Other convictions after trial

edit

Should we add Hyde things he went to trial for after like parade trial like how he was later convicted of shooting his nephew and is going to trial for running over the mother of his children weeks before the attack?[1] Startrain844 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

Full list of Victims

edit

Prior to the death of an injured 8-year-old boy at the hospital, the death toll already included Jane Kulich 52, Tamara Durand 52, Virginia Sorenson 79, LeAnna Owen 71, and Wilhelm Hospel 81. 35.131.37.50 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was consensus ever reached on including them? The old discussion on this buried within the archives last edited in Jan 2023 did not ever recieve a final conclusion. It would be appreciated if somebody would offer something on this. Tweedle (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most "attack" articles now include brief information about the dead victims, in particular, name, age and gender. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can i add in parentheses that the crime being racially motivated is debatable and disputed?

edit

that wouldn't mean he did it with the intention of racism, just that it's possible/some people think it was racially motivated and it's also a possibility. 2804:6A00:F014:8700:E9CD:1795:346B:1EC3 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

NO, we that is what we already say, that the claim has been made but it is disputed. I am unsure what your idiot would change. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lmao, what a terrible writting, also "idiot"? Lmao, nice ad hominem, wikipedia editors are really proto-redditors 2804:6A00:F014:8700:E9CD:1795:346B:1EC3 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Typo I meant to write edit. However the point stands, what will this suggested edit say we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Typo I meant to write edit." Yeah, you sure do buddy, you sure do, lol.
"what will this suggested edit say we do not already say?"
and why would that be a bad thing exactly? what's so bad about putting that the motivation bahind it being racism is disputed be such a bad thing? 2804:6A00:F014:8700:E9CD:1795:346B:1EC3 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
We do not need to add words just for the sake of adding them. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"what will this suggested edit say we do not already say?"
why not? isn't the point of the article to have as many info as possible as long as it is good and reliable? how does putting that the attack is disputed as being racially motivated be against Wikipedia's policy? at this point you are just grasping at straws, honestly i would not be suprised since the old version of this article called this tragey a "car crash" instead of an "attack", yeah totally not ideologically biased. 2804:6A00:F014:8700:E9CD:1795:346B:1EC3 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Time for others to chip in, I have no wish to badger the process. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current text makes clear that a racial motive is uncertain. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply