parts were associated with, Nazi Germany. This is one reason why we avoid unnecessary descriptors. Something like the IRA, even if not as well known as Nazi Germany, is well known enough that such descriptors are bound to cause more confusion than they solve. (Not to mention the IRA given how long they have existed and in so many different forms, is far more complicated than something like Nazi Germany.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed [7] as it seemed to be quite misleading. None of the (second hand reports of) eye witness accounts simply say he shot everyone. Some of them say he shot people in the head, or otherwise seems to aim for fatal wounds for people who identified as Christian, whereas he shot in the legal or other wounds less likely be fatal for people who said they weren't. Some of the accounts, including who we seemed to be quoting (from the quote), simply said he shot Christians, without any explanation of what happened to non Christians. In case there's any confusion, the phrase “And then he shot and killed them” doesn't mean he shot everyone in the class. If you listen to the interview this is based on, or check our other RS, it's clear that the father is saying all the Christians were shot, without explaining what happened to the rest. As I said above, I'm not opposed to including info on these reports, but we definitely shouldn't be misleading if we are. And none of the accounts seem to say anything close to "he asked people if they were Christian, told the Christians you're going to met god soon, then shot everyone the same", which was what I removed basically said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

IRA images

Probably needs to wait until more research is done,but I came across this referencing "IRA images" as part of the motivational melange. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

It still seems speculative at this point, yes. It also seems odd that an English-born man would sympathize with the IRA, that being an anti-English/pro-Irish nationalist group. Tbessler (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a populist anti-establishment movement that promotes violence. Radicalisation is commonly misunderstood - eg, many people who don't have pro-jihadist views have jihadist bomb making manuals etc. -- Callinus (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Targeted Christians

Multiple eyewitnesses also reported that he targeted Christians. It is shameful that this article is using a revisionist tactic based on preconceived political narratives to show him as a Nazi right-wing "conservative, Republican". He supported the Irish Republican Army (the IRA is a left-wing Marxist and socialist terrorist group). Apparently to some Wikipedia editors here, a dating profile is more credible than NBC, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, BBC and USA Today and the multiple eyewitnesses who were there. This happens too often on Wikipedia because editors somehow cannot leave aside their political views to report objective facts. Shameful. Sy9045 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sy9045: Your complaint is fairly confusing. While the Christian thing has come and gone in various ways, having checked every single edit until and including [8] it looks to me like it's been in our article since it was added here [9] at 14:40 UTC until now, at about 19:13 UTC. Your comment is signed at 16:03 UTC which means it was significantly after the Christian thing was added and then not removed until now. So it's fairly confusing what you're actually complaining about.

Note, the fact we may add the christian thing doesn't mean we should remove other details, based upon you WP:Syn assumption that someone who targets Christians can't be that thing. The only thing that matters to us is they are sufficiently well sourced. (I'm not saying these are, simply that your assumptions about the shooter are irrelevant in to whether we add or remove the details. Also, it's fairly odd that you're willing to accept some social media sourced details like the suspect alleging being an IRA sympthasiser, but not others, like the subject allegedly describing himself as a "conservative, Republican".)

BTW, do you actually have a reliable source reporting from a confirmed eye witness? So far, all we seem to have are second hand accounts from eye witnesses (relayed through relatives) or accounts where the person's identity doesn't seem to have been confirmed (sent via SMS or other text messaging services. Sometimes both.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The only eyewitness report of "targeting Christians" I've seen seems to be from one victim, whose family is repeating her statement. We need to be careful about mistakenly inflating the number of reports (heard it from so and so who heard it from so and so...). According to another witness: "The shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away" [10]. From LA Times: "A law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly, confirmed that the gunman asked students about their religion during the shootings." These statements do not imply the perpetrator singled out Christians. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sy9045: Note there are many "IRA" groups, as explained at the target of your link. You're thinking of the Official IRA, but the better-known Provisional IRA was, needless to say, influenced by Catholicism (how could an Irish group not be?) With a formal peace process in place, the situation becomes more philosophically complicated, because persons most loyal to the group may take no action. Unless we see some retrospective research in the news, there's no telling what (if anything) the killer was thinking. Wnt (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't mean what you think it means - people with mental health issues do not have "consistent" positions and while the media insists that "radicalization" is a single process, academic literature treats that notion as deeply dubious.

People who sympathise with the IRA often don't sympathise with Catholicism - but see the IRA as a populist anti-establishment movement that opposes government and successfully fought the British. -- Callinus (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this guy a Brit or just happened to American born in England?

Considering that he was born in England, I wonder what his nationality was when he moved to this country. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, and generally a person's nationality is noted.BananaBork (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not encountered a source saying that he is British or identified as such. He identified as "mixed race" on some online accounts. If he really identified as a Brit, he would have identified as a Brit. Until a source is found about his identity in more detail, nothing more than that should be added. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Alek Skarltos alumnus

Former Umqua alumnus Alek Skarlatos is one of the heroes of the 2015 Thalys train attack who received the Legion of Honor in France from the French President after the attack. He just left his Dancing with the Stars gig in order to return to the family home in Roseburg, the city where Umpqua is located. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a deadlier Oregon shooting in 1854.

Seventeen people (mostly Wards) were shot by Indians on August 20, 1854. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on that, but Findagrave has a possibly shaky story and a picture of a clearly real marker. The Oregon Historical Society says nineteen died.

In any case, it was more than ten. The bit in the lead giving this one credit for deadliest should be removed, amended or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like your typical mass shooting, more like the territorial disputes between Indians and settlers that was back in the day. I think it's more of an appropriate response to reword the sentence. Versus001 (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Deadliest in modern Oregon history", maybe? I think that's generally understood to meant "after the Indians". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where that says anything about shooting. It says slaughtered and massacred. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Self-correction: The first source talks about gunshots. It also talks about arrows. No body counts by weapon type. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a "mass shooting" as we understand it. The witness quoted in the original article notes, among other things, "the Indians would come right up to the wagons, cut holes in the covers, and shoot their arrows in at the women and children" and "the Indians had a few guns and plenty of arrows." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You ever see a man "clubbed" or "stabbed" with an arrow? They're usually "shot". But even disqualifying those, it stands to reason that gunfire killed more than arrows did, just for being deadlier. Even half of nineteen is tied with this one. But yeah, details are sketchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hence my contextual use of "as we understand it"; and, as you note, "details are sketchy" invokes WP:SYNTH. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye. The sketchiness is what makes the other story dubious instead of plain debunked. Debunked stuff isn't worth a second thought. I didn't mean to sound like a dick above with "the quotes", by the way. Just sort of happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. Here's tae ye! (Not a Scot—well, maybe a wee bit—but "aye" got me looking up greetings. ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit Scottish, either. Just like the sound of that word. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this somewhat contemporary report talks of children burned alive, fatal tomahawk wounds, and heads "beaten into perfect jelly". So those five (at least) don't sound like "shooting" victims, anyway you define that. Still roughly 14 in a greyer zone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not using wiki voice for it, so this is moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. It wasn't moot when I brought it up, but that works. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Conceptually a mass shooting is done by "one or a few" people, I think. That's vague, but there's some kind of upper limit on the shooters - otherwise we would class some of the deadlier citywide riots as mass shootings. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd discount citywide stuff, just for the geographical scope and lack of a cohesive plan. But yeah, there is something wrong in ranking one guy's shooting against a group's, even if they're on the same page and the same place. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Motive: Anti-Christian sentiment" needs removed

It is not clear what religion or what the motivation the shooter had. The claim that it was just killing "Christians" (or "anti-Christian") is not established and further complicated by the fact that he told his victims, "I'll see you soon" which implies he believes going where they are in the afterlife. So clearly he is some sort of theist, who thinks he was going where the Christians go when they die.

According to another account, "It wasn't about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians." This account directly contradicts the "Anti-Christian sentiment" claim.

Thus, "anti-Christian sentiment" for the motivation needs removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGGGGGGG999999 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I took it out. The source only said he had anti-religious feelings - and also said he had white supremacist feelings. It didn't claim to know these feelings were the reason for the shooting. Somebody can be a die-hard liberal but that doesn't mean he shot his wife's lover because the man was a conservative. Also, the story credits law enforcement sources with that opinion, and doesn't say it in the newspaper's own "voice", which we could explain in text but not in an infobox. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove or qualify final line in "Reactions" section.

