Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting

Semi-protected edit request on 3 Sep 2024

The complete shooter manifesto has been published today by RS. See here. Please add a few sentences on this.

Here is a possible example to conform to SPER restrictions.

"Please add the following sentences: The Tennessee Star, a local news outlet, has published the 90-page manifesto written by Hale. The journal, which the outlet claims to have legally obtained from a source familiar with the investigation, contains Hale's writings from January to March 2023 and includes details about her mental health, gender identity, and plans for the attack."

There is much more to add, including in-line citations, but for now the important thing this article sorely needs is adding the above facts (or similar).

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Tennessee Star is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? Where is your sourced RfC concluding it is not? Wikipedia:Reliable sources's states that "it is a non-exhaustive list...". So the fact that it is not on the perennial list doesn't exclude it from being a proper source.If you don't like, I'd encourage you to start a RfC first and gather consensus first before posting disparaging opinions.

Furthermore, here are more sources for you:

Townhall

WSMV (local TN news station)

The Tennessean

WKRN (local news station)

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

See: [1] O3000, Ret. Your other sources all use the Tennessee Star as a source. They are not additional sources. (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

well the Steven Crowder leaks are covered in the article, he isnt a reliable source and no direct link to his site is provided yet other sites which use his website as a source are used in the article. why is this leak any different? 2600:1010:A120:AA91:1D62:CFDE:B7DC:20E7 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources. WP:SECONDARY O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

like the WSMV, WKRN, and The Tennessean links listed above? 2600:1010:A120:AA91:1D62:CFDE:B7DC:20E7 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not when they regurgitate an unreliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

i will ask again, why then is the Crowder leak included? 2600:1010:A120:AA91:1D62:CFDE:B7DC:20E7 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. This looks like a case of trying to deprecate a source while bypassing consensus.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are linking to Snopes instead of WP policy? It seems you can't argue your point so decide to say no based on your opinion? Do you have a COI on this topic given your apparent denial without justification?

The above is a legitimate question asked for the benefit of the article.

Else, you are wrongly discarding several legitimate sources because they are not your preferred ones.

I woums also encourage you to open a RfC and try to ban the sources you openly dislike. Else, this is Wikipedia:Due.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

First, read WP:PA WP:AGF WP:CIV as you have violated them all. Next you can read [[2]]. This is one of several WP:RSN discussions on Tennessee Star and related fake news sites. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

please point out the personal attack from the (other) IP. i certainly do not see a personal attack nor anything uncivil. perhaps me and the other IP could learn a thing or two. 2600:1010:A120:AA91:1D62:CFDE:B7DC:20E7 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and improperly Wikipedia:Wikilawyering your point. I do not see any violation of civility here and, given your strongly worder opinions and the manner you are conducting them, I don't see your good faith, sadly.

I will ask that you stop replying to me and get an uninvolved administrator if you believe I have done something wrong. Please stop Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

On the topic of one of the sources being suggested, it has not been deprecated nor blocked given the sparsely participated thread you linked. I would reiterate the suggestion above: open a RfC and find consensus to get the source banned since this is what you want to do. In the mean time, it is a valid source. Moreover, Steven Crowder and others are heavily cited in this article. Much to your disappointment, it would seem - given your staged opinions.

Finally, blocking a valid source since it states facts that don't seem to conform to your vision of this article seems like a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would like to remind everybody that Wikipedia:Ownership of content applies.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

More sources:

New York Sun

Fox

Tampa Free Press

The Washington Times

A total of 10 non-depcrecated nor banned sources are covering it. This is now Wikipedia:Due.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit request template is for uncontroversial changes or ones that already have consensus. This is neither. Please do not reactivate the template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Nashville school shooter's manifesto release

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the Nashville school shooter's manifesto release be included in the article? 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Include - The Tennessee Star, a local news outlet, has published the 90-page manifesto written by Hale. The journal, which the outlet claims to have legally obtained from a source familiar with the investigation, contains Hale's writings from January to March 2023 and includes details about their mental health, gender identity, and plans for the attack.

This has been covered by the following non-deprecated/blocked national sources:

New York Sun

Fox News

Townhall

The Washington Times

Tampa Free Press

And also by the following local stations:

WSMV

WKRN

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. It is difficult to assume good faith in the IP initiating the RfC when they misgender they shooter. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Corrected it now. Not sure which one you would prefer. Please dont Wikipedia:Bite and remember to not do drive by comments. Based on your editing history, you are here solely by disagreeing with me elsewhere and posting on my TP. You have also been asked to stop posting on my TP. This might be important to note for others given your previous comment. It seems you are not willing to contribute here to this RfC and seem to harbor ill will against me. Please be a better Wikipedian.

