Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Change Wikipedia policy concerning the information on and glorification of mass murders.

Would it be possible to change Wikipedia policy, making it against the rules to give more room on an article to a shooter than for each of the victims of a shooting? It seems counter to both common decency and wikipedia's mission to give these terrorists what they want. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooter becomes noteworthy due to his actions. The victims remain non-notable. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The victims are notable due to their actions. They died under a madman's crusade - that's enough in itself. Is it somehow more respectable, more manly perhaps, to go off on a shooting spree than to be shot? Both are actions - I see no particular merit in the first. In this case, however, some of the victims stood up when asked if they were Christians, and that is an immensely significant act in history. I don't think many people appreciate just how significant - there have been enough mass shootings covered where the killers targeted Christians that we can assume some of these people had some intimation of the risks involved. We tend think of someplace like Saudi Arabia as being more pious than America because, after dangling huge payoffs for the families, terrorists can recruit one person in ten thousand to die in their cause. But here a terrorist walks in and asks who wants to be a martyr and half the bloody class stands up. I don't know if they had anything like that in the Book of Maccabees. Do you have any idea what that means, in terms of what America is beneath its tarnish of crooked politicians?

No, I don't dream I can include this sort of OR essay in the article. But your notion that victims are non-notable is JUST as much your own thinking as this is mine, and it needs to be refuted. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In thematic relations, one is a patient and one is an agent. The agent is the one making the decision as to whether a notable event happens or doesn't. Replace the nine patients with nine random Oregonians, the story won't be much different (outside of their own circles). Replace the agent, you're very likely to have people going about their business as usual, in obscurity. That makes the active actor important. Not better. Just central. Fundamental. Crucial. Highly relevant. However you want to say it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Your philosophy assumes that the nine people would never amount to anything in their lives. But maybe one would. Might be curing cancer, might be serving as president... might be disturbing a butterfly. Doesn't matter, because the butterfly effect says that if you kick the past, in any way, the future becomes random. Substitute any of these people and you don't know what would happen. Now you may have a good counter to that argument, but it doesn't matter, because in Wikipedia notability depends on being mentioned in sources. Doesn't matter why - could be for stopping global warming or for turning up in a viral video. We only care whether sources are sufficient to document the topic. And of course, even notability is not required for something to be covered in an article; it only is a threshold for having a full separate article on the topic itself. So if we have RSes that talk about the victim, we can talk about the victim as much as they do, as long as we believe it's true. There's no law nor policy nor guideline that says that because they were a "patient" we have to leave stuff out. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they cold have been, it matters what they were, and they were regular college students who died. Not noteworthy enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlcrist (talk • contribs)

Essentially agree. Of course there will be differences when replacing the passive people (or even their shirts), but nothing near the drastic butterfly effect that including just one mass shooter in any group causes. At least not as it pertains to whatever particular school day. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question: Yes, it would be theoretically possible. The proper venue would be WP:VPP. But it would also be exceedingly unlikely to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

While including information about the shooter is important to the article, perhaps this could be balanced with information about one of the people wounded, Christ Mintz, who has been subsequently hailed as a hero in the news media. One example of this praise -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The guy who called him a hero is a cousin on his GoFundMe page. Not exactly impartial. ABC just quoted him. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would add only that, as a "living" encyclopedia, this article is hardly finished. Early reports will always focus on the shooter—ostensibly to ask and answer "why?"—and the bulk of early detail is focused as such. More details, as deemed encyclopedic, are surely forthcoming. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

CNN and Twitter are onboard, too. This guy's going to get some enduring coverage. A mention will make sense, if it's of what he did, rather than repeating the praise. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

He already has two sentences. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I really need to keep up. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus burned down the Temple of Artemis in 356 BC because he wanted his name to have lasting fame. If he was around today, a mass shooting might well have been his weapon of choice. The Greek authorities tried to ban all mention of his name, and this is similar to the response of Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin to this shooting, who said "I will not name the shooter. I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act."[1] However, Wikipedia is not censored and naming and giving some background details about the shooter is within the scope of the article. This argument has been raised before in response to mass shooting incidents and no doubt it will be raised again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ideally the name, image and other personal details of the shooter would be left out. They aren't particularly notable in an event though their actions are. ODMP.org manages to have a list and details of police officer Line-of-duty deaths without naming a single perpetrator. We could clinically describe the account without creating these heroes. WP doesn't have to be part of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper-Mercer is on the front pages of three of the British newspapers today, which to some extent proves John Hanlin's point. The coverage is not as tasteless and controversial as the UK tabloid coverage of the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward which led to criticism. Harper-Mercer was born in Britain but the details remain scant. Hopefully this can be expanded at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not news. He's a gunman. He can fade away with time. That's preferable to having named martyrs for warped people. They seek fame and immortality as is evident from his writing. We can't control the media nut we don't have to play that game. Our BLP policy evolved to that and so should our coverage of these events. --DHeyward (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Over the past few months I have thought about this long and hard. I am British and have spent hours writing about mass shootings in the USA, and would hate to think that anything that I had written on Wikipedia might act as a source for giving ideas to people who wanted to do similar things. However, I don't believe that banning in the style of Herostratus would make much difference as the information would be widely available elsewhere. A ban might also backfire and generate even more publicity, in the same way as the British government's ill-fated ban on Gerry Adams and others from the airwaves in the 1980s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what he may have sought or wanted, he's dead now. He seeks nothing anymore and has no idea if people are talking about him. Only TV characters get to watch their own funeral. There's nothing particularly special about this school shooting that's going to inspire anything that hasn't already been inspired, if copycats actually do copy things at all. Very bland character, especially juxtaposed with the football soldier father survivor. That guy has famous role model potential. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly we should expand coverage of the victims - unfortunately we have User:WWGB taking out information, like this: [2] I don't know why some people are so insistent on making articles be unuseful as comprehensive resources about an event - why even cover an event if you plan to be second best at everything from the beginning? (I'll admit, I'm aggravated because he took out some of my text too) In this case though, it gives the impression that we think the shooter is "notable" and the victims aren't, and so only the shooter is allowed to be described as something more than a statistic! Wnt (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The assertion of "cousin" is stretching the truth. The fact of the matter is that "Carnes was the great-granddaughter of Merkley's first cousin". This is distant family and little more than tabloid space filler for a hack to maintain their daily quota of words. Wikipedia does not engage in such non-notable trivia just to "balance" the coverage of a victim. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should even do that. If their families seek public exposure, they can do it but these pathological killers feed on the impact. This quote by the killer was taken out, but profoundly states his motivation while talking about the reporters killed in August: "I have noticed that so many people like [Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight." The question is why does he know this? This week in city of Chicago, 12 people were killed[3]. That's 3 more than in Oregon yet we don't see it blasted 24/7. We certainly don't want to extend whatever conflict is present to other places. We don't want some kid in Los Angeles to shoot another kid as retribution for a killing in Chicago he learned about on the news that he identified with. The school shooters like the one in this article see meaning being added to the life and memory of the shooters. So I think the question that we, as editors, need to ask is: How much of this information is really beneficial? Things like age versus exact birthdate, for example. Normal people don't care and it's not relevant. Place of birth, childhood homes, etc, etc. We have that information but publishing it forever immortalize the gunman and only heightens the sense of their worth in the next shooters head. Flanagan praised the VT shooter and Columbine shooter. This guy praised Flanagan. How much is it worth to write about the events if every word ever so slightly increases the odds that someone will decide to exit this life with an immortal epitaph enshrined in Wikipedia? --DHeyward (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I put that quote in, and I'd love to see it restored. However, Wikipedia should not be moved by such concerns. There are news outlets that seek to entertain, which work for profit, that have a choice what to highlight and what to put on the back page; they run a dozen stories on people like this and not one about the people who made magnets out of copper or developed a way they think they can make tin have zero resistance. But Wikipedia has a different calling, which is to document what can be documented, to make the knowledge available. We should have faith in freedom and hope for the human intellect. There is a chance that all this detail will help someone decrease the odds of future attacks. Put such worries out of mind, and just collect the information. Wnt (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