The final line of the wiki currently states "According to the BBC, the incident was the 45th U.S. school shooting of 2015 and the 142nd school shooting since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[52]" I suggest removing said line as the BBC cited the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety which is notorious for pushing false information. Politifact has previously assigned a "Mostly False" rating to their school shooting list. If the line is not removed then it should be noted that the source is a questionable special interest group. -mstngs351 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstngs351 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the BBC's use of "routine US gun violence" should be considered carefully. Anyway, Everytown is obvious conservative propaganda and attempts to play on readers' emotions. The line should be removed and hopefully replaced by other statistics, but it's alright if that's not possible. Coco Chen (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Map

Hello ! I made a map of the Umpqua Community College. I can't put her in the article because I'm from the french-speaking wikpedia and the page is protected. If you're interested...

the map

Tubezlob (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest and effort. Via the coordinates, two clicks take the reader to a map that (1) is interactive (zoomable and pannable), (2) provides more detail including a pointer to Snyder Hall, and (3) if Google Maps is chosen for the second click, provides easy access to the Google Earth and Street View displays. I don't think this would add much reader value, certainly not enough to justify the space occupied by it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The text is different when posted to other sites

I posted the URL of this article to my Facebook feed. When the preview came up the text was different from the article. It stated that at least 15 people were dead and 20 injured. Nowhere in the article itself does it say that. Is there a different source of text used for the previews? 66.214.228.176 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The best I can say is that you somehow posted the URL to an older version of the article. Versus001 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

More likely is that Facebook is reading the preview from it's cache rather than from the live version of the article. Other than posting the url to the current revision (click "permanent link" in the bar on the left) I don't think there is anything you can do about that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender

I have just added a little segment that briefly highlights how masculinity contributes to mass shootings. I understand that the inclusion might be controversial for some and that the paragraph as is might require some extra work to be acceptable for others. Please suggest improvements here. Darth Viller (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia, this entire passage is a WP:SYNTH issue and is almost entirely peripheral to the event. I'm going to remove it in its entirety for now per SYNTH but, but all means, discuss. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts, though I can understand that people may have issues with the phrasing. But I won't edit it back in. Here's the content with a few minor updates:

Stacy Teicher Khadaroo and Patrik Johnsson at the ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' single out toxic [[masculinity]] as an underrepresented theme in the national conversation. Psychological science professor Christopher Kilmartin, noting that nearly all mass shooters are men, is quoted by them as saying: "In this case, it sounds like he was blaming Christians for his problems, but the masculinity piece is what is really missing in the discussions about the equation." Sociologist Tristan Bridges added that perpetrators of mass shootings often conform excessively to dominant standards of masculinity despite these same men feeling emasculated. The authors also include comment from Peter Langman who says that violence can be perceived as status-enhancing for powerless males. Officials said Harper-Mencer was linked to a loose affiliation of "[[Alpha (ethology)#Beta_and_omega|beta]] boys" ("beta" is a common word in [[Red_pill_and_blue_pill#Other_uses|Red Pill]] circles) who were disenchanted about their social life.<ref name="Christian Science Monitor 2 October 2015">{{cite web | title= Many school shooters, one common factor: a warped view of masculinity|url= http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1002/Many-school-shooters-one-common-factor-a-warped-view-of-masculinity| author=Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, Patrik Johnsson|date= 2 October 2015 | website= [[Christian Science Monitor]] | accessdate= 3 October 2015}}</ref>

Every sentence clearly attributes who made what claim. There aren't any implications in the above text that build on these statements but aren't present in them. Synthesis is only used for grammatical reference and at one spot I added the name USA Today used that wasn't in the text.

I also disagree that the topic is tangential. At least these verifiable experts and the others quoted in the CSM article think it is relevant to the discussion of mass shootings. Surely their expertise counts for the topic being notable enough for inclusion? Darth Viller (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean, the article itself has the massacre as its subject. I don't see how that's peripheral. Darth Viller (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Underrepresented theme in the national conversation" sounds like a nice way of saying fringe theory to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it does to you, but it isn't much in the way of substantial comment. The article and the proposed paragraph include a fair number of social scientists. Do you have evidence they're fringe? Why make that comment then? Darth Viller (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

None of them are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, evidently, and all have books for sale in the particular niches of masculinity and school shooting. Seems like namedropping and piggybacking, more than attributing, but again, that observation is probably as insubstantial as the first. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning social science about masculinity and shootings as fringe? Darth Viller (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that way, or the articles about it wouldn't talk about how nobody's talking about it. It's even the trademarked slogan of The Good Men Project. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

... if—and only if—this were an article on mass shootings in general. It is not; it is about a single event. To include any commentary on what may (or may not) have been a motivational factor is synthesis within the confines of an encyclopedia. Firstly, WP:OR demands that no addition "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The paragraph above is in fact an analysis of mass shootings in general that, again, may or may not apply to the article subject. Second, the policy requires "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" (emphasis per the policy page). The paragraph above, which only peripherally refers to this event as part of that general analysis, fails both criteria. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't say the gender dynamics are same as the shooter's motive and neither does the proposed paragraph. Professor Kilmartin is represented as explicitly distinguishing between the underlying sociological dynamics and a potential motive.

