Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removed bolding, infoboc, birthday, etc, etc

The perpetrator is not particularly notable outside this event. His birth date is not relevant. His age at the time of his crime and death is enough. His name should not be bolded. The infobox contains only cruft so I removed it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Support, not a bio. DGAF about the bolding, despite some somewhat ambiguous support for it at WP:R#PLA (we currently have two CHM redirects to the Perpetrator section, that in my opinion should redirect to the article instead). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The infobox can go, but I don't see what the issue is about the bolding. Remember, WP:R#PLA. Also, Mandruss, would you care to address the other redirect links for the perpetrators of other mass shootings, since we're on that topic? Because what you're saying will have to apply to ALL OF THEM. Versus001 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Versus001: For my response, see my last comment at #Identify family. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't receive your ping above. This doesn't work because the ping and your signature have to be added in the same edit. If you forget the ping or the signature, you have to do both in a new edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about this editsum. What was sneaky about his edit? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

He did not explain he was removing the bolding as well (which was what he has been doing for a while). Versus001 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The bolding should remain, it has nothing to do with notability. It is a courtesy to readers who search for the perps name and land in this article. Bolding the name "explains" why they have landed here. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to bold all redirects, so this one certainly counts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects to Perpetrator section

Bolded or not, the guy's name should redirect to the section about the guy. What else could someone who clicks or types "Christopher Harper-Mercer" reasonably expect to find? It's not just the least astonishing place to send them, it's the only fitting place on this whole site. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for the article about this shooting, I might very well use his name to find it (it's hard to remember "Umpqua"). That doesn't mean I'm only interested in the details of his life. Linking to the article provides the context first, and the Perpetrator section is then one click away (if that's in fact where I want to go). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not that hard. It just takes some getting used to. I had a hard time remembering it at first, but it's now easy to memorize. Versus001 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Just six letters, even if one's a Q. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You just responded to a parenthetical and completely ignored the rest of the argument. Never mind that we're talking about average readers, not Wikipedia editors who have been working on this article for weeks. Great job, Versus. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I find that very offensive. Versus001 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The shooter is an inconsequential side note. It's a name with no recognition outside the topice. The redirect should be to the article, not the section on the shooter as there is nothing notable about the shooter. --DHeyward (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is notable. There is no consensus in censoring the names of perpetrators right now. As of now, this discussion is still not resolved. Go get a consensus there first. Versus001 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsequential people don't cause Wikipedia articles with 79 sources. Side notes don't appear in the leads of those articles or consistently throughout four pages of Talk. These are non-notable killers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree my argument was stronger. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching this page (and created the redirect Christopher Harper-Mercer), and I've got to say that I agree with InedibleHulk. Redirecting the name to the article as a whole, regardless of what one might think about what readers want to see, would be a tad bit misleading. If someone really isn't looking for the perpetrator, he/she can just scroll up slightly (I wrote this a few hours ago and forgot to save). Dustin (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

He can't see the TOC at that point. How does he know to scroll up, rather than down? The only way to get a concise overview of the article structure is to go to the top. Which is where he would be if the redirect were to the article, not the section. See also: my other points. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone can't figure scrolling out, they likely struggle with typing or clicking, too, so wouldn't be there in the first place. Call me elitist, but I think we write for Internet users. And if they can navigate, they're probably where they wanted to be, which wasn't at a concise overview. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say they can't figure it out. The basis for this argument is, "it's easy to scroll", which is negated by my reply, "it's easy to click Perpetrator in the TOC". The two arguments cancel each other out, leaving us with the other arguments, and my strongest ones have yet to be countered. Again, redirecting to the section presumes that the reader is most likely to be interested in CHM's background information, not the shooting event. And saying that it's not that hard for him to find what he really wanted is not a counter for that argument. Can anyone honestly claim that the background is what is wanted a majority of the time? Really? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If people want to research him, then Wikipedia is obligated to give them that information, and with that come the policies in place. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED. Warner Sun (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that right, though? Warner Sun (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether to point two redirects to the Perpetrator section or to the article. It is not about whether to include or omit any content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't redirects count as content, though? It really seems like people are bugged about readers researching the perp, which is made possible by redirect links. Warner Sun (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anyone bugged about readers researching the perp. Certainly not me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering one of the users involved in this discussion previously had a supportive voice for here and here, I assume that's what's going on. Warner Sun (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's related at all. We're just talking about the best place to send two redirects, and I don't see how a redirect target could be related to censorship. No one is claiming, for example, that redirecting to Perpetrator glorifies the perp. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It REALLY sounds like that, at least from that guy's standpoint. Warner Sun (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you identified which guy in this thread you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward. Warner Sun (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot more arguments in this thread besides his. If your initial comment was directed only at him, you didn't say so. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

On anything in general or just this specific topic? Warner Sun (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There are lot more arguments in this thread besides about where to send these two redirects. That is the topic of this subsection. It's now clear that your opening comment was directed only at one participant, but it didn't immediately follow any of his comments and you didn't mention his username. Hence all the confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not aiming this at only one participant, nor was I intending to address a broader problem. I was giving a reason why the redirects should remain as what they are. Warner Sun (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well feel free to respond to my arguments on this topc, which have nothing to do with the issues you have brought up. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What the hell?! We ARE talking about redirects, aren't we? Warner Sun (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Two redirects in particular. As I've indicated, my arguments have nothing to do with glorifying anyone, encouraging copycats, or any of that other stuff outside this thread. They only have to do with what a reader is most likely to be seeking when they search for some form of CHM's name. They are about what is the most useful redirect for the reader. Full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then, they will obviously type CHM's name on the search if they want to search for him. The redirect link will take them to where they want to go. And if they somehow didn't want to go there and were searching for something else in the article, well, would it really kill them to use the scroll bar? Warner Sun (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That has been brought up, and responded to, above. One of the nice things about discussions in writing is that you don't have to keep repeating yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me where exactly this "response" is supposed to be? Warner Sun (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok.

I didn't say they can't figure it out. The basis for this argument is, "it's easy to scroll", which is negated by my reply, "it's easy to click Perpetrator in the TOC". The two arguments cancel each other out, leaving us with the other arguments, and my strongest ones have yet to be countered. Again, redirecting to the section presumes that the reader is most likely to be interested in CHM's background information, not the shooting event. And saying that it's not that hard for him to find what he really wanted is not a counter for that argument. Can anyone honestly claim that the background is what is wanted a majority of the time? Really?

―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then, hence why I said "Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If people want to research him, then Wikipedia is obligated to give them that information, and with that come the policies in place. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED." in the first place. If they want to find that information on Wikipedia, then yes, we should probably give it to them, as an encyclopedia. There's at least one person in the world who wants to know his history on WP. Besides, it's not like we're mentioning every single thing news sources (both reliable and unreliable) mention about him anyway. Warner Sun (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say you've totally lost me. Changing the redirect to the article instead of the section doesn't remove any information. It's still right there in the Perpetrator section. The question is, are readers searching using his name more likely to be seeking information about the shooting in general, or about the perp's background? I assert the former. If the former is true, there is no justification for going to the Perpetrator section first. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I said information, what I was thinking about was easy accessibility. "[A]re readers searching using his name more likely to be seeking information about the shooting in general, or about the perp's background?" Pretty sure it's the latter. Why else would they want to write out the guy's name? Warner Sun (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because they can't think of a better search argument, maybe? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds a bit improbable... Warner Sun (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I have no doubt that many people have trouble remembering "umpqua", since it's the first time in their lives they have seen that word. "christopher", "harper", and "mercer", not so much. They'll choose to remember that which is easiest to remember. The one hard data point on this that we have, the one thing beyond personal opinions, can be found in this thread above. Note the OP's mastery of the word "umpqua". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I will have to repeat what was being said above: it's not that hard to remember "Umpqua", especially if the news keeps mentioning it in every report about the event. That serves as no real excuse. Online searches for news stories will have the name spelled out for them. WP is most likely not the first place people will go to. As for that one example you provided, ONE, it's just one person. And we don't know if the spelling was accidental and he/she knew what she was typing. Warner Sun (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and, as I said, the rest is personal opinion. I have very little hard information, and you have none. My little beats your none. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't sound like a good excuse. Warner Sun (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Without an outside arbiter it comes down to mere numbers, and it's currently 4-to-2 against me. I will now retreat pending further participation. Thank you for the stimulating conversation. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Warner Sun (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I see I am being discussed without notice. First, the shooter is news. So are the victims. So is the vet that tried to stop the shooter. In the end, this a shooting with a common name and all searches will be related to the event of the shooting. Someone searching wikpedia for "Chris Mintz" should be sent to the same place as the shooter. They are both known for the same event. Should we bold every victims name and create a redirect? There isn't going to be a trial or further news. There is no censorship as many players will be searched but we shouldn't cater to such specific details that ignore the larger scope that made their actions notable (including a victims death). Both Mintz and Harper-Mercer should redirect to the event. It seems rather odd to believe there will be long term interest in the shooter that excludes the event except by psychopaths. We serve the reader and the vast majority of readers that come across the names will be interested in the notable event rather than the biographical details. This is true for the two police officers, Mintz, the other victims and shooter. The section should not be a hagiographic tribute that immortalizes an otherwise non-notable person. Nor should the redirect skip all the pieces that made a redirect meet the requirements for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Should we bold every victims name and create a redirect?" If necessary, yes.

"It seems rather odd to believe there will be long term interest in the shooter that excludes the event except by psychopaths." Well, since the guy committed suicide, investigators will now have to search the hard way for a motive behind it, and they'll keep giving out new information on the shooter once it's found. That should serve enough as notability.

"The section should not be a hagiographic tribute that immortalizes an otherwise non-notable person." See, it's this kind of diction that makes me think this is related to the ongoing discussions about Wikipedia glorifying mass murderers. This is not glorification, but the media will keep focusing more on the shooter, and Wikipedia will reflect that from the reliable sources given.

Warner Sun (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Too many sources, too little uniqueness.

There are 79 sources for this short article, and much overlap. Many are just AP stories. There's something to be said for well-sourced, especially in developing stories, but the mainstream narrative has been established. We don't need to have NBC repeat ABC repeat WSJ repeat WP repeat HP repeat CBS and so on. If someone wants to consolidate this heap, I'm offering 10,000 bonus points. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish there were a tool that you could use to search only the web pages linked to in the article's existing references. That would make avoiding redundancy practical. Such a tool is eminently do-able, but I lack the specific programming skills and I've never gotten any traction for the idea. We usually just live with it, and bonus points don't buy what they used to. But knock yourself out. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to knock myself out, I wouldn't have offered the job. But yeah, if nobody else bites, I guess I'll have to eventually. I also suck at programming helpful bots. Just know a little BASIC, which is now worth less than points. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the type of job which can't be automated. One must carefully examine every use of every ref to see exactly which content it supports. Another ref may appear to be about the same topic, but may contain other details or quotes which are needed, so deleting any ref is a risky proposal. There is no need to delete any source anyway. If you find one that you feel needs to be deleted, leave a very specific edit summary or your delete will just be reverted, and for good reason. This just happens to be a very well-sourced article. It speaks to the notability of the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the type of job which can't be automated. If you're referring to my mention of a tool, the only automating I'm talking about is the task of identifying a source already used in the article that serves your need for a new citation. This tool would not modify the article in any way. Where we currently start with Google and use the source we find there, we would start with this tool instead. If we couldn't find a suitable source already used in the article, we would then go to Google. Thus, far less overlap and redundancy, and a far shorter References section. But like I said, no one seems that concerned with the overlap and the length of the References section, which is why there has been no traction for the tool. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Obama's comment on UK and Australia

Hi everyone. Registered just to ask this question. I noticed there was very little on Obama's comments in the article. He made a point of singling out "friends of ours. Great Britain. Australia." In reference to tightening gun laws and the much lower death by firearms per capita in both countries than in the US..as seen here; List of countries by firearm-related death rate. Surely his comments should be included (and in brackets use the verified figures). I'm aware there will be pro gun editors but surely this is about reporting what Obama stated, and the figures for which he based his comments on. -- TerryPeters09 (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a "Gun Control" issue rather than anything related to this shooting. It's about as useful as comments about "gun-free zones." --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it does have some WP:TOPIC issues here. Obama made the comment above on 2 October 2015, the day after the shooting. He also told BBC News on 24 July 2015 that failure to tackle gun control was the biggest frustration of his presidency.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. That doesn't sound too neutral for Wikipedia's standards to me. Warner Sun (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Barack Obama article only has 402 sources. Might be wanted there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hyper-protective black mother

This is in reference to the Los Angeles Times quote
"Harper-Mercer, who, despite his allegedly white supremacist leanings, was mixed-race and lived with a hyper-protective black mother"
( http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-profile-20151003-story.html )
. This was the subject of this discussion at "Hyper-protective black mother" which as of 7:00 am UTC 9 October 2015 has been filed away. Now my question is: if the bot policy reads "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 2 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.", then how come the thread was filed away, if the most recent comment was at 04:58, October 8, 2015 (UTC) ? The last comment was InedibleHulk and it is the fourth comment from the bottom. From when I first logged in this morning, it may have been 25 hours and possibly less before the page was archived. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a side effect of my signature style. Miszabot doesn't count the date as a number. Yours was the last "real" post, over two days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your date is in between brackets. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Legally purchased vs. passed background check

All firearms sales through a dealer require Form 4473 and a background check. Do have any more information on his discharge related to a suicide attempt? Specifically, did an Army board find that he was a danger to himself or others? That's one of the mental health loopholes added by the "NICS imrovement act of 2007" that was created after the Virginia Tech shooting. That improvement act excluded findings by boards of federal government agencies. Prior to that act, the Army boards findings would have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm, just as the VT shooter was prohibited. NICS didn't catch it because hardly anyone reports mental health findings. It would be ironic if the VT shooting enabled the legislation that allowed Harper-Mercer to purchase a firearm. --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no Army board for his Entry Level Separation. The guy just could not cut the mustard. Claiming mental health or just refusal to train would have a person sent to 7West, the mental health section of the hospital at Jackson for evaluation, where people are pretty much rubber stamped at (1) getting recycled or (2) getting sent home with the second option more likely. During that time frame (2008) it was and still is quicker to separate the individual and send them home, with only paperwork releasing them from further commitment to the 8 year military service obligation contract they had signed; no DD214, no benefits, just sent home. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The article says it was for attempted suicide. ELS is easy but there is a reason given as well as a reenlistment code. ELS discharges do have a DD214 though the discharge is not characterized (i.e. it's not Honorable, General, Dishonorable, etc). but it's fair to say it's "other than honorable" --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless they changed the process again, ELS were just given paperwork and not a DD214, at least around 2007-8 when I was pulling my staff time at Benning and was stuck doing process review for legal. Someone should do a FOIA and get copies of his official paperwork vs an anonymous source from the Army because from my experience the Army will never willingly get involved in this story. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

They characterize it for reenlistment purposes. Some ELS discharges allow the applicant to reenlist (e.g. an enlistee with a dependent child that has inadequate care for the child will be given ELS but allowed to re-enlist if they rectify the problem. They have to be able to deploy after basic and if childcare is an issue in the first 90 days, they are separated.) Others, such as failing to adapt to culture or certain drug use, can get a ELS code that is ineligible for reenlistment. It's a small detail but it matters for future jobs such as "police officer." Some will reenlist only to clear the ELS discharge and replace with honorable. I believe now, even with a reenlistment code, ELS' personnel are no longer accepted but that seems to be the military saying "you're okay, but no thanks." Some discerning police departments will accept some ELS codes but not others. I guess the military could now be saying everyone is "eligible" but not take any of them. The closest the military is getting is when veterans are claiming a disability but then denying the disability when applying for civil service jobs. The next category is veterans that are prescribed medications that make them unfit to hold a pilots license and the VA is communicating with the FAA. Mental health, though, is a huge sticking point. A veteran commercial pilot being treated for depression or PTSD by a fed doctor is protected from having that diagnoses and treatment being sent to FAA even if it should ground him. GermanWings suicide was not enough to change rules. They are starting to pierce the non-mental health veils so pain medication might be reported bot not anti-depressants even though both ground pilots. OIG has started preparing and prosecuting disability claims that are denied on future applications. For gun sales, the Army is specifically prohibited (since 2007) from reporting mental health findings to NICs unless it was an insanity defense in a court martial. And no, they will not comment and FOIA won't pierce mental health treatment or findings. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the army declined to comment on the claim by law enforcement officials that it was a suicide attempt. This means that all we have to go on is what the law enforcement officials said. As the source in the article points out, he did not receive a dishonorable discharge in 2008, which might have affected his eligibility for a gun. Under current U.S. law, unless a person has been formally committed to a mental institution, they would not be barred from owning a gun.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. His discharge discussion is really about how an official with no connection to the military made a claim about the perp's military service but the Army cannot/will not comment on: thus pure speculation. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army would have barred him from owning a gun under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Since this did not happen, and he had not been formally committed to a mental institution, he would have been able to pass background checks for owning a gun (IANAL).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's correct for the dishonorable discharge. It's not correct that "formal commitment" is the only avenue that would prevent possession. The question is Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ver been committed to a mental institution?. Until 2007, an uncharacterized discharge due to "danger to oneself or others" by an Army review board would have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm. After the Virginia Tech shooting, they mandated reporting to NICS except for agencies of the federal government. Prior to 2007, he would have been a prohibited purchaser but still passed NICS because the Army (and many other agencies) weren't required to report their findings. In 2007 they sought to strengthen the reporting requirements of state courts but mental health lobbyists specifically exempted findings by federal agencies and the Veterans Administration that were not courts. The Virginia Tech shooter passed the background check because his previous committals were not reported but he was a prohibited purchaser and his purchase was illegal. The 2007 law to improve state reporting created a giant loophole that allows persons that are a danger and known to the federal government slip through the process. It's question 11f on the firearm transaction record which is required for every forearm purchased from a dealer.[3] The question wasn't modified by law, but the instructions for answering it were modified. Passing a NICS check does not make the transaction legal. If he's a prohibited possessor, it is illegal for him to purchase firearms and it is also illegal to lie on the form (straw purchasers pass NICs background check, they are prosecuted for lying on the form and the straw purchase). --DHeyward (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is all still basing it on the suicide attempt and not just an administrative issue. 5 weeks at basic=1 week in reception, 3 weeks in red phase, 1 week out processing. Since he continued on to some high school for problem children after the Army, I have doubts that it was just suicide attempt issues at play. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

providing a more complete weapon list

A .40-caliber Taurus handgun was mentioned in the reference from that provided the makes and models of the shooter's weapons, but is missing from the list of weapons in the wikipedia article. The real dan (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that's one of the "three other handguns" mentioned in the infobox. I don't feel much need to exhaustively document makes, types, and calibers, especially when there is no indication he actually used that gun. In my opinion we already have a little more detail in that area than we need. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding the Taurus, but the syntax of the article, personally, made me unsure if it was one of the three handguns recovered on the campus or one of the eight found at his apartment. Maybe I missed something, so if the article does make it clear that it was one of the weapons found at the crime scene, then do add it in. Versus001 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough it was at the scene. As I said, I believe it's already represented in the infobox but not separately. I'm obviously willing to defer to consensus but it's worth discussing first. For now, it's a disputed edit without consensus, and should stay out. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An article on CBS also states it was at the scene.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Providing a weapons list without excessive detail (noise)

