Talk:2015 Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Myth of the "Autistic Shooter"

I wasn't aware of the issue discussed in this new NYT op-ed. To my mind, this makes the Asperger's mention the same as the mother's race: an irrelevant factoid likely to be exploited by ignorant bigots. It's different in that there also appears to be an emerging stigma associating the autism spectrum with mass murders. Should we be contributing to this by mentioning Asperger's here, or would it be censorship to omit it? I have opposed "social activism" at Wikipedia; would I be being inconsisent to oppose this content? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is like Groundhog Day with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Groups representing autistic people resented the condition being mentioned in the context of the shooting, and one of the questions in the FAQ at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting looks at this. I am not against mentioning autism/Asperger's as long as a) it was diagnosed by a medical professional rather relying on hearsay and b) the article makes clear that these conditions are not linked to violence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you oppose for lack of diagnosis, I take it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem for this article because it appears to be Christopher Harper-Mercer's mother making the Asperger's claim rather than medical professionals.[1] In the case of Adam Lanza, the report published in November 2014 said that he had received a diagnosis of Asperger's from medical professionals (page 41 and others). The only way that this article could mention Asperger's is by pointing out that it was his mother that made the claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well I'll continue to oppose since his mother's amateur diagnosis is meaningless at best and potentially damaging per the above myth. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, anything said about the shooter's mental health in a Wikipedia article should meet WP:MEDRS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That could be problematic, since that page doesn't contain the word "diagnosis". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this due to the concerns raised. WP:MEDRS is mostly designed to prevent people from adding material about alternative health in an uncritical way. There is a more subtle problem here, because it is possible that Christopher Harper-Mercer did receive a diagnosis of Asperger's at some point, but at the moment the article is relying on hearsay to introduce it. Perhaps when the law enforcement investigation is complete there will be a fuller picture of his mental health backed up by medical records from the relevant sources. At the moment there is too much material along the lines of "media reports said x" in the article, which is not ideal in this situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We are a bit past this, at this popint, but I must admit I'm a bit puzzled. I don't see how WP:MEDRS might apply at all. Am I misreading it? Activist (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the Facebook page mentioned, https://www.facebook.com/autismkills , says "Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment" so maybe it has been removed. I've archived the page here so that people can see for themselves what the fuss is about.--

♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Late to the party, but I agree with the removal of folk-diagnosed autism from the article, as long as amateur diagnosis seems the "best" source for any condition. Darth Viller (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between the autism speculation and the speculation about "overly protective black mother" or speculation about white supremacist. If we're keeping that stuff, we should keep the autism stuff. We do know he attended a special needs school and had psychiatric issues. If his mom said he was autistic, we have nothing to dispute it or believe it wasn't a diagnosis. Special needs schools require professional assessments and she obviously had one. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Perfectly stated by DHeyward. Autistic should remain just as much as the hyper-protective black mother and white supremacist speculation, or it should all go. XavierItzm (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Any content should stay or go on its own merits, without linkage to other content. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Then there is agreement with "If his mom said he was autistic, we have nothing to dispute it or believe it wasn't a diagnosis. Special needs schools require professional assessments and she obviously had one." QED. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but I think it flirts with WP:SYN unless that reasoning appears in RS. I am unwilling to make that statement with the confidence and force that you make yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In time, there will be a report into the shooting by various agencies, which should give a more detailed picture of the shooter's mental health. At the moment, the article is relying on things that other people have said, and as we have seen from his stepsister's assertion that he was born in the UK, this type of information may or may not be correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that information provided by witnesses and reported by WP:RS may or may not turn out to be correct in the fullness of time. At this time, however, the article is full of such information and it would violate NPOV to cherry pick which witness statements reported by RS editors happen to like and which ones editors happen to dislike. XavierItzm (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Then let's reach a consensus to take all of it out, and spend a week or so doing that. We can tolerate some NPOV failure for that much time. We would need to agree in advance on exactly what goes, but it doesn't have to be exact text proposals. I think it's do-able, and it's worth a try. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is more encyclopedic?

1

After two minutes of shooting, Harper-Mercer went back into the classroom, walked over to the front area of the room, lay down on the ground, and killed himself.

2

After two minutes of shooting, Harper-Mercer went back into the classroom and killed himself.

―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

2 - We don't need this level of play-by-play, only the basic facts. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have it changed. Warner Sun (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, 2 is better as 1 is too complicated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone knows where he shot himself (body-wise), that'd be good to add. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Not sure if it's in one of the too many sources we already have, but here it is if not. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Warner Sun: Is this much different from saying he was shot in the right side, or that he shot a woman in the leg? Details matter, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What does this even mean? Non-fatal wounds are less trivial than deadly ones? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I think the difference between a minor nonfatal would and a more serious nonfatal wound is relevant. For example, the leg wound was probably not life-threatening unless it severed the femoral artery. It's worth saying it was probably not life-threatening, I think. Fatal wounds are different, and they appeal more to the widespread preoccupation with violent death. I think a higher relevance bar is warranted for the fatal ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, regarding the cause of death, I personally feel like it depends. At this point, it would be a bit redundant to explicitly mention he shot himself in the head. A majority of suicides with firearms always involves a single gunshot wound to the head, because it seems to be the most effective (and probably painless) way to do it. Maybe if the guy shot himself in the heart (or somehow had a multiple gunshot suicide), then I think it would definitely be worth mentioning. Warner Sun (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

True, so it's not only irrelevant but also largely unnecessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't say it was non-life threatening, though. Just in the leg. Not sure how you see a preoccupation in the same simple detail for a head. It's not like I describe his splattered brain or anything. Cause of suicide seems relevant enough for inclusion in the Columbine, Jokela, Isla Vista, Kauhajoki, Westroads Mall, Velika Ivanča, Eppstein, Luby's, Euskirchen, University of Iowa, Winnenden, Dawson College, IHOP, Capitol Hill, Sandy Hook, Tsuyama (chest shot), Edmond post office, Budd Dwyer, LA Fitness, Johnson Space Center, École Polytechnique, Sparks Middle and Olean High shootings. Probably many more. I don't love to play the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS card, but there's something to be said for precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know why the articles chose to be this specific about it. Maybe this is something that should be brought up in some discussion forum about content. Nothing comes to mind, though. Warner Sun (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Tsuyama, yes, I believe THAT should be mentioned, because it was not a conventional method of suicide by firearm. Warner Sun (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to continuously expand the list. I am pretty aware of the end result of all such cases. Warner Sun (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not for you, it's for others who stumble across this. Shows that other others find this relevant in similar cases. That's convincing for some. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As you've been diligently expanding your list of precedents for a few days, I take it you're not buying my position on precedent, below. Ok, but you're also failing to consider that consensus can change. If we give it much weight, once precedent reaches a certain critical mass it becomes impossible for consensus to change since the precedent becomes self-reinforcing. This is not a good thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just been a day (off and on). I think like you do about other stuff when it's not this common. This article's the oddball here. I guess fitting in is a bad thing, if you truly think noting a short, simple fact about how the whole event ended is bad. I (like the editors of at least another 23 endings) think it's good. Far more relevant than the "some on a USB flash drive" bit (and fifty other, longer details). Consensus can change, but it needn't always must. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know who added that flash drive bit. If it was you, this isn't an attack. Just arbitrarily picked a frivolous detail. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have zero problem with this article being an oddball. If the community felt that consistency was important on such irrelevant details, there would be a guideline or an RfC consensus to point to. There is not. WP:Consistency is marked inactive for the reason stated: Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. As to the reference to other irrelevant content, see my comment below. You are free to challenge those details on relevance grounds, and I would likely support you. As I said below, I choose my battles. I chose this battle for the reasons I have previously given. We shouldn't use the existence of a lot of bad stuff to justify more bad stuff. That is also self-reinforcing. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a specific policy that'd allow or disallow this, or what it'd look like if it existed. I just figured it fell under the same general verifiability umbrella the rest of these facts do. No special WP:USBFLASHDRIVE guideline, either. Still a bit lost on why headshots are bad. Plain old "shot himself dead" seems as violent/sad/whatever, just slightly less precise. Sort of like just calling the assistant English professor "a teacher" or leaving the "PeaceHealth Sacred Heart" bit off of "hospital". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how disturbed one is by the very sick, de-sensitizing obsession with violence in our culture, and particularly violent death. Me, I'm very, very disturbed by it, and I don't need science to tell me it's a major contributing factor in all of these mass killings, and in fact in most murders; that is intuitively obvious. This affects how I relate to things like unnecessary and irrelevant specification of wound locations in Wikipedia articles. It just seems gratuitous to me, and therefore unencyclopedic, sorry.
As a fan of professional wrestling, you see men beating the crap out of each other as a form of entertainment. Naturally, we're going to have different perspectives on this issue.
Anyway, I feel the burden should be on the includer, not the excluder. In this case, the includer hasn't brought any arguments other than "what's wrong with it?" and "everybody else is doing it", which fail to meet the burden in my opinion. And see my previous comments here about how I feel about relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

For a guy disturbed by the obsession over violent, sensational death, I run into you surprisingly often at these sorts of talk pages, and you're a (maybe the) top contributor on this one, since Archive 1. I'm no (licensed) psychologist, but if what you're saying is true, your disturbance would be better treated by avoiding the whole bloody mess, rather than just the tiny point left on a suicide's melon.

Then again, Wikipedia (also not licensed) claims avoidance coping is somehow "maladaptive", so maybe you're right to "face your fears". Or maybe you're a mental masochist. It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not about to recommend anyone stop pleasuring themselves in an online library, even if it's somewhat south of the Reading Rainbow kind of exercise. If anything, Wikipedia could use more variety. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time to end this. As no one else has weighed in, this appears to be a stalemate. If you or anyone else re-add this content without showing relevance, I'll start an RfC about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And there's no such thing as "a majority always". These three words simply confirm to readers that this guy was one of those, rather than the minority. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But he DID shoot himself in the head, which puts him in the aforementioned majority. Warner Sun (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Things that DO happen should be noted, especially when they have a major effect on an event. Otherwise, how would anyone know a majority choose the head? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But not when it has no real significance. Warner Sun (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But the leg and right side...huge. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, since it's unclear if the woman shot in the leg lived or died in the end, I guess that wouldn't be necessary either. As for the right side, well, the guy died anyway, regardless of whether or not that was the cause of death. So yeah, I don't see any significance to that as well. You're right in that regard, IMO. Warner Sun (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, precedent means little to nothing to me. Different mixes of editors and different cases often yield different results. It's human to sometimes see more commonality than exists, even if we have been intimately involved in both articles. I also believe that relevance is paramount, and any editor should be able to exclude any content they want on relevance grounds, unless there is a decent case for the content in policy or guideline. This does not mean that I have to challenge all irrelevant content, and I choose my battles. So it's pointless (and somewhat POINTy) to point to other irrelevant content and say, well what about that?? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

More of the body could be in the lead

• The current lead is:

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. Christopher Harper-Mercer, a 26-year-old student, fatally shot nine people and injured nine others on the campus. The first two responding police officers engaged Harper-Mercer from outside wounding Harper-Mercer once . He retreated further inside and committed suicide.

