Talk:Uvalde school shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

He purchased the gun from an online dealer based in Black Creek, Georgia, called Daniel Defense. 141.165.226.130 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the story comes from The Daily Dot. It is at the end of the article:

In response to an inquiry sent via Instagram direct message, another person Ramos followed on Instagram says that they met him on Yubo, a live streaming platform for young people.

They sent the Daily Dot photos of their correspondence about a gun Ramos had recently purchased. They also requested anonymity.

“He was just telling me about some rifle he bought,” they said, “But in America I know how normal that is and I had no idea.”

The screen name he reportedly used there matches the screen name he used on Instagram.

In their correspondence, Ramos mentioned following them on Instagram.

The receipt he sent to them shows the purchase of a gun bought from Daniel Defense, a Georgia-based company that sells guns online.

Daniel Defense didn’t respond to an inquiry sent via the contact form on its website after business hours. It appears Daniel Defense ships weapons to registered dealers, which then finish the purchase.

Among other weapons, its website sells an AR-15 for $1,870 plus tax—the same amount and model number listed on the receipt Ramos reportedly sent via Yubo.

The Instagram user, who lives abroad, said that Ramos bought the rifle eight days ago.

According to screenshots of their correspondence, they told him that “guns are boring.”

“No,” Ramos replied.

References

Other tabloids are picking it up, but we should wait until a more reliable source picks it up and confirms it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Another source that is not just a reiteration of the first source [1]:

"The source reports that according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the suspect legally purchased two AR platform rifles at a local federal firearms licensee on two separate dates: May 17, 2022, and May 20, 2022. One of the rifles he had purchased was left in the crashed truck. The other rifle (a Daniel Defense) was located in the school with the suspect."

- Fuzheado | Talk 16:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

To add to this article: how the shooter was able to afford the weapons and ammunition (as well as where the purchased these items and how much they cost). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference issues

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AmerProspSystem" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FridayAbolit" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "PoliticoTrump" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "YalePunish" is not used in the content (see the help page).

I'm not sure what to do about these so can someone fix this error? The issues might of been caused from the refs being deleted.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 03:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Shooter barricaded himself inside

I keep hearing on the radio that the reason that police were slow to respond was that they believed he was barricaded inside but not an active shooter.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Vchimpanzee: - added in timeline. [2] starship.paint (exalt) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it relevant at all that initial reports said the shooter was in custody?

I think more sources beyond just ABC are confirming that the shooter is dead to begin with, instead of (alive) in custody. But is it relevant to mention that initially, several sources reported that he was in custody? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 21:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of misinformation swirling around about this event, and like with the recent Casey/Vicky White breaking news it seems like there are a few storylines and we'll find out the "real deal" in a few days as details come together - that being said, I think it's very important to include something about what "initial reports" said. NERUALSI (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it relevant to note. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that it is relevant to include what was initially reported, if possible. (Some articles have likely already been updated without being archived.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just confusion by sources covering a very fluid and evolving situation. There is no lasting relevance to some news getting this wrong in the first hour or so and then this getting copy pasted by other sources who just report what others say. If you look at this a year from now, it won't be in the article that some sources got something wrong in the first hour. --StellarNerd (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"If you look at this a year from now" is kinda what we are discussing. If there is enough of an agreement that it is relevant to include the initial reports, then it will be included in the short-term and likely will remain in the article a year from now. At the moment, I believe it is more relevant to include than to not include. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a big deal to include as long as it's only a (single) sentence and the word "initially" is included.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The article should have the current news tag warning thingy about it being an evolving story for this reason. AQBachler (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It does at the moment. I think the issue is that for each day that has passed, there have been more initial claims that have been retracted. As noted here, there have been a number of reported details that have changed. Some of the primary details that have fluctuated are: The report about the shooter being in custody instead of deceased, the report about the shooter being confronted prior to entering the school which didn't occur, the timeline from when the shooter crashed their vehicle to entering the school has gone from initially 11:28am to 11:40am to a corrected 11:28am to 11:33am, and the report that the suspect was wearing body armor. WP:RSBREAKING does say about waiting to add information to an article, but part of the problem is that the authorities in charge made more than one official announcement where false information was reported. This caused the initial articles of those announcements on Tuesday and Wednesday to report misinformation while believing it was the truth. I still think that we should mention what was initially reported and what was reported later on. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Number of deaths 22 or 21

There's conflicting information about the number of deaths in the article: the infobox says 22 direct, 1 indirect, while another section in the article mentions 19 students and 2 teachers killed. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to 21 as that's what I'm seeing in the sources. ––FormalDude talk 00:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it should say "22 (including the perpetrator)" Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, if he shot himself, but he was killed by police. ––FormalDude talk 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I see what's causing the confusion. It initially said "22 direct, 1 indirect (including the perpetrator)" and I believe the 1 indirect was referring to the husband who suffered a heart attack. I removed that, since no source has included them in the number of people killed. I also clarified that 21 does not include the perpetrator. ––FormalDude talk 00:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, good catch, I didn't know the indirect was referring to the husband. 21 (not including the perpetrator) is also good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with most of that, although I'm seeing a lot of news sources, including CNN, reporting the husband of one of the victim's dying from grief. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• I have again restored the infobox number of deaths to 21 (excluding the perpetrator). If Joe Garcia's death is to be included, there must be a source that does so. Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. ––FormalDude talk 04:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Shooting infoboxes always include the perp, if dead. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The only times I've seen the perpetrator included in the infobox is when they have committed suicide. ––FormalDude talk 05:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the confusion stems from most situations like this ending with the shooter taking their life. For both the University of Texas tower shooting and the 2013 Santa Monica shooting articles, the shooter died in a shootout. In both articles, the shooter is included in the infobox as one of the deceased with a note that it included the perpetrator. It is possible that some articles that were less notable do fail to include the perpetrator if they were killed in the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Perps killed by police are also included in the infobox deaths in 2019 Jersey City shooting, Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, 2019 Miramar shootout, 2020 Henderson shooting etc. It is standard to do so in attack/shooting articles. WWGB (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Before / During / After – Request to Broaden Further

Before the article was restructured to emphasize “7. Law Enforcement Failures” and “8. Responses”, the article had a good set of prose which reported discourse critiquing the way in which the city of Uvalde was configured before the shooting. It’s important to focus on the events which had taken place, and even report critiques and responses of them as well, but let’s not forget that the public is also discussing the failures which had allowed for the incident to occur.

This set of prose was removed because of the way in which the article was restructured:

The shooting occurred on the day before the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd and days after the 2022 Buffalo shooting, leading to widespread discussion over the social function of police as an institution. Many became aware for the first time that Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales ruled the police do not have a duty to protect the public by intervening in shootings.[118] A political discussion ensued over whether policy to ban assault weapons and defund the police was possible in 2022's political landscape, leading to larger discussions about the relationship between the police and those in power.[14] Many questioned how the police in Uvalde had come to consume nearly half the municipal budget yet still fail to quickly intervene in the shooting despite prior preparation. Police abolitionists argued that increased budgets for police officers do not generally go towards fighting violence and preserving community safety, but instead go towards surveilling the public and criminalizing civilians.[119][120] Abolitionists argue that the shooting exposes how many community safety functions of policing are in fact myths.[121]

Even if the prose above is imperfect, and needs a lot of revision, it is important to broaden the discourse we are reporting in this article to include those which critique (and to be fair, also those who refute those critiques) the way in which the town was arranged beforehand. Part of the reason why this event is so tragic to the public eye is because it highlights the failure of a previous system, which was purported to intervene in tragedy. This type of article needs a clear “1. Before 2. During and 3. After” structure because each of these scenarios are the subject of public discourse.

So with all this, we need to report more from the discourse surrounding us which approaches answers to the questions of: Where did the police budget go? Why was it raised? Even if it did go to shooter intervention programs, why did it not work? What did the police use their budget on?

Do the answers to these questions align with those found from questions people are having about the 2022 Buffalo Shooting and the anniversary of the George Floyd protests? In the current discourse, what are people saying this shooting is a case of? Who says so?

2600:1700:5890:69F0:95C2:2741:53FE:EC5 (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox field on weapons

• It originally said AR-15 style rifle till someone changed it and
• as of now it says Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 AR-15 style rifle with a piped link to AR-15 style rifle

There is no article on this model, and this piped link is a violation of WP:EASTEREGG. Please help to build consensus on what the infobox field on Weapon should say.

In my opinion model number and maker of the these guns should be discussed in the article body. The infobox should mention common names that most readers understand. Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• AR-15 style rifle is my preference as the Wikitext and link for the infobox. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved by someone adding two different links - one to Daniel Defense and one to the AR-15 style rifle. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, certainly an improvement. thanks whoever did it. Venkat TL (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

2 AR-15 style rifles (1 Smith & Wesson & 1 Daniel Defense DDM4 V7)

NY Times reported the name of the first rifle, so I have updated the infobox to say both makers.Venkat TL (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a completely different incident, from 2018 Izzy Borden (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to post the below NYT link.