So let's expand the scope of the discussion. My preference would be something more like this:

• Three semi-automatic pistols
• Two other handguns, types unknown
• One rifle

I would prefer "AR-15 variant" (or simply semi-automatic rifle) for more accuracy (the difference between an AR-15 variant and a Remington bolt-action deer rifle is very significant), but I don't think we have that at this point. Since there is no Wikipedia article for Del-Ton, a reader has to use Google to determine that it's an AR-15 variant; therefore it doesn't help much to say simply Del-Ton. If we ever learn which weapons were actually used, I'd prefer limiting the infobox to those and mentioning the others in the body where we can be clear about it (but still without the exhaustive detail of interest or meaning to few readers besides gun buffs). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this from CBS News should be enough to say "AR-15-variant rifle". Or, if we can infer semi-automatic pistol from Glock 9mm (I believe we can, per other Wikipedia articles and WP:BLUE), we should be able to infer semi-automatic rifle from AR-15 variant, and that would be more consistent treatment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Nytimes says that the shooter's mother referred to an AR-15 in her house in online postings about her guns. The police report erroneously called it a ".556" when they meant "5.55mm NATO". Ms Harper said in a post that her house has an AR-15 and an AK - and Del-Ton makes ARs but not AKs. -- Callinus (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Any opinion on this proposal? For the average reader, is there a meaningful difference between a Glock 9mm and a S&W .40-cal semi-auto? Is that a useful distinction in your opinion, or just data for the sake of data? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Help:Infobox says they should not contain lengthy or trivial information. I'd perfer:

• Five handguns, including a 9mm Glock and .40 S&W pistol
• 5.56mm AR-15 rifle

That may be more concise and simple - the repetition of "handgun" is possibly not needed. The AR-15 was not fired. -- Callinus (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I assert that the makes and calibers are trivial information; that's the point of this proposal. I'm still waiting for someone to say how they are non-trivial. Anyone? Bueller? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll assert that the manufacturer, model and caliber of the guns that were used to commit the murders is nontrivial. I'm old enough to remember the legislation against "Saturday night specials," and the price of a gun tells you something tangible about the shooter. Either mention the makes and models of all the handguns, or mention the makes and models of none of them. Just mentioning some of them clearly reflects a bias of some sort. I requested the information in the first place because I came to the article to find out what guns were used (I apologize if I have violated unwritten etiquette in this talk page)The real dan (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have thought for some time that the level of detail about the weapons in mass shooting articles is too high, particularly in the infobox. Sometimes it does not add significantly to a reader's understanding of the case. All of the Umpqua victims were killed with a handgun, and this is enough for the infobox. The fact that the shooter took five handguns to the school is significant, the exact make and model of the handguns is not. This level of detail needs to be justified in the context of the shooting, otherwise it is bordering on cruft.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: In the case of Columbine some of them were smuggled across state boundaries - in this case they were all legally bought, so distinctions aren't really as important. -- Callinus (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Callinus I don't think I've read anything about smuggling weapons across state boundaries. The only things I've seen about Columbine is the sawed-off shotgun (unregistered NFA weapons are illegal to possess) and selling handguns and handgun ammunition to someone under 21. Usually, when the press says "legally bought," it's a transaction between the last traced FFL holder and a non-licensee. Shipping pistols through UPS out of state requires an in-state FFL (and background check and 4473 form) to conduct the transfer. But a private seller can bring his guns and sell them face-to-face. ATF will not license someone who's only business is from gun shows (even if they want to be licensed) nor do they allow private sellers the ability to run a background check on a buyer. There is no "private sale" ATF form so I'm not sure how "smuggled" (or even "straw purchase") is applied to Columbine. I'd be surprised if anyone was charged with more than "selling pistol/pisyol ammunition to underage person" or "illegally possessing or transferring NFA weapon." --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Sorry that was just from my recollection. The classification of "Assault weapon" was important to that article. In my opinion, weapon types and calibers should be included when:

• It effects policy (eg weapon sales laws) after the shooting.
• It effects policy on bullet proofing - bullet proof glass has to be thicker to stop sniper rifle/battle rifle rounds rather than handgun rounds.

Models of vehicles used in bombings/terrorist attacks are useful for information on protective measures. -- Callinus (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's bizarre to intentionally leave out key information about a violent crime from an article about that crime. The precise variety of weapon used is part of the story. I can't see any benefit gained by using the same amount of space to provide a vague description. I object to this proposal. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:3C44:E8A5:26B1:DBC8 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What is bizarre to me is the fixation with gun models in mass shootings. It's like a part of the American gun problem. Who cares and what does it matter whether the shooting was done with a state-of-the-art killing machine, or a blunderbuss? The poor b@st@rds are just as dead, whatever weapon was used. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is about omitting as much unuseful information as possible, lest it obscure the useful information; i.e. separating the wheat from the chaff. Half of our readers wouldn't know a 9mm Glock from a Seth Thomas clock, and few of the remainder would care when it comes to understanding this incident. Every little piece of information must earn its keep, especially in an infobox (and that's not about physical space). Bear in mind that the specific information can be found easily enough in the cited sources, for any who really care. But please, explain how the makes and calibers of the handguns are meaningful to the average reader, and how this is "key information". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The number and general type (handgun, single action or semi-auto, rifle, shotgun) are relevant, but the exact model isn't always significant, and just serves to glorify the brand, which only feeds the perverse curiosity of copycat killers, ammophiliacs, and ammosexuals.

Since this subject will repeatedly come up in the future, and already applies to a number of articles, I would like to see a policy about how to deal with the level of detail for weapons used in mass killings. We must cover the subject, but it is undue weight to wallow in the nitty gritty details of the exact brand and model. The references can serve that purpose. Wikipedia should seek to de-emphasize such detail, as an act of solidarity with the cause of anti-violence. We shouldn't even begin to do anything which benefits violence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh, more social activism. We should be an encyclopedia, a cold-hearted, disinterested encyclopedia, BLP stuff excepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this article is about a "shooting" is in itself an indication that the gun or guns are important to the story. You might as well say that reporting the brand of autos used in a car race is unimportant detail. The standard for inclusion is covered in WP:NPOV. It's not undue weight, since it takes no more space than using vaguer references. And if the names and specifications of guns are so unimportant to readers, why does Wikipedia have so many gun articles? Obviously, it's a topic of interest. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:3C44:E8A5:26B1:DBC8 (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I could spend the next half hour of my life responding to your comments point by point. But, since you're all alone at this point, and consensus is king at Wikipedia, I'm going to bed instead. It's pretty clear that no reasoning will satisfy you anyway. Others may feel inclined to debate you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The gun enthusiasts always want to know the make, the model and the caliber of the weapons used. In some cases this is relevant, in other cases it is not. A person killed in a hit-and-run incident is just as dead regardless of whether they were hit by a Ford or a Chevrolet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The make and model don't seem that important to this Average Joe, but the caliber does. Bigger barrels mean bigger bullets and bigger damage. Could be the difference between missing a major organ or artery and not. Getting hit by a Ford Focus is quite different from getting hit by a Chevrolet Silverado.