  2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include: It makes sense to include it, given that the article currently covers a small leak of four pages from Steven Crowter and that this leak is 90 pages (apparently the entire document). Daddyelectrolux (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely agree. Any criticism on the source that fails to account for the previous Crowder leaks being here already would be ill formed.

  2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include with attribution. There are concerns with The Tennessee Star noted above, but the repetition of the claims in other sources warrants at least a mention.
  (Also, Fox News has been generally unreliable on politics, broadly construed, for a while now.) Aaron Liu (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - All of the sources simply refer to the same source, The Tennessee Star, which is not a reliable source. Indeed, according to Snopes (which is RS), it was set up by "PAC-Connected Activists".[3] That is, there are no reliable sources for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Even admins have agreed to its inclusion here. Your point above has been addressed multiple times by multiple people and you ignore these. Moreover, you continue to reply negatively to me on other article TP's which implies sour grapes and ill will instead of trying to help Wikipedia and/or achieve consensus via the proper means.

  You do not seem to be acting in good faith, sadly.

  2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Admins are not supposed to be treated as admins outside of administrative disputes. Please don't assume that others are acting in bad faith within a day; it seems clear that Obj just doesn't want facts to be made up. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I will take your suggestion and give it great value. This is given you have been previously very helpful. It just seems that on two different topics @Objective3000 very quickly posts negatively against whatever opinion I might be holding, one after the other. Its happened at least once already. He has also complained on your TP about me. I wonder if Wikipedia:Tendentious editing could apply here? If it doesn't, then apologies.

  2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop the nasty posts. Three this morning alone. You have claimed I'm guilty of a dozen infractions, all totally false. This must stop. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include with attribution and limitation. Since the clearly-reliable sources are indicating that The Tennessee Star is the source of the information, it is relevant to include that so readers know where the information came from and can make assessments of its veracity accordingly. Further, we should limit our coverage to what has been reported by the clearly-reliable sources downstream of the TS, since we can expect their editorial staffs to have done more vetting that is inline with WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I fully agree. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Problem is that the readers don't know what The Tennessee Star is and therefore won't know where the information came from and can make assessments of its veracity accordingly. According to Snopes, it is not a local paper. It is only one of several papers masquerading as a local paper but carrying paid political stories and often duplicate text that ends up with mistakes like naming the incorrect governor because the story has been copied from one of their local papers to another paper in another state. The Snopes story is a quite interesting read.[4] O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:WHATABOUTX on the source. If you feel so strongly about the original source, please start a RfC on RS and rally the community to deprecate it. In the mean time, any previous mistake the source has made doesn't carry to their current, relevant reporting. If we followed your lead we should neved use the New York Times sincw they really messed up by 'confirming' weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no?

  The facts are, a source you don't like published the subjects entire manifesto. It contains a lot of information over the shooters mental stability and thought process. Many RS are covering it, though they are not your personally preferred sources. Recall that the RS Perennial states it is non-exhaustive itself.

  On the above, plenty of experienced editors are agreeing that WP should definitely cover this. Some prefer an attribution.

  Please let us know what other formal points you disagree as per WP rules.

  2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  This has zero to do with WHATABOUTX. You keep linking to irrelevant guidelines. I have already given my opinion. I am allowed to do so. The source has been discussed at RSN. It is a bad source. RfC's are not performed for the vast majority of bad sources because they are obvious. And please stop using phrases like a source you don't like as this is improper. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like 2601:19E is mostly linking to Wikipedia:Essays (not guidelines). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include with relevant information that RS cover. If RS are reporting on its content, even in detailed summary form, they have put their journalistic integrity on the line and Wikipedia should reasonably assume that the content and the reactions to it is reliable. There can be further discussion as to what is WP:DUE, but after reviewing the content myself (and to be clear, my views are not what decides whether details are or aren't included) I believe it's important that Wikipedia cover what RS's are saying because this individual was quite clearly mentally unwell. If we can help readers understand the importance of mental health and keeping firearms away from unstable individuals then I think we're being good stewards for humanity. To be clear, I'm not here to WP:WGW, but just report what WP:RS and trusted professionals are saying (of course, when reported by a reliable source). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I fully agree with the above. I'd like to highlight Wikipedia:Compromise. There seems to be consensus here to include, possibly with attribution.

  I can't do that given the protection level this article carries. Perhaps a more experienced editor can do som.