But the lead could summarize more body details. There is room for another paragraph (or two). Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what else there is we can mention in the header. Everything we have right now has just been about the shooting. Warner Sun (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found something. Warner Sun (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the reference gun control. Not much of that debate is mentioned in the article, however, just Obama's response. Darth Viller (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, not just that. It was just about every other thing I contributed to the header as well. But those were by a long shot, not sure if it'll be acceptable as header material or not. Still unsure about this whole expanding-the-header thing; the original version looked just fine. Warner Sun (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD has been lengthened, but this still a fairly short article and it should not repeat material verbatim from the main body of the article simply to make it longer, as the lead is only a summary of what follows. As for gun control, it was inevitable that there were calls for new laws after this shooting, but it has become routine. The last major attempt at changing gun law in the USA was the Feinstein Bill after Sandy Hook, but this was rejected within months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying. But apparently, the reasoning for the lead lengthening is stuff like "IMHO, the lead of this article could use another paragraph if anybody has the time", "Yes the number is important as it is 'active shooter' doctrine", "Actively seeking out the shooter upon arrival is very important. They rushed in wearing plain clothes and outgunned. They were first arrival facing unknown number of shooters, casualties and weapons", and "No, it's not and its's very relevant" (the last one in response to my message "The header describes the basic overview of the event only. This is too specific."). Warner Sun (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: simpler is better in the WP:LEAD. Saying that responding officers immediately engaged Harper-Mercer is unnecessary. It is unlikely that the responding officers said "OK, let's make a cup of tea before engaging him in a shootout."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I really don't know why we need this much detail in the lead. Warner Sun (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand why it is a necessary detail or what police normally do, please refrain from commenting on detail. It's as different as whether they used a bow and arrows or guns. It is not a trivial detail or an unnecessary one - nor does it require many words. This is a specific response to a specific threat that is unique to "active shooters." --DHeyward (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But do we REALLY need to mention all of this in the lead when it's more suited to the "Shooting" section? Remember, a header serves as only a basic summary of the events, which does not require specifics. Warner Sun (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The first two responding officers engaged and wounded Mercer-Harper is about the same amount of words as saying the police shot him. This provides leaps and bounds of information for those familiar with police response while taking nothing away from average readers. This isn't complicated details such as whether the detectives had ballistic gear or rifles or raid jackets. It's a simple account that relays a basic understanding of what the officers knew without going into detail. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No matter how minor it seems, "the first two" is still a specific detail that can be covered in the "Shooting" section without anyone missing it in the header. Warner Sun (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct. Many people will miss it in the header because they are familiar with police responses. It's not overly detailed, it's a general observation of the police response. Your argument is like saying we could eliminate "police" and replace it with "armed men" because "police" is "too detailed" and can be covered in the shooting section. That is nonsense. The fact that the "The first two" means nothing to you is an indication of just your experience but it is not a detail that should be omitted from the lead, it's a broad description of the police response to an active shooter and means quite a lot to those that study such phenomena. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're making a VERY poor argument. I am not saying anything about replacing "police" with "armed men" because it's nothing like that. "The first two" is extremely trivial to point out in the first place and it doesn't have to be mentioned in the header at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: headers are basic summaries of the event. A police response is a police response, regardless of the number of officers involved. "The first two" can be mentioned in the "Shooting" section (where it fits more) and I doubt it would make much of a difference. @Ianmacm: can concur to that. Warner Sun (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Killer issues in lead

I'd prefer to keep killer issues out of the lead. The killer was half black but possibly sympathised with white supremacists, not Irish but possibly sympathised with the IRA. Note that School shooting#Injustice collectors shows that mass killers aren't rational people, and they often violently punish other people for failures in their life they refuse to admit responsibility for.

Summing up a killer's "grievances" in the lead section shouldn't present them though they were rational. -- Callinus (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, Dave. "Inside the Warped Mind of Vester Flanagan and Other Shooters". The New Republic. Retrieved 2015-09-23.

I agree with this to some extent, as the motives of mass shooters are rarely rational. However, there is a risk of supporting the "deny recognition" theory by doing this. The WP:LEAD in its current form is OK, as there is no need to give detail about his manifesto or online presence, which are discussed later.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of these killer issues are also excluded from the body of the article - he was half English, as his father was English, but he had material showing identification with the IRA and a Nazi-affiliated group. As I have said before on this Talk page, these elements were covered by the reputable British press, but have been removed in this article. Why is white supremacy assumed to be more important than the others in showing his state of mind? He seemed to have absorbed hostility from many sources.Parkwells (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The IRA material was on his Myspace profile [2]. This could be mentioned by saying something like "His Myspace profile had material related to the IRA" as this is factual and does not glorify the shooter. Statements like "he supported the IRA and was anti-British" are harder to justify, as they involve placing an interpretation on the material. CHM clearly found some aspects of the IRA interesting enough to post them on his Myspace profile page, but why he did this is unclear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

CHM clearly found some aspects of the IRA interesting enough to post them on his Myspace profile page, but why he did this is unclear. It's not clear it has anything to do with the shooting. SYNTHing his white supremacist vs. mixed race and IRA vs. UK passport are all synthesized connections. What sources are relating these things to the shooting? We aren't doing a biographical background that isn't relevant to the shooting so facts that haven't been connected to the shooting should not be in the article. In contrast, the press does lots of background stuff that is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. It's not sufficient that it was reported. If we don't know "why" he linked to the IRA, it's really hard to make the case that it's relevant to the shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Then by your criteria, it is equally hard to make the case that white supremacy materials were relevant to the shooting and all mention of those should be excluded. The only element that was expressed in the shooting was anti-religion.Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Refocus on developing lead content - here was our progress:

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. Christopher Harper-Mercer, a 26-year-old student, fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students inside a classroom where he took classes. Nine other students were injured.