If another reader is familiar with the subtly different sights and sounds of different models, these details would help them understand the event (in a what sense, not why) that much better. Seems reasonable to include. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead is dead, regardless of the type and degree of internal damage. You might as well insist on including locations of all wounds inflicted, if that were available, so as to better understand the event. Yeah, we could have a section summarizing all autopsies, since many readers would be interested. </irony> And honestly, there's something a little sick about a desire to understand the "sights and sounds" of a mass shooting. A larger caliber is more likely to send the victims backward on impact, and I really need to know whether that likely happened. I need to be able to mentally put myself on scene, to imagine that I was there, with as much vivid detail as Wikipedia can provide me. Not. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If dead were simply dead, we wouldn't even specify they were shot (and not everyone who was shot is dead). Not sure if you're just being theoretical about summarizing autopsies, because I've actually done that. Maybe I'm sick, but sights and sounds of any event seem pretty important to the What. Helps distinguish them from other events. Doesn't the lead make you picture people getting shot? It should, because it's a perfectly normal description. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We give autopsy information where it is relevant, as in Michael Brown. We do not give it where it is not relevant, as in Umpqua. That's Wikipedia editing. Yes, I picture people getting shot, but I don't dwell on the imagery of the victims' terror, the sounds of the gunshots, the impacts, the wounds, the victims' agonized vocalizations before dying, etc. I don't need that vivid detail to "understand" the event. Sorry, you'll have to wait for the movie unless there is more support for your viewpoint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I may have not been clear. By "sights and sounds", I mean of the guns. Not the victims. The first paragraph was about the wounds. Not about picturing them, but just knowing what caused them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullets caused them. Again, if you need to know whether it was the pop-pop-pop of a .25 auto or the louder crack of a larger caliber, just check out the sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit inconvenient, but yeah, that could work. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't like all the details because lately, these mass shooters are feeding off each other. The guy who shot the TV reporters and knew nothing about guns, purchased the exact make and model of the South Carolina church shooter. That's a rather odd fascination that doesn't really help our reader understand the shooting. Some of the distinctions are as mundane as 4.5 inch barrel vs. a 5 inch barrel. Some of the details get mucked up in politics such as a California shooter that manufactured his own AR-15 receiver with metalworking tools. No firearm was ever purchased or sold and the press simply couldn't understand this. The press likes bad guys to explain how bad people got guns but Home Depot tool department was a tough sell so they ignored it. The 3-D printer gun got a lot of attention until State Department invoked ITAR. I am okay with broad families of firearms such as semi-automatic pistol, revolver, bolt-action rifle, semi-automatic rifle. I'd stay away from terms like "assault rifle" or "machine pistol" or "personal defense weapon." I'd also stay away from terms like "high-powered rifle" as there is no reference point beyond .22 rimfire cartridges. --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The TV guy and the church guy's infobox weapons don't match. Do you know something Wikipedia doesn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the manifesto the TV guy wrote and the account by the news. Breaking news stories are all over the map especially when model number, number of rounds and caliber all mean something. Giving numbers to reporters is like triggering all the high school math they failed. Body counts always rise because "including the gunman" eludes their trap-like intellect. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, there's a paper here that says mass killings follow media coverage: Yukich, Joshua; Towers, Sherry; Gomez-Lievano, Andres; Khan, Maryam; Mubayi, Anuj; Castillo-Chavez, Carlos (2015). "Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings". PLOS ONE. 10 (7): e0117259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117259. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

DHeyward is probably right - but more than that, there is more than anecdotal evidence of individual shooters - there's some statistical evidence linking mass killings to earlier media publicity. -- Callinus (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

About the gun, it was like the one Seung-Hui Cho used. That was the Virginia Tech guy, not the Charleston church guy, and ABC only notes it as a coincidence, not a plan. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning, that this incident caused a new Meme?

3 days after the shooting this meme was created: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/some-of-you-guys-are-alright . The meme is maybe also worth mentioning because it probably led to closing the University of Lund (Sweden) for one day: http://www.thelocal.se/20151012/swedish-university-shut-after-anonymous-threat . Just an idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by K!r!93 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The content about the 4chan thing was removed yesterday as circumstantial speculation. If we can't justify that content, we certainly can't justify content about a meme arising from that. Even if it's proven that the 4chan was CHM, and that is added back, the meme will still be dubious. We have to draw a line somewhere. My opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, until firm evidence emerges that CHM did post on 4chan, it should not be mentioned at all. The article is gradually getting rid of the early media reports which are too speculative, and the 4chan post is one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - firstly WP:NOTNEWS, and secondly, I'd argue it belongs on bomb threat as an example of disruption by hoax threats, and is only tangentially related to this article. -- Callinus (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Campus policy on guns

I added the following to the article:

• Umpqua Community College allows law abiding gun owners who have concealed carry permits to bring their guns to campus, but prohibits them from bringing their guns inside any of the buildings on the campus.

The school's gun policy is highly notable, and should be included in the article.

Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I'll oppose that without a stronger RS connection, but I won't remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How is the school's gun policy "highly notable"? That policy played no role in the massacre. I think the whole section should be removed unless there is strong support to keep. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you remove the sentence, you remove the whole section. It's a one-sentence section. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed that section on the basis of the discussions made here and here. It's not that notable. Warner Sun (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't strictly relevant as Harper-Mercer would have carried out the shooting regardless of what the policy was. Some people have argued that mass shootings would be prevented if more people carried guns for personal protection, but this is controversial as an average schoolteacher or professor would not be expected to prevent an attack by a well-armed person hell bent on killing as many people as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Weapons were on the campus - reuters arktimes. An FBI study found that unarmed citizens restraining a shooter was a more common resolution than armed citizens exchanging gunfire - page 11 ("Resolutions"). -- Callinus (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion that it's more common doesn't take into account that every shooting has unarmed victims while not every shooting has armed victims. The effectiveness of firearms in ending active shooters is reflected in the doctrine adopted by virtually every law enforcement agency: They immediately engage the shooter with firearms. That's why two plainclothes detectives immediately attacked instead of staging a perimeter and waiting for backup. That's a doctrinal change (just like 9/11 changed how airline pilots react to hijackings). Pre-Columbine, a SWAT team would secure the perimeter while a trained negotiator would try to contact the assailant and negotiate a surrender and release of any hostages (that's how they responded to Columbine). It became clear that attacking shooters using guns resulted in fewer casualties. For the statistics you cited, this ended in a "suicide" as a resolution but it would be very obtuse not to recognize that the police shooting Harper-Mercer ended further killings and accelerated his ultimate endgame. It's speculation that lifting the schools prohibition on firearms in the classroom would have changed the outcome as no one can be forced to carry or even use a firearm. But it's specious to imply that "unarmed" is more effective than "armed." This incident ended when two people with guns showed up. The faster people with guns respond, the sooner it ends. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, it's not clear to me whether you are advocating some content or merely in violation of NOTFORUM. Could you clear that up for me? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So...Callinus, DHeyward, do you both mean to say you're in support of the inclusion of such content?... Warner Sun (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Warner Sun I oppose the inclusion of this material. -- Callinus (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Just wanted to be clear on that. Warner Sun (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither the policy or gun laws are relevant to the shooting. It would be relevant if a student said they didn't carry due to the rule. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Warner Sun (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

911 is what they called

"I heard more shooting," Ms. Welding said. "It was horrific. My whole body was shaking. A chill was going down my spine. We called 911."

...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki name for the service is 9-1-1, and that's all that matters here. Besides, Ms Welding did not necessarily "say" 911, it could also have been written as 9/1/1, 9,1,1, 9-1-1 or numerous other variations. WWGB (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion about this? The freaking FCC and CRTC, the controlling agencies in the U.S. and Canada, both say the correct form is 9-1-1. Links to those pages are in the discussion. Are you actually asserting that anything is more authoritative than those government sources? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When Ms. Welding poked the phone she poked 9 1 1, she did not poke nine hyphen one hyphen one, nor did she poke nine slash one slash one, or nine comma one comma one. The only option on a phone is to dial 9 1 1 which she states she did. There is no hyphen, slash, or comma on a (standard) touchtone telephone. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am truly not believing this. You have been disruptive on this since day one, bringing nothing but remarkably lame arguments. I'm done trying to communicate with you, maybe others would like to. If you try to insert this change again without consensus, I will see you at WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Mandruss. The bullshit you're spreading over this is getting pretty deep, Checkingfax. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. Since day one? Everybody is working hard to make this a good article. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh...just because dialing 9 1 1 is the only option on the phone doesn't necessarily mean we must label the number as "911" over "9-1-1". Warner Sun (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, 9 9 9 works, too, on cell phones even in the U.S. However, as this is a quote, the press is just being lazy. She undoubtedly said "nine one one" but any shorthand, 911 or 9-1-1 is fine. No one thinks sh said "nine eleven" or "nine hundred eleven." We link to the service so using the wikipdia article name is fine. It's not confusing anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the Los Angeles Times, unnamed law enforcement sources said he was a "hate-filled" man with antireligious and white supremacist leanings, and with long-term mental health issues.

This is not a statement that law enforcement sources said he was a hate hyphen filled man, or that he had long hyphen term mental health issues. Hyphens are generally silent. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's piped in case anybody needs the full 411 on 911. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My cable TV service went down, so I pulled out the latest bill to get their customer service number. It said it was 800-235-1414. I went to dial that, but I couldn't find a hyphen on my telephone. I've been without TV ever since! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You can just fix it yourself. I did. I just used a marker to draw a little hyphen button on the side of my phone so I can dial the hyphen and now it works fine. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is just turning into a cavalcade of sarcasm. ? Warner Sun (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a line of argument can be so inane/absurd as to be comical, and irony and satirical humor are two ways of responding to it. But the argument appears to have ended, so the responses can, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. :) Warner Sun (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

lead regarding police

It is a relevant and succinct point that the first two responding officers immediately engaged and shot Harper-mercer. It's not more wordy than "responding officers" and gives an accurate portrayal of how police react to active shooters. There is no detail in that statements, just the first two officers immediately sought, found and shot Harper-Mercer. Details would be that they were plain-clothes or that they used rifles or pistols, etc. Just saying "first two" is the same level of detail as the number of killed and wounded. Is the number of killed and woundd too much detail for the lead too? --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When police arrived at the campus, their goal would have been to find and disable Harper-Mercer as soon as possible. It is unclear whether CHM opened fire on the officers, although he may have done. Responding officers would usually shout a warning to drop a gun rather than opening fire without warning, to avoid possible controversies afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, only in active shooters is that ever done. The first goal is a perimeter. In no other scenarios do police rush in and engage except if they are implementing an "active shooter" doctrine. They contain first, then assess, then search and negotiate. If it had been a bank robbery, they would not have entered the bank.. If it was fleeing homicide suspect from a house, they would contain and search. Only in this one case would 2 plainclothes detectives rush in because it's an active shooter hot tone. After the shooter was stopped, you saw more of what police normally do: search every person for a an accomplish, search buildings for explosives, set up a perimeter so no one avoids the search or gets out without being accounted for, etc, etc. Read the response to Columbine as that is when new strategies emerged. --DHeyward (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still unclear who opened fire in the shootout first, CHM or the responding officers. The police were clearly in no mood to mess around, but more detail is needed about what happened when the officers arrived at the scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't advocate putting who shot first. It's irrelevant. That two, non-uniformed police officers even entering the grounds while knowing there would be a multi-agency and massive response is the only information necessary. Police have SWAT teams and there are very few instances of barricaded subjects where they don't contain and wait for SWAT and negotitations. In the fog, they don't know how many shooters, weapons, bombs, etc. The risk of being shot by other police, shot by the gunman/gunmen or shooting other police officers or civilians is very great so it's rarely done. "Active shooter" is one of them and stating the event as it was relayed tells those aware of such things what the police knew and what was dispatched. If we had a source that said they engaged their active shooter protocol, that would be acceptable for the lead, too, but absent that source, describing how the first two responding officers behaved is important in setting up the scene. It's not overly-detailed. We put in "wounded" and "committed suicide" rather than just "died" because it sets up the scene without overt details. --DHeyward (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm not an expert, here is a paper looking at active shooter responses. My main concern is not who fired first, but whether officers would have shot him without warning if the opportunity presented itself. This incident is similar to the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, where Wade Page opened fire on the responding officers, giving them no choice but to fire back. This may be what CHM did, but the information is still sketchy at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The notable thing is that they were employing "active shooter" tactics. It would be too much detail in the lead (and possibly unknown details) to discuss who shot first, whether the wounds inflicted were fatal, rifles or pistols, ballistic vests or not, etc. However, the facts of immediately entering and engaging shooters give insight into the tactics being employed. Had it been a "Hostage/barricade" instead of "active shooter", the response would have been very different. The little bit of knowledge that the first two officers entered and sought out the shooter is "active shooter". Whether they shoot or not is not relevant to the information conveyed by the first two officers immediately entering the grounds without concern for a perimeter, backup, command and control, SWAT, K9, etc, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My non-expert understanding is that they engaged him as an active shooter because they believed that their own lives or other people's lives were in immediate danger. CHM chose an option similar to suicide by cop as he may have decided that he was definitely not going to be taken alive, as previous mass shooters have done.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My take: The active shooter doctrine thing seems worthy of more than a few words — two or three sentences in the Shooting section. That is, if there is enough RS for that to pass WP:WEIGHT. But I don't feel it should be a factor in how the lead is worded. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 14 2015