  2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  RFCs typically run for seven days. Please be patient, and please refrain from commenting on every !vote. Funcrunch (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with @Funcrunch here, please refrain from replying to every vote and wait until RfC has concluded. I will not introduce contentious material to a BLP unless there is affirmative consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  It will take more than 7 days. I only just added the relevant RfC topics, pol and bio. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - What source would be used? None of these sources are considered good. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find any mention in the NYPost or Fox listed above. I Googled trying to find a source. They are all poor sources. The only half decent source related to this said the "Judge rejects requests to release Nashville school shooter’s writings". The copyright is held by the victims. So what is the provenance? Only The Tennessee Star says it has a copy. But to get it, you must give them your name and email, which I will not do. The Star article on this is clearly trying to push a political point.[5]. How do we know if this document is real? Before any addition to an encyclopedia, we should have a very good source. Is there any source at WP:RSP that discusses this? As per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing." O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  It would help if the IP had provided links to the sources, so that other users could verify what they say more readily, rather than having to crawl through Google trying to find it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Omit, in absence of verification. One of the local news sources mentioned has no coverage. The other's lede on the story is "A Tennessee newspaper published all 90 pages of a what it says is the journal seized during a search of the Covenant School shooter’s home and vehicle on the day she murdered six people in Nashville."^{[sic, emphasis added]}[6] And as O3000 mentioned with WP:REDFLAG, WSMV is disclaimering their presentation of the information, so we need sources that are more plentiful and more solid. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Omit per Obj's pretty convincing argument. I saw the disclaimer, but the thing about the copyright and the quotation of REDFLAG got me thinking. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with the rest, but re:the copyright thing, I don't think it really matters. Unless I'm missing something, whether the copyright is held by the victims or the shooter, it shouldn't effect anything here, right? 71.249.96.216 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, assuming you don't mind being blocked for violating one of our legal policies, then you're right: the mere consideration of contributory copyright infringement wouldn't affect anything here. Of course, the admin who blocked you for creating the copyright problem would also be obligated to WP:REVDEL the copyright problems, so if the goal is to Tell The World The Truth™ (or at least to help people indulge their curiosity and/or stoke their outrage), then that would be pretty ineffective way to go about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Um, I'm a little confused? Are you confusing me with the other person? I never posted anything on Wikipedia so I don't think I'm blocked? I'm writing a post right now that will disagree with the rather silly person that I just now see was blocked. I think I now understand. Random IP anon causes a ruckus, gets blocked, then a new random IP anon starts replying in the very same thread, so I understand why you probably think I'm that person. I will post a reply disagreeing with him in a few minutes, so rest assured, I'm not that person.

  Addressing the copyright thing, wouldn't it be fair use? Is it also a copyright problem on other articles with manifestos? Or are you saying that we shouldn't post anything until we are sure it is fair use or not a copyright problem? I think I agree with that last question. 71.249.96.216 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Linking to a pirated copy of a whole document would not be fair use. It would be Contributory copyright infringement, which is a blockable offense on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  As a simple example, fair use looks like writing something like this:

  "In these lines, 'The moon, like a flower/In heaven's high bower/With silent delight/Sits and smiles on the night", the poet emphasizes the siblant S sound, which reminds the reader of a quiet shushing sound."

  Fair use does not look like this:

  "Click here to get a copy of the whole thing from a political outfit that has no legal right to be letting people read it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. What was confusing me was the judge ruling that copyright transferred to the victims. But, the way I was thinking, that didn't really matter since whether the victim or the perpetrator held the copyright, it shouldn't change the fair use analysis. But, your example about fair use using only a small part of the original work, and no more, reminded me about fair use factor 3: "The Amount or Substantiality of the Portion Used". I will now try to figure out how to strike out my post saying there isn't a copyright problem. 71.249.96.216 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can do that with <s>...</s> codes if you want, but it's not really necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  (s is for things that are no longer true or relevant and del just generically indicates a change between edits along with ins.) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is not slightly close to fair use. A judge ruled the copyright transferred to the victims. It is their choice to make this public. If they don't, the victims are being victimized again. According to the Tennessee paper, the same judge may hold them in contempt of court for publishing it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Omit, but solely for the lack of good sources. The real decider for me is that almost all the sources put a disclaimer before presenting the info. The ones that don't are clearly extremely partisan (NY Post and the like). Fox 17, a local Fox affiliate is the only source I found that that doesn't use a disclaimer. However, another article, this time authored by the "FOX Nashville Staff" rather than a single reporter as in the first article does use a disclaimer.

