Talk:2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting

Requested move 30 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 20:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting → 2023 Cleveland, Texas, shooting – @WWGB: I have no clue how this move was controversial, seeing as you didn't actually give a reason for reverting it, but if you insist on going through the formality of an RM for a straightforward application of MOS:GEOCOMMA, alrighty, here we are: This article should be moved as a straightforward application of MOS:GEOCOMMA; some amount of trout may also be in order. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Previous page move requests have determined not to apply GEOCOMMA in such situations. Please see, for example, Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#Requested move 17 July 2020. The arguments in that discussion apply equally here. The format (Year) City, State shooting is used consistently to title mass shooting articles across the English Wikipedia, as seen in articles requiring a state disambiguator within Category:2010s mass shootings in the United States and Category:2020s mass shootings in the United States. WWGB (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for starters, we should turn down the heat, this is a move request, not a tamzin-WWGB cage match. Secondly I agree that the determination, which can be seen at the aurora article (and Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting/Archive 7#Requested move earlier 5 March 2019, mentioned in the rm linked by wwgb) is that the second comma shouldn't be used. Now me, I don't care about the second comma that much, but given that presently, most people think it should not be used, we shouldn't probably use it... --Quiz shows 23:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WWGB. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WWGB. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Ignore all rules. 2A01:E0A:4D0:AB0:DE7E:A57E:7536:4549 (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Come one, it's not a postal address. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm fine withdrawing this if someone can make a good argument, but, as with the linked Aurora RM, I'm seeing a lot of people opposing (or in that case supporting) without any explanation of why American mass shootings should be, among all contexts on Wikipedia, the one context where we don't put a comma after the state name. Could someone please explain what I'm missing? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom; I'm not a huge fan of GEOCOMMA in general, but we do tend to apply it for other article titles (e.g. US mayoral elections) so we should do so here as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Oppose, other shooting articles do not have that many commas. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per Tamzin. Seems like it's policy to have the second comma, baring any project-wide consensus. Esb5415 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not policy, just part of the manual of style, wherein "occasional exceptions may apply". WWGB (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Again, why should mass shootings in the U.S., of all things, be such an exception? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the title can be read and understood without the second comma. It adds no value to the article title. To my (Australian) eyes it looks unnecessary and jarring. GEOCOMMA may have a purpose in a prose sentence, but there is no confusion in a four-string title. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

To me, the current title reads as "[2023 Cleveland], [Texas shooting]", which is just nonsensical. Regardless, what you're saying would be an argument for a wiki-wide exception to GEOCOMMA. You haven't actually answered my question: why should mass shootings in the U.S., of all things, be such an exception? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is very clear: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I read it as "[2023] [Cleveland, Texas] [shooting]. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If local consensus can never apply, then why does WP:MOS state "occasional exceptions may apply" in the top template? WWGB (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, concur with WWGB. Silikonz💬 15:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - per above. Is it snowing here in Texas? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the current & proposed titles because this shooting didn't happen in Cleveland. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jim Michael 2, media coverage so far has labeled the site of the shooting as Cleveland, so this is the WP:NAMEof it so far, and it's no total lie that this happened in Cleveland. The address of the site of the shooting ends with Cleveland, Texas 77372. BurgeoningContracting 03:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources currently used in this article have Cleveland in their titles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When searching "|Texas shooting", more headlines will read "Cleveland" than "San Jacinto", and the one's that only read "Texas" will tend to read "Cleveland, Texas". You could probably request a move, but that will likely be closed per WP:SNOW. BurgeoningContracting 13:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Tamzin. regardless of the properness of "Cleveland", the correction to this current title should be done, as the current one has bad grammar. A different move request can be filed to indicate a different jurisdiction if Jim Michael 2 wishes to change that -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. That titling is not typical of these types of articles. RaskBunzzz (talk) 09:33, 03 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the de facto general exception to GEOCOMMA that attributive nouns that contain internal commas should not be separated from the head noun by a comma. My attempt in 2019 to get something codified in the MOS one way or another failed to reach any particular consensus, but for consistency's sake we shouldn't deviate from accepted precedent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Commentary

I created a section called "commentary," which is very common in articles about mass shootings.

I included the following:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted, "1/x ICE now telling media that this mass murderer was an illegal alien who had been previously deported. He killed FIVE innocent people, including a child. The corrupt corporate media will now ignore this story in three, two, one…."

I cited this source.

User:Moncrief reverted it and commented, "what purpose does this serve?"