The first two police officers responding to the incident engaged Harper-Mercer in a two-minute shootout. After being wounded, he shot himself dead.

Prior to committing the shooting, Harper-Mercer handed a survivor several writings, which detailed his views and frustrations of life.

The mass shooting, which was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history,[3][4] reignited the national debate about gun control and U.S. gun politics.

Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to mention specific details like that. It's essentially repeating what's being said in the full body of the article, which is not what WP:LEAD requires. Warner Sun (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Warner Sun, Actually, that's exactly what a Wikipedia lead is supposed to accomplish (unlike a news story that is strictly serial). See: WP:CREATELEAD for an nickel tour essay interpreting WP:LEAD. It was created by a long time student of lead creation, Editor BullRangifer. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 01:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

With due respect to BullRangifer, essays are meant to provide food for thought, nothing more. Unless they have wide support, such as WP:BRD, they don't have any weight in debates. As I had never heard of this essay in my 2.5 years here, I obviously don't see wide support for it. Anyway, the lead is supposed to summarize the most important points, not simply repeat what the body says, which is what I think WS is saying there. He's saying that a lot of those details fail the "most important points" test, and I wholeheartedly agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Thank you very much. :) Warner Sun (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• I did not get any actual suggestions for content, so I floated this':

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. A 26-year-old enrolled student, fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students. Nine other students were injured.

Two Roseburg police detectives without bullet-proof vests responded to the incident and engaged the active shooter in a brief shootout. After being wounded, the shooter retreated and took his own life.

The mass shooting, which was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history, reignited the national debate about gun control and U.S. gun politics.

References

Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said in response to your edit and edit summary: The header mentions NOTHING about CHM's bio, nothing beyond the NAME. Also, the fact that officers weren't wearing bulletproof vests had no bearing on the outcome of this event. However, on the bright side, I did modify the header in a way that I hope will satisfy both sides of this discussion. Warner Sun (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Here is the latest: There's a lot more we can add to make it a "proper" lead:

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. A 26-year-old enrolled student fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students in a classroom. Nine other students were injured. Police officers responding to the incident engaged him in a brief shootout, and the gunman shot himself dead after being wounded. The shooter was later identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer. The shooting was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history.

References

Please reply reply back with your ideas for added content. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Comments on this, please:

The Umpqua Community College shooting took place near Roseburg, Oregon, United States on October 1, 2015. A 26-year-old enrolled student, fatally shot an assistant professor and eight fellow students. Nine other students were injured. Two Roseburg police detectives responding to the incident engaged the active shooter in a brief shootout. After being wounded the gunman retreated and shot himself dead. The shooter was later identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer. The mass shooting was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history.

Thank you. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Current lead for comparison:

On October 1, 2015, a mass shooting took place at Umpqua Community College, located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. A 26-year-old enrolled student fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students in a classroom. Nine other students were injured. Police officers responding to the incident engaged him in a brief shootout, and the gunman shot himself dead after being wounded. The shooter was later identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer. The shooting was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history.

―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References

---

• The lead has been slightly tweaked to this (no words are omitted, only rearranged):

The Umpqua Community College shooting took place on October 1, 2015. The UCC campus is located near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. A 26-year-old enrolled student fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students in a classroom. Nine other students were injured. Police officers responding to the incident engaged him in a brief shootout, and the gunman shot himself dead after being wounded. The shooter was later identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer.

The mass shooting was the deadliest in Oregon's modern history.

References

Please comment, and provide suggestions to expand the lead to reflect the complete article. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• I tweaked the first paragraph to this:

The Umpqua Community College shooting took place on October 1, 2015 at the UCC campus near Roseburg, Oregon, United States. Christopher Harper-Mercer, a 26-year-old student enrolled at the school, fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students in a classroom. Nine other students were injured. Police officers responding to the incident engaged the gunman in a brief shootout; he committed suicide after being wounded.

I got rid of a sentence and moved the killer's name up to the second sentence, and changed "shot himself to death" to "committed suicide". Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Police tactics and "perimeter" discussion