News orgs become very involved in these types of murders. We aren't called to "document what can be documented." We should only include things that are of encyclopedic value. The press chooses what to hype but if we were truly "documenting" without bias, for every shooting victim, there is a suicide. But the news doesn't cover suicides unless there is a hook. One of the reasons they don't is because suicides do generate copycats. Privacy is another reason. Chicago, in a very small section of the city, produces an Oregon body count every week but again its not here and it's barely local news. There are lots of reasons for not covering urban violence but it doesn't fit narratives the press like to push. What we're left with is the firearm version of Missing white woman syndrome. And unfortunately, what we see is shooters finding motivation and fascination with artificial fame. The "detail" that we add is largely cruft. Flanagan, for example, bought the same make/model of firearm used by the South Carolina shooting. Lastly, these events trigger all sorts of special interests from gun control groups advocating stricter laws regarding ownership, to gun rights groups trying to expand carry authorizations to mental health interests seekin more money for treatment. Oddly, none of those groups advocate for stronger mental health checks (and mental health records are protected way more than other medical records). But back to this instance, detailed coverage of mass shootings just doesn't help and there is tangible evidence that it's harming. --DHeyward (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: An encyclopedia, by definition, strives to cover everything. It doesn't detract from encyclopedic value if you don't like the perp, or you think something is "cruft" (hell, have you seen how many articles we have on Pokemon, or how frequently we let people feature some video game on the front page without even getting ad revenue for it?). It doesn't detract from it that you think the information is harmful, because the whole idea of an encyclopedia is that those who believe in the idea think it's a good thing for a person to have access to all knowledge, no license or permit required. Oh, I know there are more important issues to think about, other issues, you can save more lives with basic gun safety precautions where kids are concerned, etc.; if you want to have that effect on Wikipedia then try to improve our documentation of something that you think is more helpful. But tearing down each others' work is no way to go forward. And we won't get far if we don't really believe in an encyclopedic ideal - believe that improved understanding of cases like this can do more good than harm. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Our BLP policy is built around excluding potentially harmful information and it includes things like hurting the subjects feelings. When information is harmful we always weigh encyclopedic value to harm. There are lots of facts for articles like these but very few really matter. Shooter's name for example. "John Doe" works fine and conveys all the information needed. His exact birthday versus just his age is another over detail. These are things the copycat anthropomorphizes as an immortal icon. The less we give, the shorter the personal histories, the least humanizing/identifying information we give, the better off we are given how these psycho's operate. We lose virtually nothing but cruft (think about it: the crime is not unsolved - what good is accomplished by retaining what amounts to a shrine? At least two shooters mentioned previous shooters. We keep information out all the time and it isn't a question of sourcing, it's based on the potential for harm weighed against encyclopedic value. Not every fact is encyclopedic and I'd argue cruft facts that attract the attention of psychopaths should be committed. As an example, we don't repeat doxing information even if it was in the Washington Post. It's rarely encyclopedic and the permanence of Wikipedia makes it a bad idea. In a month, when the next troubled person googles the Oregon shooting, we will be hit #1. We shouldn't be the source that gives his life meaning by immortalizing a murderer. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. But for a long time, the media has been focusing more on the perpetrators and less on the victims and Wikipedia's information on these kinds of articles is dependent on what is being reported on, at least from what I've been seeing. If we're going to implement such changes, I think we need to address the root of the problem first, then. On a side-note, Wikipedia is NOT on a mission to defy common sense and give the perpetrators the credit they feel they deserve. Your accusations are not helping your argument, you know. Versus001 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Being a painfully slow reader, I'll confess to not having read all of this. But I'll say this much, current community consensus is clearly for including the perp's name, and there is no justification for a local override of community consensus on this, so this discussion violates WP:NOTFORUM. Interested parties should take it to an appropriate venue please. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This BBC News article takes a look at the issues involved. It says that "when it comes to copycat crimes, naming killers may be less important than the extent of the news coverage."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I took this to WP:Village pump (policy) as it's broader than this article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Late reply - in the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre a lot of commentators went on a fatuous crusade of creating moral panics over children who listen to music and play video games. The fact that the shooter was "conservative, republican" on a genuine dating profile should be included so that people don't go on moral panics against music, games, or liberal politics - but focus on guns or mental health.

• Note that all across Australia and the UK there are kids who have grievances, are single, have mental health issues, and have a desire to kill people - but there are no school shootings. -- Callinus (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In the US, too, these types vastly outnumber the shooters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Title should have year

To be consistent with other articles about like events, this should be renamed as "2015 Umpqua Community College Shooting" in order to have the year in the title.Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CONCISE, the year is included only when needed to disambiguate. Until there is another mass shooting incident at this school, the year is not needed in the title. See Category:University shootings in the United States. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To get here quickly there is even a UCC shooting redirect. Checkingfax (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Satan

Several sources, like this one have been claiming he dabbled in Satanism. Worth mentioning? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

NBC also referenced this aspect. Albeit not as in great detail as the aforementioned People magazine article.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The NBC article only quotes Harper-Mercer's comment about hell and "the devil." It reports nothing about Satanism and does not use that term.Parkwells (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't 1990. Satanism isn't scary anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Parents

The parents' names and their divorce when Harper-Mercer was 16 have been reported by RS. Why is that content being censored here? People are curious about his family, thinking that might point the way to understanding his issues - why did he do this? Parkwells (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

First, please understand that we don't include something simply because it is reported by RS. Then please explain how knowledge of his parents' names aids understanding of anything. I don't know about the divorce, that's a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are parents' names included in any article? They are basic facts of a person's life. A person does not spring from nothing. Most articles on shootings include information on where the perpetrator came from, including specifics about their families, education, etc.Parkwells (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In George Zimmerman's case, Wikipedia exquisitely details his parent's names, and the fact his mother is Latin American and his grand parents black.
In this case, where the murderer's mother is black, this fact is censored out.
Los Angeles times: "hyper-protective black mother"
So it goes in Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said, so it goes. Articles are not consistent on everything, and things very often don't go the way you want them to. Therefore Wikipedia is a community of corrupt imbeciles. Thank you for that unique insight. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail also reads that the mother is:
"An African-American lady".
Someone like you in Wikipedia just deleted this reference. Nice job censoring out! XavierItzm (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The data and its accompanying Daily Mail reference failed WP:RS; a neighbor called his mother an "African-American lady", which hardly stands up as evidence of heritage, and there was no mention of the father whatsoever, never mind his race. Personally, I'd have no problem with "hyper-protective black mother" as per the LA Times, as long as there's no unencyclopedic linger.

I'm the one who reverted the Daily Mail edit. If by "someone like you in Wikipedia" you mean someone who recognizes what Wikipedia is—and, more to the point, what it is not—you would be correct. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can see your point with regard to the Daily Mail, even if I do not concur. the LA Times reference just got deleted twice under different contexts. Two-teaming? XavierItzm (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this entire section and the one above? Versus001 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Two-teaming, no; writing an encyclopedia, yes. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your edit and I thank you. Fair and square citation. XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged. Happy editing! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Classroom 15

To answer the question posed by WWGB, that's how it's identified by The New York Times, so that's how I styled it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

social media sources (phrasing)

The perpetrator section currently reads in part, "Harper-Mercer self-identified as mixed race on social media.[42][43] According to the Los Angeles Times, those sources claimed he was a "hate-filled" man with antireligion and white supremacist leanings, and with long-term mental health issues.[44]". It took me a couple of readings to realised that "those sources" was referring to his posts/accounts on social media (at least I presume so). Is there a better way we can phrase this to be more explicit about which sources are being referred to without being repetitive? (I've failed to come up with something better than what's there, otherwise I would just have changed it). Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone found anything more on the highly dubious white supremacist stuff? Revert anyone who removes anonymous mention

This supposed "information" comes exclusively from an anonymous source from the LA times. Usually absurd claims like this take some serious evidence to back it up. How come we aren't hearing it directly from the police investigating it?07:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like I'm gonna have to redirect you here, because this discussion is talking about the same thing. Versus001 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not even remotely close. What you linked is someone mentioning ironcross, which has nothing demonstrable link to do with any kind of white supremacy. He could call himself the thenewhitler and it still would be meaningless without any ACTUAL link to white supremacy. It would be a link to neo-nazism, anyway, not "white supremacy". Whatzinaname (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What? I clicked on the link and it goes to where I wanted you to go. For the record, the section is called "'White Supremacist' - nonsense". Versus001 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of my edit confused you. Be specific. Whatzinaname (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You somehow being redirected to a different section of the talk page than what my link provided. Versus001 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic but that actually has been happening to me lately. Not sure the cause, but sometimes when I click talk links, they go to another section entirely. Coco Chen (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

overexcited edits, per WP:NPA--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cute. (BTW, the cited source says no such thing anymore ...) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I have a life and don't want to waste it edit warring with blatant POV pushing. Do explain quite clearly why you removed the cite that the supposed "white supremacy leanings" are from an anonymous federal source. Anonymous sources, especially ones with manifestly incredible claims, should always be demarcated by such at wikipedia Whatzinaname (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC) And I'm afraid it does still say that that la times source is anonymous. "The Los Angeles Times reported Friday, based on information from an anonymous federal law enforcement source familiar with the investigation, that the shooter was obsessed with guns and religion and had white supremacist leanings." try reading with your eyes open net time, perhaps? ...You are reading what's being said, are you? Versus001 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC) You again... posting irrelevant stuff again... what a shokWhatzinaname (talk)

Names of the victims

The names of the victims should be in the infobox above the perpetrators name. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no such provision for a victim list in a civilian attack infobox. (How big would the 9/11 victim list be?) WWGB (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sentiment, where applied with some logic. This, however, is an argument for the policy page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The absurdity of listing victims of mass murder is not in the inclusion of their names in a wikipedia page, but in their murders in the first place. The names of the victims are not only notable, but are far more notable than that of the shooter. Not listing the victim's name would be like not mentioning Lincoln's name in the article about his assasination. This event is notable because of who was killed, not because of who did the killing. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that nine college folk who took a bullet are as notable as Abe Lincoln? The shooter is getting all the headlines, not the victims, due to self-imposed notoriety. You really need to take some time out to reconsider how society, and encyclopedias, actually work. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does this page exist at all if it is not notable when nine people are murdered in a public school? It is not Wikipedia's job to glorify the actions of terrorists, that is your job on your own time. If the victims are the part that aren't notable, then their names should be deleted from this article altogether. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me you need to be reviewed on Wikipedia's policy, because this is the norm for all mass murder articles. Also, please, go to the policy page if you feel strongly about this topic. And you're making some pretty strong accusations if you think other users are "glorifying" the shooter on purpose. As if the majority of users on Wikipedia root for the mass murderers. :( Versus001 (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have brought my concerns to policy page as was previously requested of me. I want it to be made clear to me where it says in Wikipedia policy that shooters are to be given more room in an article than the victims of the shooter's crime. It seems to me that this event is notable because it is a school shooting and that the victims were students, not because of any quality which the shooter possessed. Virtually all mass shootings which occur go unrecorded on wikipedia due to their nature of not being school shootings. This event is notable because if the victims, not because of the shooter.