The ad was posted on May 16. It was Mr. Ramos’s 18th birthday. A day later, he bought his first gun, a Smith & Wesson assault-style rifle, from a store in Uvalde, according to State Senator Roland Gutierrez of Texas who cited law enforcement officials. The store has been identified as Oasis Outback. Three days later, he bought the Daniel Defense rifle for $1,870 plus tax

Venkat TL (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

He bought more than one rifle, but only brought one to the school shooting, according to sources. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

He brought only one into the school but had both in the truck. The second rifle was left in the crashed truck according to https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-shooter-bought-gun-legally/

Toast776 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The Daily Beast

Given the wide diversity of citation which has become available in the last three days, is there a specific reason why we continue to utilize The Daily Beast in this pagespace? WP:RS/P suggests we might not rely on TDB: "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." I'd like to think we can keep these statements with far superior sourcing. No particular beef with the tabloid Beast, and it has been present from the first hours, though it may not be our best choice. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: - agree with you, replace with superior sources. starship.paint (exalt) 02:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Salvador Ramos and Luka Magnotta

according to other news, Salvador Ramos compared himself with Luka Rocco Magnotta, a canadian killer who murdered Jun Lin in 2012, and filmed and posted a vídeo of the murder, he filmed videos killings Cats too and according the news Salvador Confessed mistreat animals

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/salvador-ramos-sought-dont-f-k-with-cats-fame-before-shooting/

https://meaww.com/what-is-yubo-salvador-ramos-told-app-user-he-wanted-dont-fk-with-cats-fame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:BF0:8043:102C:4847:707B:8575:243C (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You must discover better sources. NY Post has credibility issues on Wikipedia while Meaww is a outright disinformation promoter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Merging "timeline" and "shooting" sections

I'm not entirely sure why we have two separate sections that ostensibly serve the same purpose, which is to provide a timeline of the shooting. I think it would make far more sense to include the details of the first response timeline in the "shooting" section in prose (with attribution, if necessary) instead of separating it into an entirely new section with a table. There's also no legend explaining the different colors in the table, and I'm not really sure why they're there. I want to ask what everyone else thinks about this. Should we merge the two sections or leave them separate? benǝʇᴉɯ 21:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the original intent was to emphasize and separate the "official" timeline, provided by DPS director McCraw, from the public/media's consensus of the events. The highlighted rows appear to be events that were added to this timeline by other media outlets, as these were not included in the official DPS timeline. That's directly contradictory with the section's lead, which reads, "Below is the timeline according to the DPS director".

Given the massive amount of confusion and disinformation around the timeline, I feel like having it separated is a good idea. But the current version is, ironically, only meaningful to people who have been watching the article develop. EatTrainCode (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I prefer keeping them separate. Both serve different purpose. Consider the timeline as a official statement while the shooting section covers what the RS are explaining with more details in prose. The colour code has not been explained. I am assuming that it was a case of missing colours and I have added colour to all the rows. If someone wants to split the colours back and revert me, they would need to do so with a key explaining the colours in the table. Venkat TL (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a referencing problem problem also - eg none of them mention the content of the 12:13 call, but some link that to a 12:10 call from the same student (not in the time-line). Davidships (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Language regarding non-existent handgun

" he was also initially reported to have a handgun,[53]" I think this language should be modified and perhaps moved somewhere else. This is a false "report" coming from Gov Abbot's first press conference, and as far as I can tell, no other mention has been made of it publicly before or since. As I've edited the article with respect to the supposed handgun before, and I'm not sure how to change this constructively, I'm curious what other editors think. Toast776 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If Abbot's first press conference (which was packed with falsehoods) is the original source, then it should be excluded, at least until reported by newer, more reliable sources. Abbot says that he is "livid" about the falsehoods he was fed. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I removed the language here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robb_Elementary_School_shooting&diff=1090440876&oldid=1090438652

The cited (archived version of the) article says Abbot put out that information; the current version was changed to the vague 'investigators say.'

Further suggestions are of course welcome. Toast776 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Daniel Defense § Vegas Shooting

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Daniel Defense § Vegas Shooting.

A user:Izzy Borden is removing casualty figures from the article Daniel Defense. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Robb Elementary? PRAXIDICAE💕 18:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing. He's just trying to canvass votes for hip opinion. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae Although the section header linked above says only Vegas Shooting, User:Izzy Borden is removing the casualty figure from both Robb Elementary and Vegas Shooting. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: That is an interesting claim, because they are not removing any numbers regarding injuries and deaths from this article as far as I can tell. Would you be willing to link to their edit for this article to prove or clarify your meaning? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super Goku V Diffs of removal of casualties: [3] [4] [5] Venkat TL (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I thank you for these, but I must point out that none of these are edits made to this article. All three of these are edits to the other article, with those edits and more being discussed in the link at the top of this section. So, this has nothing to do with Robb Elementary as Praxidicae has said. If there is something involving Robb Elementary, then please add it here as soon as possible as this has otherwise been an off-topic discussion with no benefit to this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is race mentioned?

I do not think the inclusion of the demographics of Uvalde or the elementary school in the introduction section are relevant. The shooter was also hispanic, and there does not seem to have been any racial motivation so I am not sure how they add anything to the article. History Man1812 (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

We all always include the race when there is a shooter Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? 2601:282:847F:1F0:B999:975D:1E49:E54A (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What you said isn't even true, I don't know how you could say that without personally reading every Wikipedia page. I just checked Columbine High School massacre, the most famous in history, and the seven mentions of the word "white" are about clothing. Also this page does not say that Salvador Ramos was himself Hispanic, thus by omission it is half suggesting there was a race motive, which would be impossible. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of race anywhere on the article about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Ctrl-F-ing for "white" only shows a few mentions of the White House. Aurora mc (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Do note though that Sandy Hook's Background section still discusses Newtown's crime rate and background. Given that Newtown is a run-of-the-mill town that is pretty similar to most American cities in ethnic composition (contrast to the poorer, ethnically Hispanic city of Uvalde), it makes sense why the Sandy Hook page doesn't mention race - there's nothing unordinary about Newtown's ethnic background. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Latino, not Hispanic. He was not from Spain nor was his immediate family. Please be sensitive to the feelings of the Spaniards. Thanks. 50.111.25.199 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears they could also be Hispanic as referenced.--Mapsfly (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hispanic means from Spain or the parts of the Americas that speak Spanish, long has. They aren't 'Latin' in the sense of being from 'Latium' either. I'm not sure if this comment is meant seriously, but it is not helpful and quite inaccurate.

I agree that mentioning the demographics and such of the school is WP:UNDUE. It could also imply a racial motivation, which does not appear to be present in this case. I support removal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

+1. Have not seen this in the reliable sources. Dumuzid (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Latino/Hispanic areas in Texas tend to have a higher crime rate than other communities. RS like the LATIMES and CNBC both find the city's Latino population important enough to note. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That claim is highly suspect when the data is reviewed by criminal justice researchers. For example, it could be the case that police fail to serve particular communities and respond immediately to others. We know, for example, that crimes committed in white communities in the US are treated differently than crimes committed in non-white areas, and police enforcement follows that pattern. Furthermore, there seems to be less an emphasis on preventing crime in the US these days and more of a focus on responding to it. This has the added impact of pushing and confining crime to less served communities and corralling it in poorer areas. Similarly, the environmental justice literature also observes the same effect when it comes to health impacts from pollution, so the phenomenon is well established. There’s also a lot of "juking the stats" going on here, with law enforcement attempting to show crime is not impacting their higher income voters. There are numerous counterexamples to the idea that crime is higher in certain racial areas, with roving foreign national robbery gangs in California targeting higher income victims as a current example in the news. By your definition, in this example, higher income areas in California which are predominantly white are experiencing higher rates of crime than their non-white counterparts. To conclude: crime is not correlated with race, it’s correlated with poverty. Every criminal justice researcher knows this. The reason we are constantly told the opposite is because addressing race is easy to do, but addressing inequality is difficult when the system is setup to reward one race over another. I will end this by saying before I moved, I lived in a predominantly Latino/Hispanic area of a city for a decade and it was the safest I ever felt. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We’re dealing in the facts of an unfolding event here not your personal political views. Take that somewhere else.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:F5FC:F3AD:F671:4BA4 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There are better ways, more productive ways, to ask someone to try to stay on topic if you think they are distracting from the discussion, and it doesn't look like they were talking to you anyway. Such as "I would like to ask you to take it down a notch, WP:AGF and keep it WP:CIVIL". See how much more productive that sounds? Thanks...DN (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Latino not Hispanic" ...umm...what? 76.181.201.214 (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There is wide consensus in America (and on Wikipedia) that racism is such a deep, pervasive, problem in America that a person's race should always be mentioned-- if they are primary subjects in an article.