I received a random invitation to comment on the article, to which I had already been contributing. I got it after I had deleted the comments about police tactics because there was no direct RSS connection supplied between the Umpqua shooting and the more general information about police current tactics. If it's restored, it should be properly sourced. Activist (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Activist: I looked at the notice on your talk page and it was a request to participate in the RfC at #Photo of Harper-Mercer. It had nothing to do with the issue you refer to above. Incidentally, I think you mean RS, not RSS. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Most media coverage has said that police engaged the gunman in a shootout. The "active shooter" phrase is a technical term used by police and the material removed in this edit is not directly related to Umpqua. Discussion of the police tactics used at Umpqua should have direct sourcing mentioning the incident at Umpqua. I support the decision of Activist to remove this material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but I'll add that I think a mention is relevant if it is well sourced and what we say about it does not violate WP:NOR. If those requirements can be satisfied, I think it provides some relevant context. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the photo, Mandruss. We're all three writing at the same time. I tried to post this comment, but you were both already posting so there was a conflict. You've answered my first question: What do you think about the comment which I've deleted twice, however? I'm assuming that given the lack of an explicit RSS connection between what may be current conventional police tactics and the actual shooting (the comment referred to a presentation in Oshkosh) it should not be there, in lieu of such a connection being provided. The second part of my comment was: There's also some confusion about Mintz's role in the shooting which I'm trying to sort out, having read the NYT/AP report in Sunday's Eugene Register-Guard, the regional paper covering Roseburg and Winchester, which contains his first-person account that is at some variance with the two currently cited sources, ABC and an earlier NYT article. Those first stories, I assume, were influenced by the "fog of war" and the perspective of different witnesses. Activist (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I answered you in my previous comment, at least as to active shooter. I assume we crossed paths due to EC. To reiterate, I'm for inclusion, but not in the form that you removed. I support the removal. Hope that's clear enough. I have little knowledge about Mintz and even less interest, so I can't comment on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's very helpful. I've redone "injured" section to accommodate the Mintz account, retaining the original citations and adding the most recent. I think the number surviving injuries may have been overstated in the earlier text because the victim who died at the hospital may have been counted twice. I'm wondering however, if that Mintz material should be mostly removed to the "shooting" section? Activist (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

It's curious that no one has added that gun sales went up notably in the Roseburg area following these shootings. This was documented both by the NY Times and other mainline papers.Parkwells (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty solid part of the aftermath! Why don't you add it? XavierItzm (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Independent runs with that angle again, but base this on the boasting of Larry Hyatt, owner of Hyatt Guns (a gun store, that is). Hardly an impartial source. Are wider mid-month sales figures normally available? The Financial Times is the source story, but they want money, too, so I can't read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is the Times piece you mean, it just says one guy who was in the next room during this shooting wants to buy a gun. It also notes someone else wants tighter gun laws. Pretty standard "debate" stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The local sheriff has been at odds with restrictions on guns for years. In that atmosphere, a gun rights rally was organized to protest his [Obama's] arrival in Roseburg. A local friend of mine said that he arrived on one of four helicopters, three Air Force and one Coast guard, to serve as decoys in case anyone on the ground fired on any one of them. I looked for a RSS cite, and couldn't find the mention of more than two choppers. It seems notable. Does anyone want to try to chase this down? Activist (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff Hanlin's role, prior and subsequent to shooting

After the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre by a mentally ill Adam Lanza, whose mother had procured automatic weapons for him, Douglas County Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin had sought national publicity regarding potential restrictions on ownership of and access to weapons by those whose mental problems might arguably make such inadvisable. He wrote directly to the White House to say he would not enforce any such national orders which he believed to be unconstitutional. Three years later, he took advantage of the killings of the Umpqua professor and students a few miles from his offices in his jurisdiction to reiterate his position and thrust himself even more prominently into the national spotlight. Hundreds of his supporters (6,700 quickly signed on to indicate they supported him and would attend a protest rally) protested Obama's arrival in Roseburg. Coverage of the organization of that protest was prominent in the existing and currently cited coverage. Obviously, until Mercer actually walked into the classroom with six weapons which his mother and an "unnamed relative" had procured for her mentally ill and previously involuntarily institutionalized son, the firearms policy positions of Hanlin, Mercer and his mother, Laurel Harper were essentially indistinguishable. Hanlin's 2012 communication with Biden is mentioned in the regional paper's retained coverage of the protest. I am restoring the deleted sentences and do not believe they should be deleted again without support for such removal via an RfC. Activist (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Adam Lanza was not the legal owner of any of the weapons used at Sandy Hook, but somehow managed to get his hands on them. His mother had taken him to shooting ranges and he was proficient with guns. There is still some confusion over exactly how many of the guns used in the UCC shooting were actually owned by Harper-Mercer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue of ownership of the weapons in each case is less relevant than the issue of what appears to have been unfettered access to them by both sons. Activist (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant, as Christopher Harper-Mercer may have owned some of the guns. According to this source, "In all, Mr. Harper-Mercer owned 14 firearms, all of which were bought legally through a federally licensed firearms dealer, a federal official said Friday. Some were bought by Mr. Harper-Mercer, and some by members of his family." In which case, his reported mental health problems were not at a level which would have prevented him from owning a gun legally. This is not the same as Sandy Hook, where an unauthorized person used the weapons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo caption

Can someone pick a better caption for the Infobox photo?

The photo in the infobox shows a close-up aerial view of a dozen buildings and road connecting them. The caption says, "Location of Roseburg within the state of Oregon." That sounds more like the caption for an index map.

Please take care to check WP:CAPTION, in particular, the caption shouldn't just restate what the picture shows (that goes in the alt param, for visually impaired readers) instead, it should tell something the photo doesn't. So, for example, Aerial photo of Umpqua Community College campus would be a terrible choice.