As I wrote above, I don't think there is a copyright problem since it seems that it is fair use to me, but I'm not sure. It is a copyright problem to link the whole thing. I'm removing the links now since both Fox 17 articles link to the Tennessee Star which has the whole thing. In response to "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing", I'm not sure I agree that this is an exceptional claim. I think the first leak would've been an exceptional claim, but this just seems like a continuation of the leaks, which seems expected given it was already leaked once before. I'm unsure if there is a more rigorous standard for what "exceptional" means. 71.249.96.216 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is an exceptional claim that this document is real and unmodified. Modification is all to common these days. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include - given the fact that it has been covered by national outlets and the current article covers the small couple page leak. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  What national outlet? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Omit – I just don't see the point behind saying that someone obtained a copy of something written by the perpetrator. In WP:10YEARS, this is not going to seem relevant. Just saying "This outfit has a copy" feels like free advertising. I would have a different view if we had, say, a scholarly source analyzing the contents, so we could say something substantive. I'm doubtful about including the current quotations, which may have been cherry-picked for their political value instead of being representative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Omit — I was summoned here by Yapperbot and I have read the preceding discussion. I find WhatamIdoing's arguments about the contributory copyright infringement issue convincing. If it comes out the Tennessee star published the manifesto with permission from a victim's parent that would merit revisiting this question.

Groceryheist (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include—but to be clear, I mean include that the Star published the "manifesto"; I do not think the text should be reproduced in this article, as that would be excessive. This release has received secondary coverage, and I thank that in ten years, this will indeed be an important aspect of the shooting's story—the efforts to keep these writings unpublished by parents have become a major aspect of this sad story, and since secondary sources have covered this alleged acquisition and release, our article should cite those reports. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. This is an extraordinary claim (because, for example, if these were in there, why didn't Crowder leak these parts? Did this known advocacy organization masquerading as a local outlet make the pages up?), and IMO local sources (+ the conspiracy-pushing Fox News & The Washington Times) do not satisfy extraordinary sourcing. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t see what’s so extraordinary about a document leak that secondary coverage from acceptable sources doesn’t cut it. It’s not terribly unusual. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  What sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Only local and dubious sources have covered this, every article includes a disclaimer that the original source is dubious, the event has not made e.g. AP, the contents contradict previous coverage that the attack was not motivated by identity (directly meeting REDFLAG: Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in ... politics), and the additional uncertainty that Crowder had to not have seen it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Omit per O3000 and WhatamIdoing, feels like there are likely some WP:NPOV issues in presenting the cherry picked portions as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Include Agree with Zanahary that this has received enough coverage to justify some mention in the article. I'm not moved by arguments that the motivations of the perpetrator won't be important in 10 years. That argument falls into crystal ball territory. A manifesto existing isn't a trivial part of the case and the coverage of it is enough for it to be mentioned in the article. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov, I agree with you that the motivations would be interesting, but I believe the proposal here is to add a sentence that says something like "A website posted a copy of some things the perp wrote on August 32, 2024", which is not "the motivations of the perpetrator". If we could add something like "The perpetrator appears to have been motivated by A, B, and C", then that would be great, but that does not appear to be what's on offer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would profoundly disagree with including the Star's highlights due to the dubiousness. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I hope that we will some day have a decent source (maybe something from a psychology journal?) that would let us add that kind of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, I agree this RFC wording is problematic and I'd support a procedural close or a reword of the RFC question. For now I'm withdrawing my support for include until there's a clearer idea what that means. Nemov (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is truly a meaningless question, and nobody is even entertaining its closest interpretation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Omit. The news outlet does not state clearly where it obtained the manifesto from. It can be mentioned that there is an alleged manifesto and who published it, but unless it is an official source working on the case such as the police, or family members I do not believe it is reliable enough. Luna Cielus (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment It seems like this RfC is destined to either fail or be relisted with a major revision. I would be opposed to referring it as a "manifesto", I don't think RS are referring to it as that (and if they are, ugh). It appears to be Hales' journal, and a disturbing one at that. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2024 (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.

WP:NEWSWEEK and Hales' alleged writings

I'm guessing we should probably find a better source for this or remove the material entirely. While I believe Wikipedia should give WP:DUE consideration to any findings or coverage of the perpetrator's motivation or issues that contributed to the mass murder, we probably need to let a more reliable source cover the matter. This includes verifying that the journal is authentic and it's contents are presented as factually and neutral as possible. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed. Newsweek is no longer considered RS. So we have a bad source using another bad source. I also agree with your previous comments about the term "manifesto". One mention is probably OK citing the police as they originally used the term. But this is clearly not a manifesto (a public declaration) and should be avoided thereafter. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)