I do not appreciate being attacked for defending my position that the shooter should not be glorified. Glorification of the shooter should not occur regardless of whether you intend to glorify or not. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"It is not Wikipedia's job to glorify the actions of terrorists, that is your job on your own time." Who doesn't appreciate what, now? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED says that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

"Virtually all mass shootings which occur go unrecorded on wikipedia due to their nature of not being school shootings." Let me redirect you to here. School shootings are only a section of mass murders that are recorded by Wikipedia, many of which have articles of their own.

As for you being attacked, if you're talking about what I said ("Something tells me you need to be reviewed on Wikipedia's policy, because this is the norm for all mass murder articles"), then I didn't mean it as an attack. At least, not intentionally. In fact, I have stated many times before that I agree with the notion that we need to give more attention to the victims where it's due. But implementing such a policy will take time, a lot of time probably, and for now, you're going to have to abide by the current guidelines in place until some sort of change is made. Versus001 (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The policy you seek is WP:DUE. Please read it. Reliable sources give more attention and coverage to the perpetrator, so we do too. It's that simple. You may not like it, but that's the policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

While I concur, that sadly is something that is not on Wikipedia's policy. ATinySliver's got it right, you need to go to the policy page if you want such an edit to get through. The talk page isn't the place to discuss this kind of topic. Versus001 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found several articles from mainstream media which discuss, exclusively, the victims of the shootings.

References

It seems to be that plenty of reliable sources have given much time and effort on reporting exclusively on the identities of the victims without mentioning the shooter, as it appears that this is very notable to the shooting. I would be happy to provide this page with more reliable sources detailing the identities of the victims. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your belligerent "fuck policy" is this close to a belligerent "fuck you". The editors are human and do not necessarily disagree with you. The policy governs what is or is not encyclopedic. You're going to end up ignored at best and blocked at worst if you continue to SOAPBOX here instead of making a reasoned, civil argument (absent the assumptions that we somehow are acting in bad faith) at the policy page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, we'd have implemented those a long time ago if policy didn't dictate otherwise. Also, I will have to add that while the shooter doesn't deserve the credit he's being given, both on Wikipedia and any other news source in general, it is still Wikipedia's job as an informative encyclopedia to at least give a basic overview of who the shooter is and why he did what he did. Versus001 (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between a reliable source noting people did things and one noting people did notable things. Alcaraz wanted to be a nurse. Anspach had something to do with emergency services. Carnes liked the outdoors. And so on.

In contrast, Harper-Mercer did something that made all the articles you linked above exist at all. If Levine was named Smith and loved darts instead of fly fishing, we'd still hear about it, because of the guy who killed him, not because he didn't publish any novels. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So just so I'm clear, this article is notable because of who the shooter was and not because of what the shooter did? Should this article be renamed if it's about the shooter and not the shooting? 174.16.197.18 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's about what he did. He was nobody till then. Now he's just a slightly more notable nobody than his victims. He can't have his own article, because he's notable for one event. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You are misreading what's being said. This article is notable of what the shooter did. There's just a section dedicated to explaining his personal life and his motives because it serves to inform who he was and why he did it. The other sections serve their own purposes, and they all add up to an informative article about the shooting. Versus001 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why he did it, and if it's like the other thousand or so, it never will. But yeah, lets readers make their own somewhat educated guess. There's not much mystery as to why people go to school on weekdays, so less need be said to allow readers that same guess about the victims. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd twist not being reported

See: http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/here-is-the-oregon-shooters-profile.html/ 108.46.17.166 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)BG

Not sure that this blog is the best source.Parkwells (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the pamelageller blog clearly makes the point about a possible muslim related motivation.

self-published sources are not reliable, and Pamela Geller is not an exception to the self-published rule. -- Callinus (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

She also doesn't try to answer her headline question, even with a no. She does say his online presence "frankly give little to no insight into motive." That's the clear part. No clue what "thant" is supposed to mean. Thanatos? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "thant" is a typo for "that". Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, but I think someone should blogvestigate Geller's possible links to the darkside, just to be sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or wait, someone has. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooter's name should not be mentioned whatsoever

How can this be any clearer than it already is? 174.16.197.18 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The perpetrator's name is always mentioned, per Wikipedia policies including WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree on principle, but Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSOR. BananaBork (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As much as I agree with that, unfortunately, to implement that also means a major overhaul of all other articles detailing a mass murder. Versus001 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@174.16.197.18: The nice part about running an encyclopedia is that we can just document the facts neutrally. We don't go out of our way to stick it to the subject of the article, nor to bend over backwards to give him what he wants, whether he's a good subject or a bad subject. Sure, I wish we could give the article a soundtrack but there would be copyright issues, among other policy objections. :)

That said, Wikipedia isn't entirely a passive consumer of news, and you do have a way to have a say. We're not going to omit a topic like this (nor the name of the criminal), but you can see to it that we balance that out with better coverage of non-criminal people. Pick a saint, pick a famous scientist, pick a Fortune 2000 company or a species in the rose family, and make an article, get a DYK, go for Featured status. We don't carve away at our data to spite people but we certainly can direct our priorities in building it up to reflect what we think is more important. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible, at least, to include a section (hopefully larger than that of the shooter) which is fully dedicated to each of the victims? It would see to violate WP:DUE to not give the victims their due. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That would really only be possible if each of the victims were encyclopaedically notable for some reason, and there was significant coverage of them in reliable sources. The long-standing consensus is that simply being the victim of a crime is not evidence of notability. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is info about the victims available.[4] I wouldn't be opposed to including more of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Victim lists is only an essay and I wouldn't cite it as authoritative, but it should be considered in any such discussion. Actually it opposes listing the names, never mind additional details. I don't have much of an opinion either way. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@174.16.197.18: you might have something after all. Policies have to be made. An opinion could be that mass shooters are not encyclopaedically notable, "up to their names". Being the perpetrator of a crime should not be an evidence of notability, particularly if not even a criminal by trade ( for your own benefit). Mass shooters as well as anonymous supporters of international terrorism. --Askedonty (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I personally wouldn't feel frustrated if I had to check the source in order to read about the guy's name. What's important is that the article remains well written and well documented. We would be keeping much less of those useless childish claims "I'm dead but I wrote this", in the middle of encyclopedic reporting that way. That would read instead, "The guy wrote this ( he's dead)".

Versus001, I'm not going to revert this edit, but someone will. It's entirely peripheral to the event itself and would go instead on an article discussing the practice. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to add it to a general article about mass shootings, under its own section (like "causes") and then link from this article to that section in a short sentence. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

For instance, per ATS's and BB's suggestion, this would seem a fairly appropriate place. Darth Viller (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it from the main text into a note. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I have tweaked the grammar in that content, but it's a RS dealing with the practice in connection with this shooting, so it should stay. That doesn't mean it couldn't also be used elsewhere. In fact, that's a good idea.

I now see that it's been shortened and moved to the references. That seems to work fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I had to rewrite it a bit per COPYVIO—the phrasing was way too close to the source. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said in the edit summary, I wasn't too sure about the edit myself. But thanks, everyone, for making the necessary changes to it! :D Versus001 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct source on the weapons policy of Umpqua Community College

This citation is a direct source. College President Rita Calvin is being quoted by a Los Angeles Times reporter. Here is the article:

"Campus' no-guns policy applies to security guards too The attack on Umpqua Community College was both a "tragedy and an anomaly," college President Rita Calvin said.

"I feel awful. To witness the families that were waiting for the students in the last bus and to see all of the hugs and weeping and trauma that has gone on," Calvin told reporters. "More people were hurt than just the ones that were shot."

Calvin said that the school was not aware of any threatening messages the shooter may have left on social media in recent days, and that no threats had been made against the campus recently.

The campus employs at least one security officer, and several faculty members are retired law enforcement personnel, according to the college.

But none of them are allowed to be armed.

"We have a no-guns-on-campus policy," Calvin said.

--James Queally (Los Angeles Times Reporter)

Actual cite: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html?update=84576010

Many articles from mainstream news are including the quote, the gun-free zone status seems relevant to them, I finally tracked it down to the original reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Bennett (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And finally, the Oregon State Attorney General has weighed in about Umpqua's status as a gun-free zone: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2015/10/01/oregon-attorney-general-brian-williams-gun-laws-not-relevant-mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Bennett (talk • contribs)

David: please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity is relevant

Given that RS news sources have reported both that Harper-Mercer had white supremacist materials/posting and that he is mixed race, it seems relevant to include ethnic information about him and his parents as content in this article. Why are people censoring that information, which has been reported by more than one RS?Parkwells (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you failed to sign, I'll assume you're Parkwells based on your false claim of censorship. I believe we still state that he was mixed race, and that is all that is necessary. The specific races involved are not relevant. If you continue to assert censorship, I suspect people will simply start ignoring you. I know I will. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right; censorship was the wrong word to use; I wrote it too fast. But I do find your editing choices odd compared to numerous other articles I've read in Wikipedia that report in considerable detail about perpetrators and their families, including ethnicity. "Mixed race" is a term that can apply to numerous combinations of ancestry; given that the perpetrator was reported as promoting white supremacy, his parents' ethnicities seem relevant.Parkwells (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The "mixed race" sentence has now been cleansed out entirely under the pretense that this is because it did not come from authorities, which is true; however, we have
(1)Daily Mail (UK): a neighbour stating that the mother is a black nurse and we have
(2)Reuters): the murderer self identifying as "mixed race" in social media
These facts reported by WP:RS are blanked out but the article persists on several quotations from neighbours, witnesses, and from media and statements posted by the murdered himself (!)
So: inconvenient facts, we'll find any reason to censor out. Anything else, by the same standards we'll include. Interesting the things you see on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There really is no reason an encyclopedia should use The Daily Mail for anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is (at least) the second time this editor has accused me of having "cleansed" an article. This says far more about XavierItzm than it does me. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, would you please state the basis for your claim that the specific races involved "are not relevant." Also please state exactly to whom you think this fact is irrelevant.Snarfblaat (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Snarfblaat: If reliable published sources have attached "significant significance" to the specific races (i.e., that he was black/white versus Hispanic/white, Asian/white, or Smurf/white), I've missed it. Have they said the particular mix had anything to do with the shooting? Absent that, asserting relevance to that would be WP:SYN, a violation of Wikipedia policy. I can't answer your last question since relevance is not "to" anyone. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

An editor suddenly posted an in use template to essentially stop editing from all other editors. There have been some heated discussions on the talk page. This action does not really seem appropriate and is not doing the article or wikipedia any good. Please review this situation. Thanks --Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted this because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and this template should be used very sparingly. This article still has a high edit rate several days after the shooting, so other people should be able to edit it as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur, even if used this was a bad time to use it, when multiple active editors would be expected to just go away for some unspecified amount of time. I have canceled the admin request. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bolding

Is it okay to do it with the shooter's name? Every other article has been doing it. Versus001 (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no clear pattern; some such articles do, some don't. Just one editor's opinion but, since this is not the perp's article—and therefore not a biography—I'd say no if it came to a !vote. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