The photo is kind of a flat, colorless, and unappealing image. If someone could get a picture of a fine building, or an attractive green on campus, that might be preferable. Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've put the map back, although it isn't ideal. The black and white aerial photograph of the campus was previously removed because it does not work as a thumbnail and conveys no significant information about the shooting. Ideally, someone in Oregon could take a photograph of Snyder Hall, where the shooting took place, and upload it to Commons. I've put a request at the top of the talk page. Snyder Hall looks like this, but it would need to be a free image to meet WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Too late for me to check perms, but maybe there's a shareable one on Flickr? There are numerous pictures of Snyder there if you scroll down a bit. Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a go with the free image search tool but could not find one. Also, images on Flickr often have dubious licenses and say that they are Creative Commons free images when they are not. Flickr images claiming to be free should be checked with TinEye first to make sure that someone has not done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is a good image of Snyder Hall following the shooting on Flickr here but it is all rights reserved. Maybe if the photographer was asked nicely he would change the licensing to CC, but some people are reluctant to do this. He also as a good range of images related to the shooting on Flickr.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really like that pic of Snyder Hall after the shooting (looks like a construction site), I found a good one of The College Here and of Snyder Hall here and left a message. The article for the College needs a pic too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I got permission for two pics here and here and am waiting for permission the "construction site" pic. Since you guys have been editing this article, I'll let you choose which ones to use/upload. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I got permission for two other photos on flickr, this one and this but the photographer can't log in to change the copyright. I have an email giving permission. Not sure what to do. I asked him to use the uploader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit weird if he took the photos on October 9 but can't log in. As stated, he could go to Commons and upload the files there, but it would save time for him to change the license on the relevant Flickr pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded the pics. The WP uploader allows more options for the license than the Commons Uploader. Here's pic one and here. Note on the second pic that it looks like one of the victim's colleagues drew the pics, more info at the source. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Memorial_at_Umpqua_Community_College_after_shooting.jpeg got deleted very quickly, ho hum. Anyway, the photo of Snyder Hall looks as though it is still there and can be added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Article status?

Having just stumbled upon this article again, I came to the talk page to encourage editors to consider nominating it for Good status. I see a couple long discussions have just wrapped up, or may even still be in progress, so perhaps right now is not the best time. However, I think this article is still of higher quality and may meet GA criteria, if someone wishes to nominate it when the time is right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The current version is OK rather than outstanding, and is rather on the short side for GA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Length is not a problem as long as it covers the topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK on the Main page

On 5 November 2015, a dubious "fact" about the shooting appeared on the Main Page, namely that Christopher Harper-Mercer uploaded a documentary about Sandy Hook to KickassTorrents three days before the shooting. This is media conjecture and not a fact, although he may have done this. If I had known that this had been nominated at DYK, it would have been pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Coast Guard One?

The article states, "The President, arriving on Coast Guard One, was met at the Roseburg airport". Pretty sure he didn't arrive on Coast Guard One. The cited article references Marine One. The Coast Guard One wikipedia page claims that designation has never been used (up to 2014 anyways) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.229.247 (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"involuntarily institutionalized"

Re this edit: I removed "When he did not take his medications and his behavior deteriorated, she involuntarily institutionalized him at Del Amo Behavioral Health Systems in Torrance" because it is uncited. This New York Times article says that he had been at the Del Amo facility, but does not use the phrase "involuntarily institutionalized". If he had been involuntarily institutionalized, he would probably have been prevented from owning a gun, but we know from other reliable sources that he owned a range of guns. This needs clear cut sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Per Gun laws in Oregon, the only way being mental prevents lawful ownership is when a court determines you're nuts, in a 426.130 sense, and specifically orders prevention where "there is a reasonable likelihood the person would constitute a danger to self or others". Involuntary commitment alone does nothing.

But no, that doesn't make an unsourced claim sourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

4chan post

Was there any update as to the nature of the 4chan post? Was it a coincidence or was it actually related to this shooting? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I confess I haven't researched it. But there are enough eyes on this story that I'm confident it would already be in the article if it had been proven to be him and that had been reported in the news. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this has fizzled out for the time being. The alleged post said "Don’t go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest".[4] It is harder than it looks to prove that a person posted something on the Internet, because if it was done at an Internet café or similar location it would be difficult to trace. The post may have been a coincidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

After-the-shooting photo

Sorry, after the reader has viewed the infobox photo, what additional information is provided by this photo? That they temporarily closed off access to the building? That there was what appears to be a crime scene investigation trailer in the background? That said vehicle is flying a U.S. flag at half-staff? All seem fairly routine and/or unremarkable. But there's a cool-looking cliff or ridge in the background. Is that enough?

We should be more selective as to images. in my view. 68.97.47.54 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I added this but now think that there is an element of repetition as you have said. I've removed the image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This Gordon Friedman, who took both photos and apparently lives nearby, wishes to contribute to the article but doesn't edit Wikipedia, per his email to Raquel Baranow copied into the above file description. I would suggest that we contact him again and ask for a new, well-composed photo showing more of Snyder Hall, taken on a sunny day after the temporary investigation stuff has been removed. Such a photo would improve on what we currently have in the infobox, and could replace it. The building itself should be the focus point, not its sign. 68.97.47.54 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Raquel Baranow. 68.97.47.54 (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's possible, but the images were chosen because they were already on Flickr. Prior to this, there were no views of the campus available for the article to use as an illustration.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Gordon is in a position to take new photos of the location, or at least he was immediately after the shooting. I guess I don't get your point as to Flickr. Worst case, he could learn how to upload to Commons as own work, but even that doesn't seem necessary under these circumstances. By the way, looking at Google Earth I think a good camera location might be the parking lot south of the south corner of the building, showing most of the southwest side of the building and some of one or more other buildings in the background. I'd stand on my car for a slightly better angle. If I'm not mistaken the classroom was in the south corner, so perhaps it would be desirable to include that corner in the photo. But Gordon might wish to provide multiple photos from different angles, and we could choose the best of them for the infobox. 68.97.47.54 (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed Gordon about this using the email address in the above-linked file description (I was previously 68.97.47.54). 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