Within the "Shooting"-section, the same source (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/survivor-umpqua-community-college-shooting-describes-rampage-n442146) is cited twice for the same claim (The "Some witnesses said he then forced fellow students to the center of the classroom. He deliberately spared one student's life so that student could deliver a package from him to police before he opened fire on the other students. He forced this student to sit at the back of the classroom and watch as he continued shooting with two handguns"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - You win this month's award for laser-like attention to detail. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Result of RfC on shooter photo

The discussion was unjustifiably archived without determining consensus. Looking at the discussion in Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 3, there may have been "no consensus" to reinsert the shooter photo. --George Ho (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was archived after only 3 days idle, despite containing the {{rfc}} template. I thought that template was supposed to prevent this. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the fact the RfC was terminated arbitrarily should be grounds to bring it back to active status.

I disagree with George Ho that there was no consensus. More were for insertion and the voices against insertion were fully debated. XavierItzm (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're correct about "fully debated", which is up to a closer, not any of us, a narrow majority does not mean consensus. George is using the term correctly, you're modifying its definition to support your position. Given this and your other activity in the last half hour, I'd say you came looking for a fight today. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with bringing it back, but I've never done that and I don't know if it will be re-listed correctly if that happens. Also I'd like to know if it's just going to go away again if it reaches 3 days idle again. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

 Of course I'm relatively new at all this, but my impression is that usually (or at least often) an RfC will run for 30 days, and then a bot will automatically remove the {{rfc|......}} template, at which point the participants (or even just one participant) may (at the appropriate place) post a request that an uninvolved editor perform a formal closure to determine consensus, if any. I've never heard of an RfC automatically being closed by a bot before the 30 days. Who or what caused this premature closure?
 Concerning whether or not there was already an established consensus, while there may have more "!votes" for inclusion (of the photo), I believe the RfC should have remained open for the full 30 days. Some participants in RfC's make their contribution toward the end of that 30 day period. If it's possible (and permitted), I would be in favor of "unclosing" it and giving more editors a chance to participate. (By the way, I am one of those favoring inclusion of the photo.)
Richard27182 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I revived the discussion and then added a message not to archive the thread until given time expires. George Ho (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Case for restoration of deleted material and exploration of issues

Now split into subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a number of edits to this article yesterday that I believed to be germane. USER:Warner_Sun, who began editing Wikipedia this month, removed them, but the reason given was that it was too much information. No one has restored them subsequently. I'm not disputing anything here, but am simply commenting on the appropriateness for article content and handling of issues. Hopefully this can contribute to the resolution of some of the questions that have been raised. Here's the URL (also hopefully) that shows those deletions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894 Here's a deleted citation that covers much of the material and issues I'm discussing below: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html For instance: 1.) In the lede I noted that the first target of the shooter was the assistant professor and that eight other students were killed, and nine students wounded. WS removed that info. 2.) I added CHM's father's name, and his mother's name, her profession, and clarified existing vague details about the parents' separation and divorce, all from a New York Times article. WS removed them. 3.) I added details about his mother involuntarily committing CHM to a named mental institution in Torrance and the circumstances of why she did so, again from the cited NYT article. WS removed them. 4.) I clarified imprecise existing descriptions that are important to this narrative. The text I deleted i.e., asserted that 14 weapons were in the house. My edit noted that the weapons were rather kept in the apartment. So, why were those elements germane? 1.) The professor may have been the prime target, with the other students rather collateral damage. The other dead and wounded were students, not people, as in passersby, etc. While the shooter had a persistent and pervasive morbid fascination with mass shootings, his interaction with that teacher may have precipitated and triggered the event. 2.) I clarified a previously vague timeline, drawing from the RSS, that there had been a separation in the marriage for years before the divorce, the age of the shooter at the time of the divorce, and that the mother was the prime caretaker subsequent to it, and that she was a medical professional. 3.) The commitment(s?) was germane, because it was involuntary. At the time he was institutionalized, CHM was either a minor, or his mother was his legal guardian, for her to be able to institutionalize him, with the concurrence of a treatment professional and possibly subject to legal review. California has a statute 5150 which allows a process for involuntary commitment. The reason she took that action, according to her friend who was also a medical professional, was that he was not compliant with his prescribed medications and it caused behavioral difficulties. Now I'm not familiar with the form used by a firearms buyer in California or Oregon, but if those applications ask if there was a commitment as a disqualifying factor, I'm not sure if would have to have been court ordered. The case of the Virginia Tech shooter was not disqualifying because he had been court ordered for evaluation and outpatient treatment, not inpatient treatment. 4.) This is germane because the weapons were not "in the house," because he had half the weapons that were available to him with him at the time of the shooting. The neighbors in Winchester knew he had problems because they could hear him pacing throughout the night in the apartment upstairs, and he overreacted to trivial behaviors of their neighbors, i.e., their smoking, their children playing, music, etc. Descriptions of CHM's mother's behavior is not inconsistent with autism (and paranoia) or what has until recently been described as Asperger's Syndrome. There is no reason to believe that she unilaterally diagnosed her son or herself, rather than accepting a professional psychiatric diagnosis and further communicating that opinion to others. I submit that censoring these elements of the narrative does a disservice to it, just as ignoring Jack Ruby's prior behavior, background, connections, etc., would do a disservice to an article on Lee Harvey Oswald's murder. I am specifically not maintaining that being autistic equates to being dangerous. I have extensive personal and clinical experience with the condition, including living and working with rather remarkable autistic savants. I also have considerable clinical experience with those suffering from psychoses. I think that providing the latter with deadly weapons or facilitating their acquisition for them, is an extremely bad idea. I've got to get to an appointment, but I hope these comments are helpful. Activist (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Discussing this many separate questions in one thread is usually unmanageable. At least, it is for my ADD brain. It's unlikely we'll reach a consensus on the entire package as a unit. Could you possibly split them? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Per above: Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistant professor as first target

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"1.) In the lede I noted that the first target of the shooter was the assistant professor and that eight other students were killed, and nine students wounded."