However race only needs a very brief mention in this article because the race of the alleged killer and most of his victims were the same.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Mexico's government did find the number of Hispanic kids in the school important enough: Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it was weird reading the first couple of lines of the background section, which states that Uvalde is a "Hispanic-majority town" (so?) and that "90%" of the students at Robb are Hispanic (again, so what?). It reads as if it's supposed to be a leadup to a racially or ethnically motivated shooting, which it wasn't. The shooting fit a generally pattern of mass shootings that have occurred in virtually all 50 states, irrespective of the local demographics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Am curious as to the actual importance and relevance of race in the article? Several have shown that this is not consistently done in other shootings. Can the authors please provide a clear justification of relevance? I’m not proposing removing or keeping as I do not understand the relevance. Dlink4884 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps since "the shooting was condemned by various governments and politicians, including by the Government of Mexico, which said it was working with American authorities to identify Mexican victims in the shooting. Mexican consul Ismail Naveja responded by going to Uvalde the day of the shooting, and Mexico said it was providing consular assistance for Mexican nationals". WWGB (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, reliable sources have discussed the Hispanic roots of the city, which stretch back to the 19th Century[6]. I suppose that is notable, although the article should mention that this is a historic community, and not one of recent immigrants. The articles notes, "Uvalde is an hour drive northeast of the Mexican border, but its deep Mexican American roots are not attributable to immigration — only 11 percent of those who live in Uvalde are foreign born." Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Something along those lines would be good. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

References

eyeliner photo

there was an article about this but idk where the sources are for it, do we have any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.95.226 (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Eyeliner photo? Why would that be of prevalence to this article? Requity (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess it is from this article, but I am struggling to see how it could be useful at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Does this image improve the article?

File:Armed officer outside Robb Elementary School.png
It is a low quality YouTube screenshot that shows an armed cop walking along the side of a street. To me it doesn't demonstrate anything of particular use to the article and I think it could be removed. --Pokelova (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions feel free to share. It's hard to look at these. DN (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know how to interpret your comment but the image has now been removed by Goszei. --Pokelova (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

As in, if you had a replacement in mind. DN (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Venkat TL (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pennsylvania2, I see you have re-added it. Would you like to explain what you believe the image adds? --Pokelova (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Entire section on police response. Makes sense to show police at the scene. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a single cop walking along a street, that could be any scene. Images are used to increase readers' understanding of article content, this image does not do that. --Pokelova (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

The chart has some entries shaded blue and some shaded red, with no explanation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the table should describe the meaning behind these colors. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the colours mean. starship.paint (exalt) 05:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Having seen the table evolve over time a bit, I think the different colors were simply due to different editors inserting new rows and not realizing they'd be different colors. If that's so the different colors mean nothing. Accordingly in the current version of the article all rows are the same color (not my change).

Toast776 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

When I edited the table, I noticed that the layout of some of the entries was different from others, suggesting another user had inserted them after the table was initially implemented. Love of Corey (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it relevant to mention Meghan Markle visiting the memorial?

Several large news sources, such as AP News, CBS News, and a few maybe-less-reliable ones such as Vogue People and Buzzfeed News, have reported on Meghan Markle visiting the memorial. However I do not know if it's relevant to put in the article. Maybe in the "reactions"? Jaguarnik (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If the coverage persists in WP:RS for days, then inclusion is possible. Love of Corey (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Unless she did something special there that is worth mentioning, the condolence does not merit a mention. Venkat TL (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Nothing notable about this reaction. She's just one of hundreds of celebrities who condemned the shooting. Like the vast majority of them, she has no connections with the shooting and her visit won't make a change whatsoever. At the end of the day just not a notable reaction. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• This appears to be a bit of trivia without encyclopedic value. I wouldn't include it in the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Under legislative action, misspell of surrendering

creating a compensated buyback program between local governments and individuals surrending such magazines SilversurfertxW (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)  Done _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

new section

some of the links appear to be archived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.188.51 (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's comment removed

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responding to a question on why he resisted gun control, said that he believed shooters wouldn't follow the law, and he'd rather see citizens "armed and trained" so they could respond to events such as mass shootings. Republican officials have also called for increasing security presence in schools, limiting entryways into schools, and arming teachers and other school officials.

References

[7] [8] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's comment has been removed twice by @Chesapeake77 with, what I believe is, insufficient reasoning. The source is The Texas Tribune that has verified it. The comment by a government official is notable. Please argue why it is unreliable. This is relevant and sourced to an WP:RS. Venkat TL (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m originally the one who added this content. I can understand why someone could see Paxton’s comments as UNDUE, but the broad Republican response that represents the final sentence is definitely DUE. Just as DUE as Democrats calling for gun control. There are serious NPOV concerns without it’s inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this line should be re-added back into the article. @Chesapeake77 your silence/non participation here will be seen as approval. I hope you will not edit war a third time over this. Venkat TL (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't have only one side's opinion or perspective, as it would violate NPOV. Please be sure to include equal amounts of each and add attribution with these POVs. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Darknipples @Venkat_TL or @Venkat TL @Iamreallygoodatcheckers

It was not removed because it was an opposing (conservative) source.

It was removed because the Texas Tribune article is using material from a NewsMax article (and the Tex. Trib. fully acknowledges this in the article).

PLEASE NOTE: The problem is NewsMax references and citations are BANNED on Wikipedia. If you go here (AND SCROLL DOWN) you will see a list of BANNED (and ACCEPTED) news sources for Wkipedia-- (Click Here and scroll down)-- WP:RSPSOURCES.

By all means, do go find another conservative news source to add balance to the subject in the paragraph. But it can't be a copy of NewsMax reporting because that is considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Texas Attorney General's interview reliable or not? Venkat TL (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Chesapeake77 your concern about reliable source has been addressed at WP:RSN with clear consensus that it is reliable. I will soon be restoring the proposed text above. I hope you will not remove this again. Venkat TL (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've added back Republican officials have also called for increasing security presence in schools, limiting entryways into schools, and arming teachers and other school officials. per NPOV and because the main concern with this appears to be with Paxton's comments, which I've not added back. Notifying @Chesapeake77: since they've reverted the sentence in the last 24hrs. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does the Republican solution keep getting cut down to just arming teachers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuardianLegend (talk • contribs) 07:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Arming teachers

• Arming teachers

I just started this article after this shooting. Other contributions are welcome and there are lots of sources over many years easily available through Internet search. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting topic, @Bluerasberry. I can imagine that could be quite a comprehensive article quite soon. --Kbabej (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a hyperlink to the arming teachers article in the prose of this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for creating that. This is so crazy, the only thing crazier would be advocating arming the students. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is not the place to call a concept "crazy". Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Republican response

This sentence has been removed from the article:

Instead of gun control, Republican officials have called for increasing security presence in schools, limiting entryways into schools, and arming teachers and other school officials.

I think this sentence should be added back since a major political parties response to an event is certainly WP:DUE. Additionally, this has been covered in The Independent, Washington Post, Roll Call, and The Texas Tribune cited above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As everyone here knows, that sentence, as well as the current version, is fraudulently non-neutral, to say the least. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• Include This has already been discussed at #Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's comment removed and RSN. This is relevant, due and should be included as it shows the opinion of the Ruling party in Texas, opposition in Capitol. Venkat TL (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• The tone of the sentence isn't neutral. It should read something like, "Republican officials have called for increasing security presence in schools, limiting entryways into schools, arming teachers and other school officials but resisting gun control measures." Saying Instead of is tantamount to saying in wiki voice that gun control is the solution here. - hako9 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Resisting" is also loaded language, but it's hard to avoid loaded language. You would be better off stopping at the "school officials."KatrinkaG (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Did he attend that elementary school?

The article says he went to Uvalde High School but did he go to that elementary school? and did he have that teacher there? I can't find it but it seems like important information. --Wikideas1 (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that should be stated in the Perpetrator section. It doesn't include any info about his life before he started high school. It gives no indication of why he chose to target an elementary school. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe one of the existing Texas Tribune cites mentions that he went there, though I don't remember which. --Dan Harkless (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

His Handle

we should maybe mention he used handle "sal8dor_" as this is attested to in several articles including attribution of a picture. HearthHOTS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@HearthHOTS to serve what encyclopedic purpose? Venkat TL (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumably in relation to this. (Unfortunately, I think we might need a better source and that was the best I could find so far.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I still dont see any relevance of adding the handle. The article you linked also says Government has taken it off. Venkat TL (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be something for the background section for indirectly informing someone of his plans (even if the person who received it couldn't understand because of how cryptic it was). Currently though, the article is still up and hasn't been taken down. However, I still think that any potential inclusion will need a better source. Without one, we cannot add this to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat_TL, just wanted to apologize. I misread the comments here somehow and thought we were discussing something related to the shooter talking about his plans rather than discussing if we wanted to include his username online. No, I don't think that including his online username would be relevant. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

i also think the username is too trivial for inclusion. however, could someone EXPLAIN it to me please? in what lang does 8 work out to "va" or anything useful there? 2601:19C:527F:A680:CC92:C8F2:42DA:F9FC (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

yes, consensus in this thread is to not include the username. Username with "va" might not be available, so people put all kinds of extra characters to make it unique and allow registration. I dont know if there is any hidden meaning to 8. Venkat TL (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Deglamorizing shooters and murderers

All, need help. While I feel strongly about wikipedia accurately journaling history, I feel we could do it in such a way to minimize the potential glamorization and notoriety these deranged shooters of children get by plastering their name multiple times on a page, and in a lead in. My initial take is the incident can be accurately reported, and the perpetrator's/murderer's name pushed down the article and only attributed once. Thoughts? Jrpotts (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