After more research I'll retract what I said about the classroom being in the south corner. I was going on my memory of an aerial photo showing the south corner marked, but I can't find that now. The only thing I can find referring to a specific location is this transcript of an early CNN report, in which the reporter refers to the "southeast" corner. The reporter said this came from a police dispatcher who "called in" (called CNN?) during the shooting, and that they got it from an officer on the scene. Due to the NW-SE orientation of the building, there is no southeast corner, and he must have been referring to the east corner. That contradicts my memory, so neither is particularly reliable or definitive.
To further muddy the question, the above-linked crime scene photo appears to have been taken from a point northwest of the building, looking toward the parking lot (the white trailer must have been parked in the parking lot). That would mean that the windows masked with plastic are in the west corner (this is the corner shown in the infobox from the parking lot; the light post with the red UCC banner sign is visible in both photos, although the sign was updated and replaced during the four years separating the two photos). Why would they mask those windows unless that was where the classroom was?
So, at this point, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that the classroom wasn't in the north corner. If Gordon takes more photos, he needn't go out of his way to capture that south corner, or any other corner. If anyone else has better information about this, feel free to speak up. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortening the infobox title

For me, at least, the infobox title wraps to two lines. I would like to make it one line by shortening it to UCC shooting (which happens to be one of the current redirects to this article). The infobox template supports a |title= parameter because it's recognized that there are exception cases where the infobox needs a different title from the article. I feel this is a justifiable use of that freedom. I would have made a bold edit, but I'm still waiting for the semi-protection to be lifted. Just thought I'd make use of that time to "talk first". Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There are other meanings of UCC; therefore, this is not a good idea. George Ho (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, but there is only one meaning used in this article. UCC occurs in the first sentence as a link to Umpqua Community College. I doubt there would be any confusion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The infobox title should generally be the same as the article title. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to go against this convention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Worst mass shooting

Not an editor here but I am not sure this qualifies as the worst mass shooting in Oregon history. See the 1887 massacre of Chinese miners in Wallowa County. 207.55.106.139 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD did say at one point "the worst mass shooting in Oregon's modern history". The Deep Creek incident led to around 34 deaths, but it was a planned piece of racial extremism by a group of people rather than a rogue lone gunman in the typical modern sense of a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here about the history mass shootings. The Deep Creek incident in 1887 was one of many racial massacres that took place in the 19th century USA, but it is not how the modern media would define a mass shooting incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the removal of "modern" was discussed, so it could be restored per WP:BRD. I'd support that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is method of perpetrator's suicide article-worthy?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include that he shot himself in the head. The majority opinion is that it is a fact that is verifiable. The lone oppose says that the information is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. As a side note, the proposed inclusion of the majority, in the body, with a short sentence, appears to follow WP:WEIGHT. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the article state that the perpetrator shot himself in the head, or simply that he killed himself? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead already states that he "shot himself dead", so it is established that he committed suicide, and that he did so by gunshot. This RfC is not about that content, but whether we should specify later that he shot himself in the head. Perhaps it would make sense to put the less specific statement in the lead, but that can be kept separate from this RfC. The question to be answered here is whether the location of the suicide wound should be mentioned anywhere in the article.

1 - State that he shot himself in the head
2 - State that he killed himself

RfC survey: Method of perp's suicide

• 2 - Saying he shot himself in the head is unnecessary, irrelevant, gratuitous, and unencyclopedic.
  To me, it matters little to not at all that most other similar articles give such details. First, why assume that editors have given this question much thought in those other articles? Has it been examined closely in recent history? Furthermore, consensus can change, but not if we allow it to reinforce itself. Those were different cases and no two cases are exactly the same. Finally, I know of no policy, guideline, widely-supported essay, or RfC consensus that says we need to be consistent on things like this. These are the essential concepts behind WP:OTHER. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1 Nothing gratuitous here. Just answering the simple question of "How?" that saying someone killed himself begs. Our readers come in all intelligences. Rather than rely on trusting them to figure it out, let's just tell them, like we do for facts in general. This suicide was important, as it ended the entire event. Worthy of six plain words, like it was in the news and in those 23 similar shooting articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1- State that he shot himself in the head does not complete the action that he died from the gunshot. He committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. The responding Roseburg detectives without bulletproof vests were able to rush in and wound the active shooter in the shooter's side, after which the shooter committed suicide with a self-inflicted bullet wound to the head. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 22:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Apologies, I failed to make the RfC statement clear, taking into account the statement in the lead that he "shot himself dead". I have modified the RfC's introduction to clarify this. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case my reply is that if we mention it in the lead we have to expand on it in the body. We cannot mention anything in the lead that is not mentioned in the body. The lead is required to be a nickel tour of the body, not a substitute for it. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's true that "killed himself" is less specific than "shot himself dead", so it would make sense to reverse the locations of the two. But, that question can be kept separate from the RfC, which is only about whether the location of the suicide gunshot wound should be mentioned. No need to complicate the RfC by expanding its scope unnecessarily. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting oddly complicated, but I'm Fine with a vaguer lead and a detailed body. That's standard summary stuff for all sorts of articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you're fine with my proposal below? If so, please say so there. The vaguer content is currently in the Shooting section, not the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And now it's currently fine. Then we wait for the RfC to finish. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents on all of this: saying that he killed himself after a shootout with responding officers is sufficient for the WP:LEAD. In the main body of the article, saying that he killed himself with a shot to the head is appropriate. I don't think that it is gratuitous detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1 - State that he shot himself in the head. There's no reason not to say so and it is done on numerous other articles. Details are not unencylopedic, nor is it unnecessarily graphic. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1 - Standard for inclusion of factoids in the body of an article is venerability. This factoid is verifiable, so onus is on the folks who want to exclude the information to justify their position. I don't think the "gratuitous" argument holds much water. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1 - If the sources state that's what happened, then so be it. I see no reason why the fact should be omitted if reliable sources discuss it thus. Wikipedia accounts for a full description of events in a neutral manner. There is nothing non-neutral and unencyclopaedic in relaying what the sources state in this case, the same as saying Kennedy was shot in the head or Jimi Hendrix died from asphyxiating in his own vomit. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