While no issue is too minor to be discussed, I think I'd sit out that !vote. I used to be obsessed with inter-article consistency. I got over it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:R#PLA, the name of a person other than the subject is bolded when that person has a redirect page pointed at the subject page. For example, if Bill Smith (clown) is redirected to ANOTHERARTICLE, then Bill Smith's name is bolded in ANOTHERARTICLE (which is the "landing page" of the redirect). WWGB (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris Harper Mercer and Christopher Harper-Mercer currently redirect to this article's Perpetrator section. I feel they should redirect to the article instead, for context, but they currently do not so R#PLA would seem to apply here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with A</spanTinySliver>. I see no need to bold the name of a person when they are written about within the section. Other people are written about in sections of articles all the time. Why would the name be bold in this article, but not many others? Why are only the names of serial murderers being bolded in sections of some of the articles? If some editor thinks that person is worthy to have an article expressly about him, the person's name could be bolded at the beginning, I would certainly have no objection to that. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WWGB, R#PLA is not hard-and-fast. I'm more in line with BLP1E; specifically, "if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." However much the talking heads may jump on the potential driving forces behind CHM and his ilk and/or how to stop them in the future, he will never be known for another significant event. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's not hard and fast, the text states "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term". No-one here has suggested why it would not be appropriate in this case, other than not liking emphasis on killers. This is the landing page for Harper-Mercer, so there is no reason his name would not be bolded. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

... except BLP1E —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But...WP:R#PLA... Versus001 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Army-related content

[moved here after misplacement in the Asperger's thread] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The mention of his time in the Army is screwed up. For starters, you can not complete 5 weeks of Basic Training, it is 9 weeks and anything less is not completed. Next is the mention that he was kicked out for failing to comply with requirements, I believe admin related requirements. This article goes on to mention that after being kicked out of the Army before completing Basic Training that he attended a school for people with learning disabilities etc. My own personal experience in the Army would suggest that he recieved an Admin Discharge because he didn't meet the Army's requirement of either having a High School Diploma of GED. Some jobs in the Army, (specifically Combat Arms M.O.S. i.e. Infantry Artillery etc.) can obtain a waiver on that requirement but it is nearly impossible to obtain the waiver for any other M.O.S. so I believe that was the cause for his separation. Whether or not he was Mentally Disabled of Mental Disorder (how every you want to word it) is likely irrelevant but certainly wouldn't have made the Drill Instructors want to stand up and help him stay in. This guy was a mentally unstable person who failed to comply with standards of OUR ARMED FORCES and as such he shouldn't be listed as serving in the Army, he was a Candidate, nothing more and we shouldn't associate him with the Army at all, it is a disgrace to our Country and to all of our Armed Forces Veterans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tackleman24 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tackleman24: I agree the "completed" word is a little problematic. It previously said he "did" five weeks of basic training, which was not encyclopedic tone, and "completed" was the best alternative I could come up with. Beyond that, please be aware that:

• We don't edit based on our personal knowledge, known here as a type of original research.
• We don't edit based on patriotism.

If you would like to revise your comments taking those two points into account, perhaps we can improve the article in this area. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lack of completion is a point with which I agree. Change made. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that works. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Spacing between section titles and content

Bringing this here before it potentially gets out of hand...

Is this kind of spacing really necessary? I mean, I have read many, many, MANY articles on Wikipedia (month articles, war articles, serial killer articles, history articles, school articles, location articles, etc., etc.) and a vast majority of them do not have this kind of spacing. Is this something detailed in Wikipedia policy? I know this is supposed to be minor, but knowing me (I will confess, I obsess over even the most minor detail and compare formats to those of a majority of other articles I've read), I'm probably going to make it a major issue so I might as well bring this up right now. Also, I am aware this kind of spacing occurs a lot on talk pages, but I'm not sure why; it actually automatically does that from what I've observed. Versus001 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Have to admit BullRangifer's rationale seems a bit thin. What a software developer chose to do does not represent a community consensus. Also have to admit that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so your argument is equally thin. Me, I don't care one way or the other. I have never noticed whether that spacing was there or not, so it apparently doesn't affect my ease of editing. Someone just needs to decide to be the one to give. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Though really, the very spacing in a vast majority of articles across the board seems to imply something here. Versus001 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

From MOS:HEAD:

Equal signs are used to mark the enclosed text as a section heading: ==Title== for a primary section; ===Title=== for the next level (a subsection); and so on to the lowest-level subsection, with =====Title=====. (The highest heading level technically possible is =Title=; but do not use it in articles, because it is reserved for the automatically generated top-level heading at the top of the page containing the title of the whole article.) Spaces between the equal signs and the heading text are optional, and will not affect the way the heading is displayed. The heading must be typed on a separate line. Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window (but not two or more consecutive blank lines, which will add unnecessary visible white space in the rendered page). [Emphasis mine.]

Regardless, I will remind everyone, do not edit-war over it. If anyone—myself included—were to edit-war over a non-policy issue, sanctions could follow. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

SO...does the current version stay, or do the spaces have to come back? Not sure if you're telling us to stop now or after the next edit regarding the topic... Versus001 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying either; the MOS says it's optional, so whether they're there is really irrelevant. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your version is the status quo ante - that's how it was until today - so it stays until consensus is reached for change. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So you just reverted to his version, after I said your version stays until consensus is reached for change. You lost me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see your message by the time I decided to make this edit, alright? So which stays?! ATinySliver seems to think it should. Versus001 (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To me, ATS seems to think it doesn't matter one way or the other. I think, no, I know, that procedurally your version stays until consensus is reached for change. No spacing. We clear now? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you insist... Versus001 (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, you ask/claim "Why is it that every article I read on Wikipedia (LITERALLY every article) lacks this spacing?" Because that's not true? Yes, most lack that spacing, simply because when people write articles they don't usually use the "new section" tab, and they don't know that Wikipedia's default spacings make a difference to some editors. Since I had already explained clearly in my edit summary why I added them, your revert is really a bad faith action. It's uncollaborative. We should try to help each other and make editing here an easier and more pleasant experience. If you tried to compare editing a whole page which has spacing with a page which doesn't have it, you'd quickly discover that it's much easier to locate sections when there is spacing.

Regardless, I'm rather surprised that this ended up on an article talk page. ATinySliver was thoughtful enough to not make this an issue, but instead approached me privately on my talk page, where we had a very pleasant exchange of opinions. To me it's not a big deal, at least not big enough to edit war or fight over it. I don't go around reformatting every article I edit, but occasionally, if I'm editing an article for a while, I might do it, and I usually say why in my edit summary.

Now you know my opinion, and as far as I'm concerned, there is no need to discuss this any further here. Anyone is welcome to continue on my talk page if they wish. Do whatever you all want to do. It doesn't make that much of a difference to me. I'll survive, but will have to edit more slowly and carefully.

Poor indenting is another type of formatting problem which, like the above, negatively affects older and/or visually handicapped editors. A mistake made because of poor indenting is much more serious on a talk page, AfD, or RfC. There one can miss comments if they aren't indented differently than the comments immediately above and below them. The consequences of missing a comment can be anything from embarrassing to...well, let's not even go there! It's complicated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, the only time the "New Section" tab ever appears for me, personally, is on the talk pages of any article, user or otherwise. Nowhere else. Does that really appear on all articles? Because if it really does, I guess that changes the whole playing field, then, because my computer is apparently not updated enough. Versus001 (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! You're right, but your computer is fine. It's only on talk pages. Article creation and talk page participation are two different things, but the visual experience in the edit window is the same. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspberger's, Mental illness and Army discharge

A number of sources are discussing mental illness. LA Times [5] discusses his struggle and discharge from the Army. The DailyMail says it was Asperger[6]. Any suggestion on how to add this? --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't jump at anything reported only by the Mail. When it comes to mental illness, I think we should err on the side of too little information; i.e., when in doubt, omit. I say let all of that percolate, no rush to print. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail should be blacklisted across Wikipedia. Then nobody would have to bother asking. The only valuable thing it can offer an enyclopedia is good pictures, and we can't legally use them. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding his Army discharge, he only made it to week 5 in Basic Training and more than likely received an Entry Level Separation which occurs more often than you think. Especially in the past few years of the build up, such as 2008 when he enlisted. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

His mental illness is now being discussed on most mainstream media outlets and warrants inclusion in the article. It appears he had some form of treatment but the specific illness or illnesses has not been detailed yet. This may link to his association with seemingly contradictory radical groups or figures, i.e. the IRA (Catholic Marxist separatists), white supremicism (his mother is black, he's mixed race), Lester Flannigan, Nazism, and Islamists (he purchased an ISIS flag shortly after the SS hat?, was friends with an Islamist, and uploaded Islamic videos on Kickass). Klobfour (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

lol. Liberals call Obama black but refuse to call this shooter black. So typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEC2:AD10:F8C6:CE5F:9B4C:5993 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental illness is a weasel word. If he was Autistic that should be mentioned but it would be irrelevant to the shooting. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest mental illness isn't a weasel word when he's been treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Also, austism isn't a mental illness either, it's disorder. Klobfour (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental illness is a vague word pretending to be specific. Mental illness could refer to any diagnosis and I've seen Autism referred to as such. Mental disorder is a disputed title for Autism too but at least the term is defined. Assuming mental illness means Autism is wrong. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 00:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Autism is, in no way, a mental illness nor a mental disorder. You are beyond incorrect to refer to it as such, Clr324. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I never said Autism was a mental disorder. In fact, my argument has always been that I'm not disordered, ill, or broken for being Autistic! The problem is though, Wikipedia enforces the phrase "mental disorder" to refer to Autism. There was one person who wanted to change this, look what happened to them. Outside of Wikipedia, I never refer to Autism in such a manner. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 03:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what Wikipedia (erroneously) refers to it as, it should never be called a mental disorder or illness by anyone. It's a neurological disorder. Big difference, obviously. Thank you for clarifying your view of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: My view point is that Autism and ADHD (both I have been diagnosed with) are disabled states, not disorders. I was shocked to hear someone assume that I think Autism is a disorder because I have literally written an essay about why I don't consider Autism and ADHD to be disorders. However, the people at WikiProject Medicine have made it clear that Wikipedia agrees with medical consensus. The DSM and ICD consider Autism to be a mental disorder and I wish Wikipedia didn't have that policy but they do. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 04:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a neurological disorder. Whether someone with said neurological disorder wants to consider it a disability is their personal choice. Wikipedia is inherently flawed for many reasons, so that some group of editors with a particular agenda choose to refer to ASDs as mental illness doesn't surprise me. There is a good reason why colleges and other institutions of learning do not accept Wikipedia as a reliable reference. Ironic, isn't it? The encyclopedia that demands reliable references isn't, itself, a reliable reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, this isn't the place. Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine with your complaints. I can't change anything. I wish I could but I can't. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the NYT made the reference to Asperberger's, I've added it. Although the reference from the Daily Mail mentioned by DHeyward would have been more than enough. I say both references should be included. XavierItzm (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Virgin reference

The current version says he was a virgin, but that's not stated by either ABC News or USA Today. The thing that comes closest is the "beta boys" mention, but that's still too much interpretation. Is anybody against removing? Darth Viller (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that should be removed. Zpeopleheart (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's been taken out. Darth Viller (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, we don't create content that way. We find the references, and here are just two of them, one with a longer quote we should actually use:

• ‘friendless and a virgin’
• "I am going to die friendless, girlfriendless, and a virgin."

Please restore and use the references. I have to run now, or I'd do it myself. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll put it back then and use People magazine for the reference, it seems to have been considered a RS on the noticeboard in the past. Darth Viller (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That said, the use of an anonymous source with very lurid contents doesn't give me confidence in its reliability. Luckily, CNN mentions it too. Darth Viller (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does CNN's paraphrase of an anonymous source feel luckier than People's direct, attributed (anoynmously alleged) quote from Mercer-Harper? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, it's from an unnamed source whose main point is how Harper-Mercer served Satan. Maybe he did, but without confirmation otherwise it's at least suspect. Darth Viller (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an alleged direct quote. Lies are usually vaguer than the truth. Regardless of Satan and the kookiness his name invokes in this day and age, "law enforcement source" and "source familiar with the investigation" seem equally credible (33%) as witnesses to me. CNN and People also seem about equal in their tendencies to publish bullshit. It's a toss-up, really, either is OK (but not great).

The Daily Mail shouldn't even be on Wikipedia's talk pages, of course. Even in the "pretty pictures" department, CNN is gaining on them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! To be fair to CNN, though, they're all gaining on TDM (if not having passed them already)—it's the reason I got the hell out of the business. (You know the TV anchor who got up and walked off set after yet another Kardashian "news" piece? I so felt his pain ...) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm strictly talking pictures here. Everyone is at least tied with the Mail for journalistic integrity, but they're still the kings of photography, at least in sheer numbers. Also great at search engine optimization. Before they took off, most online articles had one, mid-resolution picture, if any. Gotta give the devils their due. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, I thought the overall weirdness and heavy dose of opinion in People's source undercut its reliability, especially given past moral panics about alleged Satanism. But I must admit other media corroborate that part about his lack of relations well. I won't argue about CNN's pretty pictures, though. Darth Viller (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Family life

I had previously noted here with RS that Harper-Mercer's parents were divorced. Now I have to find the RS again. He lived with his mother, as people have noted with cites, and editors seem eager to include the content that she was highly protective. Why exclude that his parents were divorced? That was certainly covered in the case of Sandy Hook and other similar articles. It also seems relevant to add more on his mother's involvement with guns, as covered in the NY Times article today.Parkwells (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Some info on the divorce between the parents that was finalized in 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html?_r=0 http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/new_details_emerge_on_umpqua_c.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chris-harper-mercer-oregon-shooting-20151002-htmlstory.html Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, this is quite important. There are parallels with Adam Lanza's mother in keeping a large cache of guns in a house with single mother raising kid with mental health issues. -- Callinus (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Iron Cross

In the article, there's a line that says "Mercer had many online accounts, several under the name "Iron Cross 45", a reference to Nazi Germany." The Iron Cross has been around since the early 1800s, who's to say he didn't romanticize Imperial Germany or the Holy Roman Empire? It's a bit subjective to see German symbolism and immediately jump to Nazis without any other indications such as numerical codes 14 or 88. Drtanasinn (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

1945 is fairly clearly a well known year. Mashable makes the claim that there is a link (it may have been "edgy" rather than an expression of neo-nazi sympathy etc - teenagers often listen to goth music just to upset their parents) -- Callinus (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; while the Iron Cross is not exclusive to Nazism, the number 45 gives it that context (unless he meant .45 and not 1945). That being said, it's possible he had interest in WWII, but it is highly speculative to imply he had Nazi sympathies at this time, without further insight or forensic profiling. Tbessler (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, duh. (It's early). Is edginess worth mention? Drtanasinn (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drtanasinn: It was reported by Mashable as confirmed by the step sister. It would be good to leave that for 24 hours until more of the online profiles are verified. The phrase "ironcross45" was his email account and the name of his dating profile - the dating profile's listing of him as a "convesvative, republican" is more important because it goes against simplistic narratives. -- Callinus (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What simplistic narratives? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

Well he was 1. mixed-race, and 2. actively hostile toward organized religion, neither of which are traits stereotypically associated with conservative Republicans. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This language was seems more accurate: "An email address used by the man referenced an Iron Cross, a symbol often associated with Nazis and white supremacists."[7] I would add that it is a German military symbol. The language right now, clearly stating that is a reference to Nazi Germany, cannot be determined at this time, and Mashable is a questionable source for reporting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, not sure if it's the echo chamber or if it's based on plausible primary sources, but LA Times is now reporting him as a having "anti-government, anti-religion, white-supremacy leanings." - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html Tbessler (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH means that we should just go with what a decent source says - Mashable says it's "Nazi Germany" and that's a reasonable statement - note that ironcross45 at gmail was used to register a comment account on Mashable in 2011 - he may have become more "anti-government" after that. -- Callinus (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

German Empire supporters hate Nazism and fascism and most certainly wouldn't have 45 in their username. He is described as a neo-Nazi and being mixed-race doesn't change that. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

who in the world is a "german empire supporter". It's 2015, man. And what is this claim about being a neo-nazi? Ironcross itself is completely meaningless, and the number could represent anything.Whatzinaname (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear from the indentation and comment that Andrea Carter is referring to Drtanasinn's post where it was suggested that the iron cross may be romanticising Imperial Germany or the Holy Roman Empire. Andrea Carter is saying this is unlikely given the inclusion if 45. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"White Supremacist" - nonsense

Our political correct gun control freaks aren't wearing their thinking caps to day. The guy named as the killer is identifiable mixed race. His victims seem to be all White. In that light to claim he had "White Supremacist" (whatever that is supposed to mean), because a apparently new profile with his photos got ironcross45 as user name is not only far-fetched, it's incredibly stupid. --41.150.174.164 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The term white supremacist occurs once in the article, and not in wiki voice. We didn't invent the term in reference to this shooter, it appears in multiple reliable sources. I fear you're over-reacting. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

People of colour can be white supremacists. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is true, look at Clayton Bigsby, famed white supremacist who was black. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or famed Jewish anti-Semites Bobby Fischer, Henry Makow and Patrol 36. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with the shooting and is crufty, non-encyclopedic crap/ --DHeyward (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There were Jewish members of the Nazi Party. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in love with that content, but well more than half of what we say about his background is crufty, non-encyclopedic crap. Just read the Perpetrator section and tell me how much of that has something to do with the shooting. Leave it all or strip it all, I don't really care, but let's reach a consensus and be consistent. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of items that had nothing to do with anything, like his previous college and their time in Torrance. There's probably more that should go, too ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Heyyouoverthere, you can't use fictional examples from the Chappelle Show. DrTanasinn (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As said before, people of color can be white supremacists. The term "white supremacy" is still applicable because it's an ideology first linked to whites, with a large majority of its followers being obviously white. The fact that many other sources mention this indicates is notability in explaining his motives, at least. Versus001 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that beyond the normal stuff the police may have uncovered in their investigation, the police have access to his "manifesto". So while anonymous police sources as with all anonymous sources are not ideal, they may have a fair amount more understanding then we can hope to at this stage. Given FOI and similar laws in the US, I'm not sure how long his manifesto is going to be secret, unlike with Flannigan. Nil Einne (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Autoerotic Mummification:: I've reverted your edit for two reasons. One, your assertion that all nine victims are "white" based on their photographs is original research; two, we cannot say "despite A, B is true" in Wiki-voice in violation of WP:SYNTH. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pagan and agnostic victims killed

Kim Dietz was a member of a Pagan group - wildhunt.org

Cooper's mother, Janet Cooper, says "I am agnostic" described her dead son.

The assistant English professor, who was shot at point blank range, Larry, in a 2010 essay of Fly Fisherman, spokea bout learning Yiddish songs about the Sabbath - flyfisherman.com

There were people who did not answer that they were Christian who were killed. CNN has gotten some details wrong here. -- Callinus (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)