He isn't portrayed in a good way; naming him doesn't promote him. He'd dead, so he can't derive any satisfaction from his name being present. Although he may have been named too many times before today, the ibox & lead, as well as the Shooting & Perpetrator sections, should all include his name. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about this guy, but all the other would-be killers. I don't think my suggestions are onerous nor take away from the central premise of accurate information. I'm just saying: (1) attribute once (minimize the number of times the killer's name appears), (2) don't give a prominent position to attribution (not on the top of the page). Jrpotts (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to make moral decisions, we document notable events and use notable sources to substantiate our articles. Ramos is objectively the perpetrator, and this fact needs to be mentioned here. If you are really adamant about changing that, you'll need to make a site-wide request to completely overhaul the way we write these articles. This wouldn't be the only article affected.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

how does one make a site wide request? Jrpotts (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:VPP and/or WP:VPR are usually a good start. Then you typically hold an WP:RFC once you have a proposal ready for site-wide consideration. It may even merit a WP:NOTICE to draw in the most feedback. I'd strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with as much of the existing policies and guidelines before wading in to this, as there are a number of potential pitfalls you may be unprepared for. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Although not intentional, this seems to feel similar to one of the above subjects. Honestly, I don't know what the best practice should be regarding the shooter. Maybe one of our policies or an RfC would be helpful. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is not censored. Second of all, there are hundreds (more?) topics on here that the general person would not want repeated in every day life (all sorts of crime for example), but we still document it. I do not agree with sanitizing or hiding this information. The perpetrator's name has been widely reported in RS. We have an entire section on him in the article, and per WP:LEAD it should therefore be included in the lead. --Kbabej (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Editorial discretion is not synonymous with censorship. This is a viable conversation for the community, and I think either decision could be defended as in line with Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. If the point is "to minimize the potential glamorization and notoriety these deranged shooters" that's just a moral crusade. It isn't based in policy whatsoever. --Kbabej (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If that's the way it goes, it would be based on a decision of the community, as I said, and editorial discretion. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters have their own dedicated articles. Comparatively, this article and the one for Sandy Hook are showing constraint. Additionally, the article could be accused of bias for attempting to hide the shooter's ethnicity by burying their name. EatTrainCode (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't agree with repeatedly identifying Ramos as "the perpetrator" throughout the article. The sources use "Ramos" in running text. Schierbecker (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• I fully agree that this comes down to editorial discretion. I don't think we can scrub all mention of his name, but I also don't think we should be naming him 20+ times. Most reliable sources appear to use his name in publication sparingly. ––FormalDude talk 06:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. I'm not advocating total censorship. I'm merely suggesting as a community, we make the editorial decision to minimize the notoriety while preserving the factual record. None of the mass shooters of children were "popular" socialites. What they lacked in life, they seek through death of themselves or others. If we could disincentivize just one shooting by some editorial decisions that preserve the values of the community (providing factual unbiased info), what's the downside? Jrpotts (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moral authority. It's not up to us to prevent mass shootings, that's for the media. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Passing the buck. You are responsible when you plaster a killer's name 50+ times more than necessary to convey who the killer was. Jrpotts (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should convey factual information necessary to convey the factual information, with as much pithy and brevity possible to tell the story. Jrpotts (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Inclusion of his name in the lead, infobox, and text is fine the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody is talking censorship. Talking about what is the minimum information required to document the events without overly doing so. Jrpotts (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd support minimizing the number of times we name him directly, and keeping his name out of the lead/infobox. Obviously we can't not name him, but we don't need to lean into his name as much as we do. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We can use "he/him" instead of Ramos when doing so would not cause confusion. No comment on using "the perpetrator" instead of Ramos. starship.paint (exalt) 02:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is neither a difficult nor undesirable task: On May 24, 2022, an 18-year-old Salvador Rolando Ramos fatally shot nineteen students and two teachers. The article doesn't name a single victim anywhere in the lede, but provides excessive prominence to the perpetrator putting them in the opening sentence. The 'cry censorship' (a brother of cryblp) argument here is weak when there is an entire section of the article dedicated to detailing Ramos' life. It's three times the size of the section immediately above it. I've stated elsewhere in favour of omitting both victims' and perpetrators' names from such articles. They do not enhance the comprehensibility of the subject matter. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

So a potential shooter will think "well, if I cannot get my name in a Wikipedia lead, then I won't bother shooting up that school?" WWGB (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You're aware that people literally "do it for the likes" on social media sites right? Is it really such a stretch to think that notoriety, especially the type that Wikipedia imparts by effectively making them a permanent and prominent part of the sum of human knowledge, might influence the choices people make? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't pretend this question is easy or obvious in either direction, but if one were to look at the internet afterlife of the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, perhaps it is easier to see why some of us have qualms. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You have to be actively ignorant to be unaware of the effect that the U.S. media has had in creating these events. That said, you've created a false quote, WWGB. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered that banning assault weapons may just be more effective than banning a name from Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You're teetering close to the edge of WP:NOTFORUM. And to be clear, I would support what you're saying, but that's not something we here can decide. What we can decide is how we keep Wikipedia from turning into yet another outlet for those looking for enduring infamy to get inspired by. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you... people should read this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/?fbclid=IwAR1pMcFZ0opIiPydmF12WjHWmfzjERhPJRBiosTT44DdOA20OPSR2x3ICh0 Jrpotts (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Most of the reliable sources that we use to create the content for this article have their own standards on this that include using the name of the killer as sparingly as possible.
  • How The Times Covers Mass Shootings New York Times.
  • The news media seems to be heeding the call to limit naming perpetrators in mass shootings NiemanLab.
  • NPR Standards NPR.
  • RTDNA Guidelines: Mass Shootings Radio Television Digital News Association.

––FormalDude talk 21:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If one wants an easy litmus test, just control-F and type in "Ramos" to see how much this guy's name appears compare to any other person of importance. Heck, the perpetrator's parents now has a section. Jrpotts (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Splitting up the Shooting section into a new page

Would it be beneficial if the contents of the Shooting section were to be added to a new page, entitled "Timeline of the Robb Elementary School shooting"? Details of the timeline of the shooting are beginning to surface and it is becoming incredibly clear that there are way too many dates to be able to describe in prose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The shooting section is long and is notable enough for its own page. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Opppose That section is a 3 minute read, and is not notable enough for its own page. So far, the section isn't long enough to justify making an article about it. Per WP:NOPAGE, splitting it up into a timeline would reduce context. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 22:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose After seeing how short the timeline is in the article now, I don't think it needs it's own page at this point. Maybe this could be discussed later. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I think a fork is too soon at this point. Not saying it can't happen in the future, but I think it's premature given the length of the article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not long enough for split. This article is about the shooting and related events, no need to split the shooting part out. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the page is not long enough at this time to warrant a separate article. The prose size is only 58 KB, which is quite reasonable. The shooting section itself is around 6 paragraphs long and only takes a few minutes to read. It probably could be trimmed down, but it's not that bad right now. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. After revisiting my previous vote, I oppose because the shooting section is very short and clearly does not fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PAGESIZE the page is not long enough at this time to warrant a separate article. The prose size is only 58 KB.Venkat TL (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose 217.128.27.94 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

'The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to gender-related disputes or controversies'

This article is supposed to be gender-related? How? --Trade (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Removed. Too silly. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, there aren't any gender-related disputes or controversies in the way of this article development right now; should they arise this could be revisited. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the reactions section, presumably. To quote the article, The day after the shooting, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) falsely claimed that its perpetrator was a "transsexual leftist illegal alien" in a tweet, which was taken down two hours after it was posted. The claim was based on a rumor started by an anonymous poster on the /pol/ imageboard on 4chan, who posted the Reddit account of a transgender woman and claimed that she was the shooter; the rumour was spread by Alex Jones and Candace Owens and photos of the woman were widely shared on social media, including in conservative Facebook groups, where she was also erroneously identified as the shooter and harassed. In Wikipedia:ARBGENDER, the Arbitration Committee reviewed a few past cases and approved a new motion related to them. The motion that was passed says the following, In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy. Given the circumstances, I can understand why the discretionary sanctions template was added to the article given the false claims in the reactions section. As to if they should apply to the article, I am inclined to believe that they would, but I could be mistaken. User:WWGB, would you be willing to review this and clarify if they should apply or not due to the false claims against the Reddit user? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I still think the template is not applicable. There is no dispute in this article about the gender/sex of Ramos. Rather, the discussion was about the inclusion of a false claim, and whether that text was relevant or due. WWGB (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Still not applicable. The main topic of this page has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Donald Trump is known for his controversial stances on this topic, but Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump doesn't reveal such a notice. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

See my analysis below for why that is an incorrect reading. This page does have content relating to gender, though it is in a much shorter form than when I added the GENSEX d/s notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It was added by Sideswipe9th with this edit, perhaps they have an explanation? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Super Goku V has covered most of my reasoning already. At the time I added the GENSEX d/s notice, a not insubstantial amount of the article was taken up by the transgender conspiracy theory. As an editor familiar with that topic area, I saw some disruption following a familiar pattern that I've seen on other gender and sexuality related article. In most cases, including GENSEX, discretionary sanctions are applied to articles on a broadly construed basis. Super Goku V has already quoted the relevant part that supports the addition, however I'll do so again with emphasis "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." Because we had a section on the transgender conspiracy theory, that is inherently controversial. Because that conspiracy involved specific trans individuals and at several points in the article history explicitly named the social media accounts of at least one trans woman, it is covered under associated people. Taken together, it is definitely considered part of all edits about.

Looking at the paragraph as it currently exists, I would still err on the side of caution that GENSEX d/s still applies to the article. There is still the possibility of disruption targeted against the victims of the conspiracy theory, and d/s allows us and administrators to more easily remove such disruptive content and editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Am I right in thinking your reading is that since this article had edits, at all, relating to gender-related dispute or controversy [...], that that is reason enough to include the notice? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Not quite. It has edits relating to a gender-related dispute or controversy, at present those edits amount to a paragraph on a conspiracy theory involving multiple trans women. If the content was removed entirely, then the d/s would not be required. It's not that the article had this content in the past, it's that it continues to contain this content in the present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - this discussion of the GENSEX ACDS notice is a bit misleading, I think. Whether or not the notice is on the page, any editing related to text (or removal of text) discussing the rumour that the shooter was trans, and any discussion of the same content on this Talk page, is covered by the GENSEX discretionary sanctions. That doesn't depend on the presence or absence of the notice; also, the main topic of the page is irrelevant to ACDS applicability. Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

politics

Same concern with over sanctions on other topics - this article isn't about post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

disagree as it heavily deals with discussions of gun control and police reform (or lack of.) Unfortunately, massacres at the hand of firearms in America are inherently political. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Though I didn't add the AP2 d/s notice, a lot of my reasoning for supporting my addition of the GENSEX notice is still applicable. WP:APDS states standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. At present this article contains numerous references to currently sitting US Senators, US representatives, the Texas governor, governor's for other US states, the current US president, the current US vice presidents, multiple former presidents, candidates for an upcoming Texas gubernatorial election, a two prominent American conspiracy theorists. Those are all edits about content relating to post-1992 US politics and closely related people.

As I said before, most discretionary sanctions, including those relating to WP:APDS are applied on a broadly construed basis. The text at BROADLY supports this further by saying if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case that is normally taken to mean that it does. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Should that notice be on the talk pages of all articles about US mass shootings, or only those which include criticisms of laws or the police? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean AP2 isn't because it's about police criticism...mass shootings like this are inherently a byproduct of legislation, and thus political. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As I alluded in my brief analysis of the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting below, were it not for the single reaction by a US Representative, that article would not be subject to AP2 discretionary sanctions, because it contains no other content relating to post-1992 US politics. The analysis for when to add a sanctions notice needs to be assessed on a page by page basis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2: Unfortunately there's no blanket yes/no answer, whether or not an AP2 d/s notice is required depends on the article content. As both you and I are familiar with at least two other shooting that occurred this month; 2022 Buffalo shooting, 2022 Laguna Woods shooting lets do a quick analysis of those.

The Buffalo shooting is the most straightforward. The shooter released a manifesto wherein he described himself in inherently political terms. We also have statements by Joe Biden, New York's governor, as well as mention of a specific proposed law that came as a response to that shooting. So yes, that article should have an AP2 d/s notice.

Laguna Woods is less clear on the surface. The shooter's motive seems to have been based in nationality, and the reactions section has no mention at all surrounding local or federal policies that may have precipitated this event. It does however have a reaction from a US Representative, so on those grounds I would err on the side of caution and say yes. The article should probably have a BLP notice however, as the suspect and all but one of his victims are still alive.

The metric I use when assessing this is does this page contain any edits about post-1992 US politics? If the answer is yes, then I add the notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Claim that Ramos was born in North Dakota

The claim that Ramos was born in North Dakota is based on a single claim by a single legislator citing Texas authorities. The Bismarck Tribune could find no evidence of Ramos's residence in that state. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/senator-says-texas-school-shooter-born-in-north-dakota-ramos-never-attended-public-school-in/article_422954c0-dc2d-11ec-abd1-37027115d03d.html Can a qualifier be added to the article? KatrinkaG (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The article only says they could find no record of him attending school in North Dakota. That's different from saying he never lived there — his family could easily have moved before he started school. I think something from that article could be added, but using it to argue the shooter never lived in North Dakota is not an accurate statement. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Understandable, but suggesting that he was born there with such flimsy evidence is also misleading. Considering that this is not really a biography of him at all but an exploration of the incident, I'm not even sure what where he was born has to do with the situation at all and why the legislator or the Texas authorities, or even the outlets or Wikipedia, would think it relevant, other than addressing the rumors that he was here without documentation, but to address that one simply needs to state he was born within the US and/or a US citizen.KatrinkaG (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

His state of birth has been widely mentioned in the media, and while it's all traced back to one source, I haven't seen anyone arguing that the information is wrong. I'm relatively neutral on whether his birth state should be mentioned or simply the fact that he was a U.S. citizen, but I don't think it's "misleading" to say he was born in North Dakota so long as the media covers it that way (which it seems they have). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

His birth state & lifespan have been removed from the Perpetrator section yet again. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe the media is reporting this information from the CNBC interview with Senator Gutierrez, in which he cites the police reports. EatTrainCode (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

It's not at all relevant that he may or may not be from North Dakota. ––FormalDude talk 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the initial flurry of misinformation regarding the suspect's supposed immigration status, and the accompanying "fact check" articles from the likes of the BBC, Reuters, USA Today, etc., I would say there's at least an argument that his place of birth is a relevant piece of information. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bismarck Tribune source does not refute the assertion that the killer was born in North Dakota. Instead it amounts to a "we looked into this claim and could not come to a definitive conclusion" type article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - If the claim about his birthplace is entered into the article, do it with attribution to the person who said it unless it has been independently corroborated by RS. As of now, it seems like it can be included, since the news article given is not as much as a "refutation" as it is an expression of doubt. If it is later debunked by some RS, then we can remove the claim. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ted Cruz Reaction

"Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a gun rights supporter who opposes expanding gun control regulations, called the shooting "yet another act of evil and mass murder". He offered his prayers to the families and children affected by the shooting, and said that the country has seen "too many of these shootings."[154]"

The way this is written juxtaposes his stance on gun control with his response in a way that is opinion-piecey. IDK the term for it but it doesn't seem right. A more suitable way to write this could be something like

"Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the shooting "yet another act of evil and mass murder". He offered his prayers to the families and children affected by the shooting, and said that the country has seen "too many of these shootings."[154] However, he was criticized for his opposing expanding gun control regulations".

Olgaman (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If someone criticised him for opposing gun control in the context this attack, then you can add a ref at the end of that line and it would work. Otherwise, if it is general criticism about gun control, then the proposed sentence is incorrect. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

True. I don't think the phrase "a gun rights supporter who opposes expanding gun control regulations" should be there at all in its current state. It's presented as a fact to add irony to his statement, which again is opinion piecey.

Olgaman (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Olgaman, the phrase "a gun rights supporter who opposes expanding gun control regulations" seeks to interject an opinion. While it is a likely accurate view, it does not add value and seems to only add bias. I second Olgaman's proposed statement as it is more neutral based. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A gun rights supporter who opposes expanding gun control regulations

This is a violation of NPOV. Using expressions of doubt or irony isn't recommended on Wikipedia. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed per this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Propping open of school door by teacher

I believe the teacher who propped open the door to the school did so because she had gone out to her car in the teacher's parking lot to retrieve her mobile phone. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there at least a source for this? If there is, we can then talk about adding it. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC) (Amended: I am apparently dense. I already had a source for this and didn't pay attention. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC))

Texas DPS mentioned the teacher and phone in the first few minutes of their May 27 press conference. I am however, unable to sensibly interpret the DPS Director's comments on the teacher's movements. It sounds very contradictory to me.

Toast776 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Authorities say security video shows the back door of Texas school was propped open by a teacher just before the gunman attacked the school WWGB (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good source, no need to go into the mobile thing or whatever the mundane reason for propping it open was. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd, @WWGB, @Toast776 when I first heard about it, I was suspicious about the motives, till I read this thread. I guess others will be too which is why it is covered in the headline. Deserves a mention in my opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-police-teacher-closed-propped-open-door-attack-85093476

@Venkat TL@WWGB@StellarNerdSurprise! More lies from investigators. Toast776 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Toast776: - I've fixed it. starship.paint (exalt) 04:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

112 rounds or 164?

I know WaPo says the gunman fired 116 rounds, but I listened to the press conference and the spokesperson says 164 were fired. CBS News corroborates this. Love of Corey (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this is late. According to the article, it seems that it was 142 rounds and there were multiple sources that appear to back this up. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(Supposed "Leftist") Background of shooter

The sitting US Representative Mark Gosar (AZ-04) has stated, on good authority, that the gunman was a leftist. This should be included. 39.116.182.33 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this user might be refering to Paul Gosar? They spread a conspiracy theory the shooter was a "transsexual leftist illegal alien", I've added this under responses making clear it is false. I've made sure none of the sources link back to the person he accused to try to avoid further distress to them, but please remove this info if it breaks any rules around victims of conspiracy theories. John Cummings (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Good authority" are just words that he said (and he is a politician).