An acid-related aspiration, if you want to get flowery. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion: Method of perp's suicide

I don't mean to cause trouble or anything, but why does this need an RfC? Do you plan to make this into a formal RfC or is this a thread you happen to be calling an RfC without an RfC template? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Dustin (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it has been discussed at length with only two participants, who are stalemated. Obviously there is no other interest locally, and neither of the two parties is prepared to let it go, so RfC is the only remaining recourse. And I neglected the rfc template, thanx for pointing that out!!―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the 1 !votes to date have responded to the meat of my 2 !vote, and none even attemtpt to show real relevance for the location of the suicide wound. If RfCs are, in fact, about strength of arguments rather than raw numbers, I hope the closer will take this into account. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a description of his final shot, in a section about the shooting, in an article about a shooting. Note how everything else there also describes things he did, with various details. Why mention any of these details (the desk, Christians, wheelchair)? Because they illustrate facts, and encyclopedia articles relay factual information about their subjects. Killing himself with a shot to the head is simply what happened.

This is why other articles note it, not because other articles note it. We assume those editors thought about what they were adding before they added it because we assume good faith. If that's not the meat of your vote, I don't know what is. When I voted, it contained different meat. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for RfC restart

Actually, I can see that the RfC will continue to be confusing given the current state of the article. At this point, I'm in favor of the following course of action: (1) Modify the article to put the less specific content in the lead. Say "killed himself" there, and "shot himself dead" in the Shooting section. This should be uncontroversial per WP:LEAD and shouldn't need discussion let alone an RfC. This wouldn't change what we say, only where we say it. (2) Start the RfC again, asking whether the Shooting section should say, "shot himself dead" or something like "shot himself in the head, killing himself". I think this course of action would be more straightforward and less confusing. If we're going to do this, the sooner we do it, the better. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• No Starting and stopping just adds to the confusion. I think the question is pretty clear now. Of course, I thought it started that way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As we've seen, the current inappropriate relationship between lead and body is going to complicate the issue here. People are going to get a tangled up in that and it's going to be very hard to reach a consensus on the issue actually at hand. I'm proposing to eliminate that problem. There is nothing wrong with restarting an RfC, especially early on, when it's obvious that it will be largely a waste of time. This may be clear enough to you, since you were one of the primaries in this dispute, but I'm thinking about people who come to this cold. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The third line of your question makes it clear that the RfC's only about the body. I don't think that new distinction changes any current stances. Right now, the lead says he shot himself, and the body saids he shot himself in the head. That's not inappropriate, that's the broad end first. What would stopping this and restarting it with the same question do to eliminate whatever confusion you think exists with the current one? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

First, it says that only because you changed it to say that, violating the concept of status quo ante, which I had asserted in two previous edit summaries. If you don't understand an edit summary from an editor with more than a few months of experience, perhaps you should think twice before you revert it? Maybe iinquire on their talk page as to what the hell they're talking about? And, as I said above, the question would not be the same question, it would be a different one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We were talking above. We stalemated, and you proposed that if I (or anyone) include the material, you'll start an RfC about it. I got my end of the deal, and you got yours. Now you want to give both ends back, for some mysterious reason. Status quo ante doesn't explain anything, aside from what it means in English.

There's no way to say this without it sounding like I'm trying to silence you, but maybe you should take a break from this violent death stuff for at least the night. I say that as a casual Wikifriend. Jumpiness is a hard thing to get across in text, but you do seem a bit jumpy. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I already explained to you on your talk page that I misspoke about what you're calling a "deal". You're right, I'm in need of a wikibreak, and more than one night. Y'all have fun here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We must be careful what we wish for. Anyway, it's not as bad as losing your soul to the Devil or anything. The RfC may still play out the way you want it to. Popular opinion is a bit of a rollercoaster, hard to know which way the wind will be blowing when you come back. In the meantime, can we count this part as resolved, and remove the note about withholding votes?

I'll take a long silence as a yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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.

x-year-old as noun

Re: [5]

I'll dispute this. x-year-old is often used as a noun in casual speech, but this is an encyclopedia and I think that should be avoided here. (With such a minor thing, under normal circumstances, I probably would simply re-revert with that explanation. But I had a very hard time getting this article unprotected the other day—almost a week with the protecting admin and WP:RFPP, then finally getting some relief at WP:ANI after being ignored and resisted there—and I'm not going to risk losing that.) 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

From the AP stylebook: "For ages, always use figures. If the age is used as an adjective or as a substitute for a noun, then it should be hyphenated. Don’t use apostrophes when describing an age range. Examples: A 21-year-old student. The student is 21 years old. The girl, 8, has a brother, 11. The contest is for 18-year-olds. He is in his 20s." Activist (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia Manual of Style say? That is our guideline for writing Wikipedia articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to say anything about this question. WP:NUMNOTES refers to "8-year-old child"; if this were answered in MOS, it would be there, or somewhere on that page. If it's good enough for the Associated Press, I guess it's good enough for me. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)