Talk:2014 Harris County shooting

Category Issue

For some reason this article isn't showing up in the category Mass murder in 2014. Can someone please fix this, and why would that happen? Fuutil (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

- Should be showing there now. Benbuff91 2:59 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

There is no presumption of innocence for the alleged perpetrator. I attempted to remove all mention of the alleged perpetrator, per WP:BLPCRIME, and found there was little substance left of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

- All we did was give information on the suspects background. Nowhere did we state that he was "guilty." Next time, instead of deleting everything, why not bring up the subject and discuss it first? Or at least make changes that would of kept the article's substance, instead of deleting hours of work. Benbuff91 2:53 11 July 2014 (UTC) - There, I managed to make it seem like there is a possibility of his innocence by enforcing that he is the "suspect". It's amazing how easy that was to do without deleting the entire article. Benbuff91 — Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should details about the alleged perpetrator be removed?

{{archivetop|NAC: There is no consensus as to how much material about the alleged killer should be retained and how much should be removed. Some editors have said that sourced material should be kept, and some have cited BLPCRIME saying that it should be removed. Some editors have said that the article itself should be deleted, but AFD rather than RFC is the forum for that issue. No consensus. A relist of a new RFC, with neutral notifications, might be appropriate.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If for no other reason, it should be re-listed as an AfD to provide some honest input. Most of the major contributors to either the article or the AfD were all socks: Benbuff91, Fuutil, OlafOneEye, and another "Libertarian". See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benbuff91/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corporate Raider/Archive). Magnolia677 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Should details about the alleged perpetrator be removed, per WP:BLPCRIME? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally do not believe this event merits an article at this point in time. Wikipedia has guidelines. It is not primarily a source for current events. The fact that it can be up-to-date is wonderful, as long as it does not diminish it's veracity. The reason there are guidelines is to guide editors. I suggest editors read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER "... Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." or WP:BLPCRIME "... for people who are relatively unknown ... " After things settle a bit, he is arraigned, etc. then I believe an article would be appropriate under mass-murder. But at this point, personal details about the accused should be very limited, not libelous, etc.

I have been slammed for pointing out those guidelines in the past ... had my user page vandalized in point of fact. Some editors are "passionate" about including this type of information to perhaps claim credit for getting it "out there" first ... too many hours of playing capture-the-flag in MMORPGs methinks.

I would certainly not preemptively remove the information without having a healthy discussion with those editors on the Talk page. As we are doing now. Bobsd (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Or consider Wikinews which is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is tailored toward news. Bobsd (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be an article, but meh. --Malerooster (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a major current event in the United States, it certainly deserves to be an article. Also, every mass shooting has details about the perpetrator, alleged or proven guilty (see:James Eagan Holmes, who we had a ton of information on before he pleaded not guilty by reason on insanity). The information also provides background on the suspect for the upcoming court case against him. Benbuff91 19:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

So because other articles didn't follow policy, this one shouldn't either? Let me review WP:BLPCRIME for you, which is Wikipedia policy: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The accused perpetrator in this case has NOT been convicted, yet you have added paragraphs about the accused, using text such as "was identified by police as the sole suspect in the shooting", and "police suspect Haskell committed the shooting after a domestic dispute". This was a terrible and senseless crime, and I sincerely hope whoever did it gets a taste of Texas justice. But Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and Wiki policies, which were created by consensus, have established--in my opinion--that your edit is not appropriate. If you don't like the policy, then try to have it changed. But don't disregard the policy just because other articles have, and because you feel your edit is just so important. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to scale down some of the information on the shooter but to say this wasn't an event worthy of an article is wrong. Benbuff91 5:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep all properly sourced details as long as the information does not violate WP:WEIGHT or WP:RECENT. At this point the details are acceptable. Everything is properly sourced and public information. "Alleged perpetrator" does not presume guilt (the phrase is widely used in the media in cases like this), and Wikipedia has no obligation to wait for a conviction to report the facts. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete the entire article for now - Please realize that this is a grizzly ugly event and covering something like that in any medium requires detachment, so understand my words please in that context. Ugly and horrid as this is (and I am not trying in any way to minimize that), this is nothing more than an extreme case of domestic violence, a crime that occurs untold numbers of times daily across the US and around the world. Realistically, does anyone think that this case will have any repercussions beyond the trial and conviction of the perpetrator and the painful loss to the families and friends? Will laws change? Will the world outside of Spring be any different? A careful reading of WP:EVENTCRIT might bring light to this discussion. As this article stands now, it is nothing more than a retelling of what the news reports have told us. Why? Because that is all there is at this point. To answer my rhetorical questions above, although IMHO this event is not going to have any historical significance, we just can't know. One of the most cited policies at Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Well, this article is news and nothing more. It should go until we have perspective to figure out what this means. Add some of the content to the article on Spring. Add some to domestic violence. If it turns out down the line that this event does create some sort of lasting change in society, write the article then. @Benbuff91, where did you get the idea that current events should have articles on Wikipedia? I know of no policy that says or even suggests that, and the very well known policy of WP:NOTNEWS contradicts it. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken. Holmes is an entirely different set of circumstances than this. It was a shooting of strangers in a public place, there was the tie-in to the movie and the reason he has an article on him, which the alleged perpetrator of this crime never will, the extensive and long lasting discussion in the press about who knew what about his mental issues when. It is my feeling that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME do preclude us from talking about the perpetrator by name until his conviction, but I will concede that recent practice here at Wikipedia has been to allow it if the press is talking about him by name and there is a near certainty there is no other suspect. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"a crime that occurs untold numbers of times daily across the US and around the world": Really? Then please cite a few examples of such a mass murder in the past few days. That should be quite easy if it happens every day. If you had said "domestic violence occurs every day", I wouldn't ask you to defend your words. But you said a lot more than that.