Please provide a direct, reliable source for this claim. (See WP:RS ).

Boldface is only used here to emphasize key points.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - no reliable source. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• FYI everybody-- this turned out to be a HOAX. A another (actually transvestite and Leftist) Hispanic young man had his images stolen on the Internet and misreprented as being the images of the a. Robb Elementary school shooter.

Here is 'a link to the NBC News article exposing the hoax-- https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trans-womans-photo-used-spread-baseless-online-theory-texas-shooter-rcna30511

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 07:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77 , @John Cummings @Fuzheado NBC is reliable. The debunking should be included. See this thread Venkat TL (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the hoax spread to thousands of viewers. So it is a "Notable hoax" or "notable conspiracy theory" and can therefore now be mentioned in the article as a "Hoax" or "Conspiracy theory" and then the NBC News article (and other articles) debunking it should be mentioned and then cited.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 07:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning the hoax, and proving it false, is a good idea. I would advise caution regarding the personal information of the woman whose photos this hoax is using, as she is an innocent party and may be endangered by the whole affair. 12.127.77.18 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. (And thanks for your thoughtfulness). The woman (not to be disrespectful but so no one misses this-- the person born a male who is now a trans woman) should have no personal information added to the article, or discussed here.

"born a male who is now a trans woman" is redundant. "trans woman" = "born a male who is now a woman". they don't stack. 2601:19C:527F:A680:947A:33E1:2C4C:6518 (talk)

Her photos should not be used here either.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from misgendering transgender people in the talk page. She is a Transgender woman, Transvestite is an outdated term FloofMother (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

transvestite is NOT an "outdated term"!!

but it refers to something entirely different from "transgender". the person here is transgender. 2601:19C:527F:A680:947A:33E1:2C4C:6518 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: transvestite is an outdated term when used to refer to a transgender person FloofMother (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of conspiracy theories

There has been some edit warring regarding the inclusion of information about conspiracy theories that the Robb Elementary School shooter was transgender. 48Pills has been the main proponent of removing this information, with their edit summary for their first removal stating that the information was irrelevant and completely unnecessary. Their second RV stated that including this information simply panders to those who spread such vile hate speech, and that hate never wins. In another edit, they wrote that the conspiracy theories were misinformation and bigotry spread by extremists. Iamreallygoodatcheckers also removed the section about the conspiracy theories, writing in their edit summary that the sourcing for this isn't very good and I think much of it is WP:UNDUE.

As one of the people who was responsible for the bulk of that section, I want to contest a few of these arguments. For starters, to say that the conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the subject of the article is simply untrue, as the conspiracy theories are about the shooting, and much of the recent coverage about the shooting has been about these conspiracy theories, as is evidenced by the sources previously used in that section. To say that including the section is a promotion of "those who spread such vile hate speech" is a mischaracterization of what my aim was when expanding that section, which was merely to include information related to the subject of the article that would aid readers in getting important context. I would argue that the wording of the section (as can be seen here) makes it evident that the conspiracy theories are baseless, contrary to 48Pills's edit summary.

The idea that information should not be included on Wikipedia because it is about people who are spreading misinformation is confusing, because, so long as it is made clear that what they are sharing is untrue (as it was clarified in the section), it would stand to reason that Wikipedia is therefore not spreading this misinformation further, and is maintaining a neutral point of view on the subject. As far as sourcing goes for that section, you can check the previous version to see the sources, but most of the sources were deemed reliable in prior discussions as per WP:RSP. Some were deemed unclear in regard to reliability, and, if need be, I can include more confirmed RSs and take out those that are less reliable, but calling it undue when all of the references cited in that section are solely about the rumors that the shooter was transgender seems to go against the policy.

I want to open this up to discussion among the two aforementioned users as well as anyone else who has an opinion on this matter. I am evidently in favor of including this section, as plenty of RSs have provided in-depth coverage of these conspiracy theories. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Pokelova, Pennsylvania2: Pinging both of you as well, since you were involved in the edits regarding this section. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Having a whole section and large paragraph about this one insignificant conspiracy theory promoted primarily on 4chan and Reddit is WP:UNDUE. There could maybe be like one sentence, but that's it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: If you're going to deem the conspiracy theory "insignificant", you need to should explain why. Otherwise, the argument boils down to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who introduced, and is proposing the re-introduction of the content, actually the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that it's due for inclusion. It is not on others to demonstrate it is undue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I have already explained in detail my reasoning for why I believe it is due for inclusion in my first message, and I responded to each of the arguments presented by the two users I pinged. I am merely saying that repeating the claim that this information is insignificant and not providing any policy-based evidence to support that claim means that Iamreallygoodatcheckers's rationale for keeping this information out of the article is still unclear, both to me and to any other editors who might have an opinion on this matter. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's insignificant because it has not been heavily mentioned in WP:RS and has little impact on the response to the shooting. The only sourcing for it is really the one NYT article, and it's just an article broadly debunking 3 rumors. So this conspiracy is only a trivial part of that very article. A lot of the sources you cited including Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and XXL are either deemed unreliable or have questionable reliability, which pretty much means they're unusable. The sources about the Arizona State Senator who tweeted about the conspiracy and removed it 2 hrs later, like I said above, may warrant one sentence. IMO, it's not really needed since it's not very relevant to the broad response. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: In the previously linked version of the page containing the section as it was written before it was removed, PolitiFact, Snopes, and The New York Times, all of which have been deemed reliable sources by WP:RSP, were all used as sources, and the articles cited were mostly about the theory that the shooter was transgender. Other confirmed RSs that have written articles focused entirely on this theory are The Daily Dot and NBC News. The Guardian, U.S. News, and NPR also reported on the theory, albeit among the other theories surrounding this shooting. Also, a source being determined to have unclear reliability does not mean it is unusable, but merely that context should be considered when using that source. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The significance through coverage and response seem married, and, yet, if these are all sources that have mentioned it and debunked it, then would it not be worthy of some mention? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Maxxhiato, yes, that kind of serious coverage, especially since it involves a Congressman, makes it notable enough for mention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't even think we need the sentence. I don't think drawing attention to blatant transphobic misinformation is really a good idea. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: The whole point of my initial message was to state why drawing attention to it and promoting it are not equivalent. Attention has already been drawn to it by the numerous reliable sources that have covered it in-depth. Based on its prevalence in reliable sources, this theory is not being treated as a fringe theory and should not be treated as such. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