Quote 2:

"1.) The professor may have been the prime target, with the other students--- rather collateral damage. The other dead and wounded were students, not people, as in passersby, etc. While the shooter had a persistent and pervasive morbid fascination with mass shootings, his interaction with that teacher may have precipitated and triggered the event."

---

Comment: I think that's too detailed for the lead. The sequence isn't really important for that part and it's made clear under the heading "Shooting". Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WAY too detailed for the lead, I agree with Darth Viller and Mandruss. Also, the professor being the prime target is purely speculative. Eyewitness reports just corroborate on Harper-Mercer shooting the professor first, and no real information has come up in support of your theory (what I read about Harper-Mercer's interaction with the professor was that he corrected his answer (or something along those lines)). Harper-Mercer's act of shooting the professor first doesn't indicate he specifically targeted him and the other victims were just collateral damage. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Family background, separation and divorce

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"2.) I added CHM's father's name, and his mother's name, her profession, and clarified existing vague details about the parents' separation and divorce, all from a New York Times article."

Quote 2:

"2.) I clarified a previously vague timeline, drawing from the RSS, that there had been a separation in the marriage for years before the divorce, the age of the shooter at the time of the divorce, and that the mother was the prime caretaker subsequent to it, and that she was a medical professional."

---

Comment: That she was the primary caregiver is clear from the context anyway. No opinion on clarifying the timeline on separation and divorce. Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would want to see relevance for any of this, but especially the parents' names. See Identify family (permalink). Remember, this is not a bio of CHM. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Mandruss. The inclusion of the parents' names was already discussed and it was ruled that they weren't important. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary commitment

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"3.) I added details about his mother involuntarily committing CHM to a named mental institution in Torrance and the circumstances of why she did so, again from the cited NYT article."

Quote 2:

"3.) The commitment(s?) was germane, because it was involuntary. At the time he was institutionalized, CHM was either a minor, or his mother was his legal guardian, for her to be able to institutionalize him, with the concurrence of a treatment professional and possibly subject to legal review. California has a statute 5150 which allows a process for involuntary commitment. The reason she took that action, according to her friend who was also a medical professional, was that he was not compliant with his prescribed medications and it caused behavioral difficulties. Now I'm not familiar with the form used by a firearms buyer in California or Oregon, but if those applications ask if there was a commitment as a disqualifying factor, I'm not sure if would have to have been court ordered. The case of the Virginia Tech shooter was not disqualifying because he had been court ordered for evaluation and outpatient treatment, not inpatient treatment."

---

That seems relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For factual reference, the VT shooter's court ordered treatment was disqualifying. Inpatient or outpatient makes no difference. The issue was that it wasn't reported to NICs so it wasn't denied when they ran the background check. A clean background check doesn't make the transaction legal or make the purchaser eligible. Mental health reporting is spotty mainly due to laws protecting mental health records being reported (they are the most protected health records). The form for purchasing a firearm from a store is a federal form that is the same for every state and is retained for 20 years. --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That actually sounds relevant. My bad in reverting it; I didn't have the time and patience at the moment to revert certain edits and I just encompassed the entire contribution. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My bad in reverting it Not in my opinion. If I choose to edit en masse, I should expect to be reverted en masse. Saving space in the page history should not be a primary goal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted the previous mental health deletions per consensus above. Thanks for all your input. I did delete the "bad vibe" and "skittish" comments, since they are extremely subjective and imprecise opinions of unnamed neighbors, I'd hazard, likely included to fill space rather than contribute to an understanding of the event. Activist (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"In the house" vs. "Kept in the apartment"

Link showing changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpqua_Community_College_shooting&diff=next&oldid=685259894

Quote 1:

"4.) I clarified imprecise existing descriptions that are important to this narrative. The text I deleted i.e., asserted that 14 weapons were in the house. My edit noted that the weapons were rather kept in the apartment."

Quote 2:

"4.) This is germane because the weapons were not "in the house," because he had half the weapons that were available to him with him at the time of the shooting. The neighbors in Winchester knew he had problems because they could hear him pacing throughout the night in the apartment upstairs, and he overreacted to trivial behaviors of their neighbors, i.e., their smoking, their children playing, music, etc."

---

Comment: I think the difference is trivial. It's clear from context that "in the house" didn't refer to the time of shooting. I'm fine either way, it hardly increases concision to leave it out. Darth Viller (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

State what he had with him. Then state what LE later found in the apartment. No need to refer to either twice, in two different ways, if that was being done. This is how it was at one point, I guess someone improved it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a proper wording. 14 weapons being in the house implies that authorities found more than what was reported, which is obviously not true. And the two of them obviously didn't live in a house; they lived in an apartment. Warner Sun (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Warner Sun: What's a proper wording? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say that was the best way to say it. Warner Sun (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Psychology of mass shootings

Editors here have noted that mass shooters increasingly refer to other perpetrators in this growing history. Editors here may be interested in seeing/commenting on several list articles related to List of school shootings in the United States and List of school attacks, including international events. If the underlying interest is the rise in mass school shootings in the US and other nations in the late 20th century, which individual articles already attract great attention, let's focus the criteria rather than include all acts of violence, including warfare and state actions, as is the case now. There is a chilling article about school shootings in this week's New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell's "Thresholds of Violence", relating the rise in mass shootings (which seems to be the underlying interest in why these list article were founded) to studies about how riots develop - and attract different people as they roll along (including people who would never have been part of the initial violence). A list with a focus on mass school shootings in the United States, rather than every act of violence that happens to take place at a school, might be able to make use of such research and give readers more to think about.Parkwells (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sun sets on Warner

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Warner_Sun&curid=48064239&diff=685860766&oldid=685657698#A_pie_for_you.21

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Warner_Sun&curid=48055863&diff=685860801&oldid=684242724

...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll be damned. I don't think my mind will ever fully accept that Versus001 and Warner Sun were the same person. Maybe they were different people using the same computer (or different computers in the same household, going through a single cablemodem?). I don't know how Checkuser could possibly know the difference, but I'd like to. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's also possible they were two people sharing the same body. Things like this make me wonder. Alas, NOTFORUM. Willing to continue on my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)