It serves the purpose of offering a reliably sourced comment from an elected official who represents the state where it happened. It is very common for these kinds of articles to include these kinds of comments from elected officials.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cruz's comment was more about an attack on immigrants and the media than a response to the killings. It's no more than partisan ratbaggery. WWGB (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say the comment is worth inclusion since it serves to insert a significant POV and partially explains how this tragic incident happened. Support adding it back to the text. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mhhossein, are reliable sources reporting that the suspect's immigration status was part of the motivation for the shootings? Please link to such sources. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No idea about that and "how" it happened should not necessarily be taken to include the "motivation". --Mhhossein ^talk 09:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Also found this which quotes the San Jacinto County Sheriff as saying "I don't care if he was here illegally or legally, he was in my county. Five people died in my county...."--Mhhossein ^talk 09:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspect

Name

Is there a reason why the article goes out of it's way to name him? It's hardly a secret when even the BBC names him Trade (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME issue, I presume. This wasn't an issue when the Canada stabbing manhunt happened in 2022, so I don't know why it doesn't apply here. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

When he is captured and charged, there will be no reason to withhold his name. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we to wait until the State can present charges? Per WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. But in this case, it is highly doubtful the suspect can take any action against Wikimedia, and his name is already plastered all over international news irregardless of what it says here. WP:IAR exists for something like this. BurgeoningContracting 02:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Illegal alien

Is there any reason,other than the leftist bias of wikipedia, that the fact the suspect is an illegal alien who illegally entered 5 times is not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.135.34.6 (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If RS say he is, that should be in the article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The funny thing is, it already was included. Thanks for reading our biased site. --RaskBunzzz (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No, what’s included in the article is Gov. Abbot mistakenly referring to the victims as illegal aliens. Nothing about the suspect being an illegal alien. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Motive

May we please put as a motive, 'ANGER OVER BEING TOLD 2 STOP SHOOTING GUN', since it was NOT really a 'dispute', it was ANGER OVER BEING TOLD 2 STOP USING GUN. Monkeylady999 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That might not be the truth. "Her husband then went to the property line and asked a neighbor police identified as Francisco Oropeza to stop shooting an AR-15 rifle so close to their front yard." Calling it a Neighborly dispute is accurate. Additionally, the infobox is more of a summary. The text suggested would be more for the body of the article than the infobox. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

thanx, i guess ur rite. im SORRY. IM SORRY. UR RITE, IT IS A NEIGHBORLY DISPUTE. now that ive read up on tha whole incident, it is a NEIGHBORLY DISPUTE. Monkeylady999 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Surname

So is Francisco's surname spelled as "Oporesa" (with an S) or "Oporeza" (with a Z) ? I've seen many news outlets conflict directly about which way it is spelled. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The name is one of many discrepancies in the situation, but in this case it is due to the person being known under more than one name. Currently, the Texas Government primarily uses Oropesa along with listing a number of different names and the FBI also uses Oropesa. I could not definitely determine what was the preference of the U.S. Marshals nor of the San Jacinto County Sheriff's Office. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@WWGB:, why is "Francisco Oropeza" the correct[1] spelling? Different news outlets use different spellings, reputable news outlets. Is there a new source indicating that this is "Z" spelling the correct spelling and the "S" spelling is incorrect? Per the above, the Texas government uses "S" as does the FBI, seemingly contradicting your edit -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Francisco Oropeza
• Francisco Oropesa

References

Contradictions and discrepancies

This incident has had a number of details that were inaccurate or disagree with later details. To briefly sum them up for people to be aware of them:

Extended content

Ages of the victims: Early reports of the two youngest victims said that their ages were 8 and 15-years-old instead of 9 and 18, respectively. Example (This same example also gives the wrong gender for the second youngest victim.) Other reports currently conflict on the age of the victims, with some reporting the age of one of the mothers as either 29 or 24 instead of 25, and at least one reporting the age of the remaining two victims as 22 and 29 instead of 21 and 31 respectively. Examples: A, B Names of the victims: Different articles use different spelling of the victims names. Velazquez/Velasquez; Jose/Josué; Jonathan/Jonatan; Casarez/Caserez/Cáceres; Obdulia/Julisa/Julissa/Obdulia Julisa; and Laso/Lazo/Laso Guzman/Lazo Guzman. Examples: A, B, C, D What was said to the suspect: Some articles say that the father went to the neighbor to ask if he could shoot from farther away instead of asking if he would stop shooting. Example: A, B May 1st sighting: Early reports say that the suspect being spotted on Monday was a "false alarm" with reports post-arrest saying that it wasn't. Example: A, B, C Arrest location: Reports differ as to the location of the arrest, whether in was in Cut and Shoot or in Conroe due to a disagreement between the FBI field office and one of the Sheriff's Offices. Example A, B, C, D Relation of those arrested: One of the people who was arrested along with the suspect has been described by different reports as either the suspect's wife or the suspect's longtime partner. Other articles note that local authorities have claimed that they were married, but that jail records say they are not married. Example: A, B Bond amount: Some sources say that the suspect was given a bond of $5 million from one charge while others say that he was given a bond of $1.5 million per charge for a combined bond of $7.5 million from five charges and others still give a combination of these two. This apparently stems from an adjustment made Wednesday. Example: [ A, B, C, D, E

This doesn't include the suspect's last name nor the number of people in the home, which are currently discussed in the section above and the article, respectively. If anyone knows of others that should be noted, feel free to mention them. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of twenty fitting these criteria which named the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)