First a single simple lie was baselessly spun into a "conspiracy theory", now it's somehow morphed into multiple theories like a fucking wet gremlin; enough's enough with this fake wordy storytelling. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Sideswipe9th and InedibleHulk said. 48Pills (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey on inclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus appears to be that there should not be a full section on the conspiracy theory (or theories), but that a brief mention (i.e. one or two sentences) about Rep. Gosar's tweet and information about the false claims that a trans woman, whose picture was shared on social media and who was wrongly identified as the shooter, is warranted based on coverage in reliable sources, and that, if it gets more coverage in the future, a full section about the theory could be included. benǝʇᴉɯ 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Limited Support - I think Gosar's tweet should be included in one or two sentences, no more. He's a major elected official—what he writes is covered by RS. Beyond that, there shouldn't be much added unless there's a large amount of RS covering the issue, like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. -- Veggies (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Reject Oppose for now - I agree with checkers more often than not...criticism is valid and so are mention of certain CT that get consistent and prolific attention from sources, but we must be VERY CAREFUL in making sure that our readers are clearly presented a NEUTRAL POV with attributions and citations...LETS NOT FUCK AROUND on this article...It's important to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to Wiki-policy concerning this article IMO. BTW, excellent job so far everyone...cheers. (edit) WP:RECENT comes to mind...DN (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see reliable sources (certainly the sources used) are saying that this is not true. It might have a place in a discussion of conspiracy theories, or possibly in articles about the people making the claims, but not here. Brunton (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to mention disinformation related to the shooting at this article, especially as it was shared by a congressperson. This has gotten enough media coverage to be worth mentioning. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include This is a major piece of disinformation that has been boosted by Republican politicians and debunked by Main stream media. It is important to cover this on Wikipedia to prevent the spread of rumours and disinformation. Source: "Trans woman's photo used to spread baseless online theory about Texas shooter". NBC News. Retrieved 26 May 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Note how it's called an online theory, an unsubstantiated theory, a baseless theory and a basely theory, but not a conspiracy theory. That "basely" part is probably a typo. But the overall omission of the C word is no mistake. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, call it "disinformation", debunk it. But include. Dont let people be misled. Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Wouldn't simply telling people the truth and nothing but the truth lead them to the right conclusion? About how an American man can't logically be an alien woman (or any other identification contrary to the substantiated basely one)? I think so, but then again, I still have faith in reasonably intelligent humanity. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk You are making good points, I agree. But the thing is this disinfo is already out there and widely believed by large population as being the "truth" that media is hiding. It is no longer a small rumour and covered by all mainstream media for same reason. The horses have already bolted. Venkat TL (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a large population. That's just what it looks like when the media blows something it finds on the Internet out of proportion. Remember when millions of stupid kids were supposedly eating laundry pods, worshipping Satan and having rainbow parties? Same deal here. Only now, it's not about worrying about stupid children so much as worrying about Republican voters. Most people are not idiots. But yes, some certainly are, and they're simply more memorable. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but we do have an exclusive article on Rainbow party. (I had never heard of it though, gross.). There also one Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories article too. Venkat TL (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, that's the angle. Keep saying "theory", "falsely" and something like "vile" until the rubes think "conspiracy", making any regular Republican gaffe smell vaguely like Infowars false flag crisis actor bullshit for political gain. Anyway, see also Consumption of Tide Pods and Satanic panic for the full aforementioned scoop. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  (And no, I didn't just call anyone here a "rube", I'm saying that's how sophisticated media machines take you.) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include. This claim did not worm its way into the media; it crashed onto the scene with brazen indifference to the truth, made not by any random person on the Internet, but by a well-known representative. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• oppose inclusion just because someone said something ridiculous, whether they are notable or not, doesn't mean we should acknowledge it and give it credence, moreover it isn't even a notable conspiracy theory in that the only places it was widely discussed were within groups of other conspiracy theorists on social media. PRAXIDICAE💕 12:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include: There is a multitude of conspiracy theories revolving around the shooting and a decent number of articles reporting on them. NPR (Falsehoods: over the shooter's identity, over the attack being staged, over the attack being part of a CIA operation); AP - Dallas Morning News & ABC News (Falsehoods: over the shooter's identity, over the attack being staged); NBC News (Falsehoods: over the shooter's identity) I would recommend inclusion while making it as clear as possible that these are not truthful. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include the material, at moderate length. Reliable sources discuss these crackpot trans-hating theories; they are worth mentioning. Yes they are distasteful--but not more than the shooting itself. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include These conspiracy theories took off online, and were even boosted by members of Congress. Plenty of reliable sources have covered this story. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include. This kind of serious coverage by very RS, especially since it involves a Congressman, makes it notable enough for mention. Initially short mention, and only if it develops like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories will it deserve a section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Some more RSs that have written articles focused primarily on the trans conspiracy theory are PinkNews and The Independent. Salon and The i] also published articles about the trans theory, while, as Super Goku V mentioned, ABC News wrote an article about various conspiracy theories regarding the shooting. benǝʇᴉɯ 15:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• oppose inclusion @Benmite So, it appears your agenda is "trans conspiracy theory", whatever that really is, based solely on a false rumour started on a malicious website. It has no place in this article. 48Pills (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@48Pills: I would like to remind you not to cast aspersions in order to keep this discussion civil. I have already explained several times over why including information about the conspiracy is not the same as promoting it. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Benmite Including it IS promoting it. 48Pills (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it is "documenting" it, and that's what we do here. Stop attributing motives and agendas to other editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Highlighting, or drawing attention to, transphobic content only serves the extremists' agenda and has no place in this article. 48Pills (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• oppose inclusion for now: WP:RECENT may apply here. Focus on conspiracy theories should be an after thought compared to getting the main points of the event clarified, cited, etc... We should consider whether these theories will even be in the news tomorrow, a week from now, let alone WP:10YT...Right now it's about prevalence and what a majority of RS are focusing on. We say what reliable sources say, and I think that should be our focus...FROM WP:WEIGHT: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. DN (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC) You don't get to vote twice, you've already voted above at reject for now —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do apologize - I received a message on my talk page after I made the previous comment that didn't sound like what I said had been perceived as an "oppose" - so I attempted to clarify. Thanks for making this correction, I will self revert if you like. DN (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  You have no need to apologise, the previous comment referred to was not a vote, it is outside the voting perimiter to be mistakenly considered as a vote. 48Pills (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include, covered by WP:RS, can now be reliably attributed to certain politicians promoting it, I do think our coverage of it should be as Drmies described, I'd say proportional to the overall coverage of the event in general (so maybe a few sentences/paragraph). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose full section per DN above; an entire section on such conspiracy theories may be WP:UNDUE due to WP:RECENTISM problems. A single sentence or two on some of the more notable incidents, for example a single sentence (emphasis on single) about the wrongly-shared picture may possibly be warranted, but a fully dedicated section for collecting and collating all of the various misinformation is not warranted yet. Give it some time, and see what sticks and what doesn't. Not everything every printed in any reliable source must be included, and some discretion needs to be had; we should not overemphasize aspects of this story whose long-term significance may be ephemeral, and should only consider including specific items within the main narrative that are likely to have that importance; and we should really resist creating an entire section on such matters, especially less than 48 hours out. --Jayron32 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree here. If (if) this event becomes a rallying point for loony conspiracy theorists to hound/harass the parents with vile innuendo like what happened at Sandy Hook and multiple reliable sources cover that exclusive angle, it could certainly merit a full section and maybe a standalone article. Until then, we should keep it brief. I suggested above that it should be limited to major political and social figures. -- Veggies (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Well put. Initially short mention, and only if it develops like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories will it deserve a section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose full section per Jayron32 and DN. Hateful nonsense spewed in the information gap immediately following the incident is unlikely to stand the test of time and risks further vilifying a marginalized community. I am also okay with a brief mention, but unless this gets more pickup than I expect, I'd say that's enough. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose full section as this is more about a congressman being a conspiracy theorist than it is this shooting, so it belongs at Paul Gosar. A brief mention here is sufficient. ––FormalDude talk 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, I'm kinda with FormalDude here. A big paragraph detailing the conspiracy is just WP:UNDUE, but brief mention, like one sentence, about the congressman is acceptable with some RS citations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - Stated my position in the section above, but as we're doing a semi-RfC like survey I'll restate it here. I don't think we need to be drawing attention to blatant transphobic misinformation. Just because we can verify something stated in reliable sources does not mean we need to include it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - It'll all depend on how prevalent the conspiracy theory becomes and how WP:RS chooses to cover it. Love of Corey (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly a mountain from a molehill, in my eyes. Gosar got fooled by 4chan, then quickly deleted his mistake. The resultant campaign to smear him (and by extension right-wingers broadly defined) as a hateful transphobic Sandy Hookish conspiracy kook is entirely political outrage theatre. A short and neutral fact-based paragraph could be fine in the reactions section, about specific politicians' statements and the general Sam trolljob, but none of this hyperopinionated BLP-violating rhetorical shit that seems to be the goal here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Horrible oppose. This is about scope–it has absolutely nothing to do with "political outrage theatre" or "BLP violating rhetoric". ––FormalDude talk 03:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Discussion

• Quick Comment: 1) Only notable (large scale or widely seen) conspiracy theories should be included.

2) Conspiracy theories should ALWAYS be described as "Conspiracy theories" in Wikipedia articles.

And 3) Debunking (disproving) sources should ALWAYS be included with them. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

48Pills, please take a look at this. While it may be more brief, it is not a full section, and you removed it outright now.1 I was merely reverting back to the status quo. Davide King (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Davide King You seem determined to flout the consensus, which was to remove any content that was deemed transphobic, yet that appears to be the very content you have selected from the reverted section. It was agreed to mention in one or two sentences: Gosar's tweet and the transphobic claims about the person wrongly identified as the shooter, provided it is warranted based on coverage in reliable sources. That's one sentence for each point, not six or seven, or the paragraph that you achieved. InedibleHulk or Jayron32 or DN or Dumuzid or FormalDude or Sideswipe9th, please help. 48Pills (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Davide King is correct per WP:STATUSQUO. ––FormalDude talk 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude Maybe regarding WP:STATUSQUO, but not the consensus, which is my only real concern. 48Pills (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Davide King -- while I agree with you about the status quo, I tend to also agree with 48Pills that as currently constituted, it still feels like a bit much. I am not sure the mention of associated attacks (though obviously awful) belongs right now (though I am of course happy to go with consensus). Perhaps you could try posting a pared down paragraph here so that we're not undoing too much in the article itself? Just a thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@48Pills: The consensus is to include the content briefly, but you removed it in its entirety. ––FormalDude talk 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: That is because the convenience of the Undo function was not always available due to other editor's contributions, so I ended up removing too much. 48Pills (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King @Dumuzid How about the following as a compromise?