"Will laws change? Will the world outside of Spring be any different?": One of the few advantages of Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is that the number of articles is limitless (and no, I'm not suggesting that everything deserves an article). Wikipedia's standards for notability do not include whether an event will "change laws" or "create some sort of lasting change in society". If we apply that standard, about 75% of articles on the English Wikipedia should be deleted.

"this event is not going to have any historical significance, we just can't know": I agree wholeheartedly, which is why as long as an article is about a notable topic, as this one certainly is, and is properly sourced and kept within the confines of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT, it is acceptable.

The article may need some tweaking, but deleted? Nope. BTW, if you want the article deleted you should discuss at WP:AfD, and please be sure to list it in appropriate categories for deletion so the broader Wikipedia community can discuss. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How is a major mass shooting that will certainly be followed by a notable court case not an event worth talking about? Why are current events not worth talking about? Actually, when you do the math, this is the 2nd largest mass shooting in the US this year in terms of victims minus the Santa Barbara shooting. It's by no means a small and insignificant event. Just about everyone here, whether or not they agree the page deserves some tweeking or not, agrees it's an article worth discussion. Benbuff91 1:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

claims of importance and impact in the future that we do not know about are purely WP:CRYSTALballing. If it has lasting impact, THEN we create an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, in that case I'll be spending the next few months starting AfDs for 75% of English Wikipedia articles that have been around for years and never were about anything "important" and have not had an "impact in the future". I'm sure the fanboys and fangirls of the likes of Ali Lohan won't raise any objections. But for now let's just start with the hundreds of entries with articles at List of rampage killers and all the links to other lists on that page. I think it's safe to say that at least half of those are no more important or have had no more impact that the Spring killings. I look forward to your support, Red Pen. You start with the top half of the list and I'll get the bottom half. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• subject fails WP:NOTNEWS and probably shouldnt exist. But given that it does, the content about the suspect MUST be severely limited in presentation and sourced only to the highest standards WP:BLPCRIME. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why everyone is so darn gun ho about deleting this article. Why don't you go through and delete just about half of the article about mass shootings that have occured in the US if this is the "standard" you're all holding yourselves to? It's been up for over a week now. Technically it's not even a "current event" anymore. Benbuff91 2:32, 18 July 2014.

• Keep all properly sourced details as long as the information does not violate WP:WEIGHT or WP:RECENT per IP 75.177.156.78. I agree that an "alleged perpetrator" does not presume guilt. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Didn't see this earlier and thought I'd comment. In regards to compressing the info of the section, exactly how much compression should be used? Is one paragraph necessitated for the 'Suspect' section? Two? Three? In addition, if Haskell is found guilty of the charges, what's gonna happen to all of the info that was taken out during compression? Sources have obviously given a large amount of specific details about Haskell's past. In the scenario that he is found guilty, all of this info could provide readers a good understanding about the events that led up to this horrific mass murder. I'm not offering my opinion on if this should be compressed or not; I'm just wondering. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the information isn't going to just dissapear. I would like to compress it (the fact the section about the shooter is bigger than the section about the shooting itself is kind of trying), but I'm not quite sure what to compress yet. Benbuff91 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2014 Harris County, Texas shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140716191549/http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/09/3995441/multiple-fatalities-in-houston.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/09/3995441/multiple-fatalities-in-houston.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140713012055/http://news92fm.com:80/454775/breaking-police-respond-to-shooting-in-klein-subdivision/ to http://news92fm.com/454775/breaking-police-respond-to-shooting-in-klein-subdivision/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140713011843/http://www.chron.com:80/news/texas/article/4-children-among-6-killed-in-Houston-area-shooting-5611061.php to http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/4-children-among-6-killed-in-Houston-area-shooting-5611061.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140711131841/http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-charged-in-multiple-shooting-deaths-at-Harris-County-home-266564781.html to http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-charged-in-multiple-shooting-deaths-at-Harris-County-home-266564781.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140717232236/http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-shooting-suspect-had-faced-other-charges-5614317.php to http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-shooting-suspect-had-faced-other-charges-5614317.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 Harris County, Texas shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6d1u6kbIU?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fmaps%2Fdc10map%2FGUBlock%2Fst48_tx%2Fplace%2Fp4869596_spring%2FDC10BLK_P4869596_000.pdf to http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/GUBlock/st48_tx/place/p4869596_spring/DC10BLK_P4869596_000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Waddell, Arizona Buddhist temple shooting which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

LDS church notice of funeral

The LDS church had a notice for the funeral of the deceased: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/funeral-held-for-lds-family-slain-in-texas WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RonaldLeeHaskellmugshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)