I don't get your first point. The line about WP:OR is specifically about original conclusions, but that element is lacking in your analysis of the paragraph. It would seem to me that that means the paragraph comforms to that aspect of WP:OR. The quote for your second quote requires that the source(s) relate(s) to the topic (it definitely does) and that the materials represent the sources accurately (I think they do and have seen no argument that contests that with particular examples).

So it appears to me that the paragraph passes both criteria, with flying colours even.

Note I will indent the paragraph to give it some clearer formatting. Darth Viller (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it may or may not have anything to do with the shooter's motive, why should it be included? You said yourself that it's merely a general point. It has no direct relation to the article. Feel free to find a better place for it, perhaps in a suggested "Beta Uprising" article, or on School shooting. I don't necessarily agree with the information being included anywhere, but as long as it's on a suitable page, I wouldn't contest it. Coco Chen (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Coco Chen is exactly correct, and is the element your analysis of my analysis is lacking: unless this speculation were somehow to become fact—that is, what is now mere guesswork (however much educated) instead conclusively adheres to this shooter in this event—as opposed to, in essence, "he might fit this pattern"—it fails encyclopedic policy. In other words (as I struggle for clarity), the OR/SYNTH issue is: inclusion implies to the reader that this is the conclusion to draw, while devoid of actual fact, with respect to this shooter. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

After any mass shooting, it is routine for media talking heads - who have usually never met the shooter or heard of him prior to the incident - to speculate about why he did it. The material reverted in this edit falls into this category. Theories about motives should wait until an investigation is complete.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph was in "Reactions" and as such comprises the CSM authors' and several social scientists' reactions to the specific event. What they said is established knowledge about gender dynamics, not really speculation about the shooter's specific motives. Darth Viller (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That does not mitigate its inherent problems within the context of an encyclopedia. The existing reactions are factual (Obama's political commentary notwithstanding) and solely specific to the event. The paragraph as written was entirely speculative and almost entirely peripheral. (It poses and speculates on the question, "Why do you think they do it?") This constitutes WP:OR and violates WP:SOAPBOX. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of the 4chan thread remains to be proved - I don't know how long it will take - nor is it clear the shooter actually subscribed to the ideas current in that forum - but it has led to some sourced discussion like [11] that this is tied to the "Beta Uprising" meme, essentially the notion that the Sexual Revolution has led to a de facto polygamy, which (as in other species) results in violent confrontations between males. There is actually substantial room for nuanced discussion of the ideological basis of these crimes, but the data is so unreliable right now that it seems like a near waste of time not to wait a bit. However, @Darth Viller: it may be worth your time to consider starting an article on Beta Uprising, where this data is relevant now regardless of its connection to murder; the sources available seem thin but sufficient for an article. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Klobfour insists on putting quotation marks around the single word of hero as he/she did here, but WP:MOSQUOTE states that a "direct quotation should not be used in an attempt to preserve the formatting preferred by an external publisher, especially when the material would otherwise be unchanged". Is that correct? Versus001 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like Klobfour is acting on a petty bias, almost patronizing. But you already know edit warring is not a solution (thank you for opening a discussion on the talk page). Anyway, I don't think it should be quoted. If it is not reasonably resolved here, feel free to raise a concern on WP:ANI. Although, given your recent history with edit warring on this article, be prepared to take some of the responsibility. Coco Chen (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I look at it like this. If the quotes are omitted, will that be ambiguous? Will a reader suspect that the word "hero" is our paraphrasing of what the parents said? I don't think so. I think the reader will understand that the parents used that word. So I don't see any need for the quotes. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

reaction section: Forget the zeroes and remember the heroes.