Partly based on a rumor started by an anonymous user, on Twitter the day after the shooting, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) falsely claimed that the perpetrator was a "transsexual leftist illegal alien"; the tweet was taken down within two hours. Other social media users had spread the rumour about the perpetrator being an illegal immigrant, despite authorities identifying "him" as an American citizen. 48Pills (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Or
Partly based on a rumor started by an anonymous user, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) falsely claimed, on Twitter the day after the shooting, that the perpetrator was a "transsexual leftist illegal alien"; the tweet was taken down within two hours. The rumour about the perpetrator being an illegal immigrant had been spread by other social media users, despite authorities identifying "him" as an American citizen. 48Pills (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

48Pills — As I said, my main concern was that you removed everything, though I accept your justification; that is also why I also reverted it back, without trying to make it shorter myself. I think it is fine. Dumuzid, indeed I myself noted in my edit summary that it should probably be more brief, but my main issue was that it was totally removed. One last thing 48Pills, I think you owe me an apology for calling me a "twat"1, and for accusing me of bad faith of "flout[ing] the consensus" when at the very least we were both wrong to an extent — you for removing it outright, and me for restoring a version that was the status quo but perhaps too long for the consensus, though since no one seemed to complain or revert it, I thought it was within consensus. Davide King (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

So, 48Pills, in general, I am fine with either version of your compromise text, though I would like to hear some other opinions on it as well. And I am forced to agree with Davide King that you owe him an apology for the insult--while I am sensitive to the fact that different cultures use words differently (having lived in Scotland, I have several friends who use that particular term as one of profane endearment), it's not unreasonable to be offended in that case. That said, "flouting the consensus" is just sort of colorful argument language. That's part of the normal back and forth, as far as I am concerned. Overall, I think there's a lot more agreement here than the tensions seem to indicate. Cheers, all, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Attack on transgender teen

@FormalDude: the rumour/conspiracy/whatever that this discussion/RfC was addressing was the claim that the shooter was trans. The RfC was closed in favor of a brief sentence or two about the claim and Gosar's tweet, not for additional material about the rumor. I'll note as well that you're on 6 reverts in the last 40 minutes, most of which were against the consensus of a recently closed RfC, so it may be beneficial for you to self-revert. Endwise (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• You're right that this RfC and its consensus was on Gosar's tweet and information about the false claims that the perpetrator was a trans woman, and that it did not call for additional material about the rumor. As I said in my edit summary, the following content is not about that and therefore not within the scope of this RfC.

Another transgender teenager said that she was attacked outside a library in El Paso, Texas, by four men after the shooting, with one of the attackers saying "you know it was one of your sisters who killed those kids". [9] Other social media posts accused the parents and teachers of being crisis actors. [10]

The first sentence isn't even about a rumor, it's about a teenager who was attacked, and the second sentence is about a completely different falsehood. ––FormalDude talk 07:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The teenager was attacked as a result of the false claims that the perpetrator was a trans woman, as the source makes clear. It's additional discussion of the consequences of that rumour. The crisis actor thing is different yes, I didn't see it in my first edit, but left it in my second one. Endwise (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't know where you're getting that, it's certainly not from the source. There's a brief mention of the separate issue of Gosar's tweet, but the source does not connect them. ––FormalDude talk 08:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Gosar was not the origin of the rumour, he was just someone who boosted it, and it is notable that it was boosted by a lawmaker. The article is literally titled "Texas Trans Girl Attacked After False Uvalde Claims Spread Online", and says: The four men echoed an earlier false claim that the man responsible for the killings was a member of the trans community. The claim gained traction when it was repeated by various right-wing sources. It included Gosar in those right-wing sources (this was implied, but made explicit in the subheader). Regardless, as I said in my edit summary, there was not two separate rumours that the shooter was trans that coincidentally lined up. It was the same one, ostensibly originating on 4chan, making its way through the internet and into Gosar's tweets, and sadly in this case into the minds of the four men who assaulted an innocent teenager. That is what the article is talking about. Endwise (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• In my opinion, I agree with the removal of this content. This attack on transgender kid is UNDUE and tangential in my opinion. It is not relevant here. Please dont add it. Venkat TL (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I think it may be warranted if reliable sources do indeed connect it to the shooting and the false rumors boosted by Gosar, and make the connection. As things stand, I think we would need at least two other reliable sources, other than The Advocate, that make the aferomentioned connection. Davide King (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I have reinserted a mention of the attack; editors arguing that because an RfC concluded that this article should not have a whole section on the trans CT and therefore asserting that this attack should not be mentioned in the article, appear to be distorting the scope of the RfC discussion and its close. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The alleged attack on the transgender teen is completely unverified. We just have the teen's assertion that it happened. I would be very wary of reporting it until such time as there is verification, by a witness, a police report or a criminal charge. WWGB (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion I am also against inclusion of this added material, as it contains further transphobic content. I also note that if this were taken to a vote, most agree it should not be included. 48Pills (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion mainly due to concerns of WP:WEIGHT and verifiability. This is not something covered extensively in RS. Also, the RfC discouraged further discussion of the transgender conspiracy theory, which is intrinsically related to this incident. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was also reported by Forbes. "Molloy added a postscript from the Los Angeles Blade: A 17-year-old trans girl in El Paso, Texas was attacked by four men who made a connection between her trans identity and the Uvalde massacre: 'Yeah, you know it was one of your sisters who killed those kids,' one attacker told her. 'You're a mental health freak!' According to the Blade, El Paso police refused to file a report, even after advocates from the Rainbow Youth Project intervened. It would be good to know why they refused to file the report, whether due to lack of evidence or transphobia. Davide King (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The charge of politicization

In the third paragraph, this sentence refers to a common talking point of politicians from one party as though something they want to call "politicization" were a neutral fact: "They also expressed concerns about the politicization of the shooting."

The word "politicization" here might be linked to the Wikipedia article about the word, but that is not a precise rendering of the problem with the word. Better might be to indicate that in this context a charge of politicization is itself a political act out in the word, not a neutral expression of fact, though it might seem to be one when referenced in that sort of wording on a page of Wikipedia.

Some alternatives might be:

They also expressed concerns about the "politicization" of the shooting.

They also criticized what some politicians call the "politicization" of the shooting.

They also resisted efforts by gun control proponents to use this new incident as part of their persuasive rhetoric.

They also resisted efforts by gun control proponents during the period of public attention after a mass shooting to draw attention to proposals for new or extended gun control policies.

Since mass shooters often leave manifestos or computers filled with political content related to the shooting, it is not the politician speaking later that politicizes the shooting. It is already, in many cases, political.

--Ksmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8C38:44C0:7574:8518:A0FA:EBEA (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

Change date of May 24 to May 25. This was the day the shooting happened. The article to site for this date change is https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-school-shooting-victims/ SasquatchRadius (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Your source supports the current date of May 24. "Loving children and beloved educators were killed at Robb Elementary School on May 24 in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history." Cannolis (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Editorialising lede

Wow, the three paragraph lede is all editorialising! There's more about politics in there than about the event. Cut the lead down to the event.--Tallard (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is the way the reliable sources have covered the event. It would be disingenuous of us not to cover those aspects. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Like it or not, the shooting has become political. starship.paint (exalt) 03:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The overtly political section is only five lines and is proportionate in relation to the large section of the article that it summarises. The second section on the issues around law enforcement decisions and effectiveness are not really political, though that section could probably be trimmed a little to improve the overall balance of the three paras. Davidships (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in the lead. The shooting has become political, so the politics can't be omitted. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Police retrieving their own children -- questionable claim

Wiki article line in question: "Some police officers were reported to have entered the school early to retrieve their own children while parents were being blocked from entering outside.[73]"

The article cited https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2022/05/27/uvalde-shooting-timeline-student-pleaded-with-911-to-send-the-police-now-as-officers-on-scene-waited-for-tactical-units-to-arrive/?sh=68a2dd5134cf which cites this specific tweet https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1529808809719480320. The reporter asks and the DPT responds "There was some police officers, family members trying to get their kids out of school because there was an active shooter situation right now.. it's a terrible situation right now.. and of course the loss of life.."

I haven't found any other sources stating police officers entered early specifically to rescue their kids and leave the rest inside. I do think that part of the wiki article deserves this clarification 2601:149:100:7E10:5D49:A6BD:D82E:EE21 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned on Snopes, with a caveat that it is not known if, how many , and when officers went it to get their own kids: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officers-rescued-own-children-texas/ Izzy Borden (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with it being a questionable claim, as it's also appearing in the Texas Signal here, which quotes a law enforcement officer speaking in a live television interview. --Kbabej (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding it comes from the same interview quoted above. Much of the information given by that officer is false (for example, that the shooter was wearing body armor), so I think it is indeed questionable. What we need is for reporters to ask more questions about this, because I think this is the only official word on it so far. Toast776 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should doubt the officer saying police recovered their own kids. The body armor statement wasn't entirely false, the shooter was wearing a vest that could be fitted inside with body armor plates, but there were no plates inside of the tactical vest. If you just looked at the shooter's body, you wouldn't know if the vest was filled or not with the plates. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It was entirely false. They did not say something like "we think he was wearing body armor but haven't yet recovered it." Instead they falsely claimed he was wearing body armor even after they had time to recover the shooter's body. Moreover the officer who is quoted on this is a Texas DPS spokesperson and not a member of the Uvalde police departments. Not only did Texas DPS give out loads of false info, but the police departments seem to be no longer cooperating with DPS.

Without further information this remains a single claim made by one person who wouldn't necessarily know it to be true or false, and therefore I think the language that it was "reported" that officers went in to save their own children is more than a little misleading. Unless we're talking about strictly off duty officers which I think has been more or less confirmed. Toast776 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)