Perhaps for the reactions section:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html
• http://www.kval.com/news/local/Forget-Oregons-gunman-trends-Chris-Mintz-hero-not-zero-330452361.html

Hero not zero naming:

• http://www.wusa9.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/naming-shooters-in-mass-killings/73205970/
• http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/376494/why-its-important-to-name-the-shooter/
• http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/thoughts-naming-oregon-school-shooter/nnsYg/
• http://fox40.com/2015/10/02/oregon-sheriff-who-will-never-say-shooters-name-is-no-fan-of-gun-control/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Words of wisdom. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

Both AMERIXANPSYCHO and Versus001 are involved in an edit war. I've warned both users. Hopefully they'll stop before an admin gets involved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I will stop editing- though I was right- the current count is up to 13 and will be confirmed as 15+ soon. AMERIXANPSYCHO

It is pretty clear there is some sort of agenda involved with those edits. The more recent reports are all agreeing on between seven to ten dead, but AMERIXANPSYCHO seems to think all of this is coming from CNN, which he/she doesn't seem to trust, even though many other reports are agreeing on that number. Also, he/she has been using an early Reuters report and nothing else for his/her reasoning. Versus001 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks here regarding "agenda." Stick to the sources and the revert rule.--JumpLike23 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no "agenda", you conspiracy theorist. I just believe other more current news reports...such as ...not just Reuters AMERIXANPSYCHO

References

I'm an admin. Folks please keep the conversation civil. I need to get up to speed on the situation but I don't see a need for protection at the moment. Ping me if this changes. Valfontis (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but consistency with the reports is always necessitated. 15 had been disproved as a number and replaced with 7-10 at the time, yet you didn't seem to listen and kept insisting it was 15. But I guess we were both wrong and it turned out to be 13. Versus001 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have the highest reported number (i.e. "as many as...") but this isnt a news site anyway, so it can wait until sources are more solid. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's acceptable in these cases to write something like "according to ____ there are 13 confirmed deaths[1] with some sources reporting the number of deaths is as high as ___[2]..." We just have to be careful to avoid weasel wording. Valfontis (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If multiple high-profile reliable mainstream sources are currently reporting different numbers, then we need to report both using some phrasing like that, yeah, although I'd also think we should try to focus primarily on the most recent reports (which are more likely to be accurate than the very early ones.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be up-to-the-minute on anything anyway. I'd suggest choosing a number that has about 99% confidence, like "at least 10", and leaving it like that until all major news sources agree on the count. See WP:NOTNEWS. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we should still try to be as accurate as we can about the things we do say. Right now the first sentence says "twelve people" and cites it to multiple sources that say "thirteen people" right in the headline, which is definitely wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's what happens when we try to be news. Stop doing that, stop playing Tom Brokaw, and the problem disappears. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should just... not say anything at all? Carefully word the article to avoid the number of casualties, which is in the headlines of most sources? I can understand avoiding details, but we have to update very basic information like the number of deaths based on most recent reports. Read WP:RECENTISM; it isn't always a bad thing. Covering very basic details quickly is meant to be one of Wikipedia's advantages. --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, you're still edit-warring with people. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

About what? Can you please be specific? Versus001 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That category- you keep undoing others' edits. Could you at least bring it to the talk page so we can have a forum about it? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, you're edit-warring again. Please use the talk page to arrive at a consensus instead of riding roughshod over other users. I won't give a specific example as your edit warring has been across all topics on this page and can be reviewed easily. Klobfour (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, Once again you're edit warring. I'm sorry but this isn't your personal article. Please use the talk page to arrive at a consensus on the article. Klobfour (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

*facepalm* Versus001 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Klobfour: If you can't see that you were also edit warring, you don't understand the term. Please see WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it takes two to tango of course. However, Versus001 has treated this page as his/her personal fiefdom since its creation. He/she has made no attempt to discuss the article and instead simply deletes others' contributions Klobfour (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's true, the solution is not to edit war in response, but to use the article talk page as it is intended to be used. Try to get consensus for your view; if you are unable to do so, accept it and move on. Another editor's misbehavior is not a defense for yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps seeing as every entry in this edit war section names Versus001, and he/she has made no attempt to arrive at a consensus, an admin could have stepped in? Klobfour (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit my mistakes in not going to the talk page to resolve edit-wars, but not once have I seen this article as my personal kingdom (I could have undone every single edit across the board and did whatever I pleased otherwise). That is a pretty misguided accusation you're making right there. Also, I'll repeat: my misbehavior is not a defense for yours. Versus001 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)