Talk:Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting

Pushpin map

Can anyone please help add a pushpin map to the infobox? It's not showing for some reason. Any help is appreciated. DeAllenWeten (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done - I used the {{Location map}} template as done on other articles. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

i dont know if someone can post this but the version about randy walking behind Krysten is fake, Kristen talked and denied that in an interview. this is the link https://www.patreon.com/posts/interview-with-20449063 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZellaZoelick233 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender Identity

As the subject of this article identified as transgender, and that is noted in the body of the text, shouldn't the pronouns be changed from he/him/his to she/her/hers? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not until reputable published sources state a transgender identity. The sources cited use he/him/his. Transgender is asserted by unreliable sources like Reddit, which are not acceptable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does his own youtube confessional count? I've queued it up to the right time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7C85:FC01:698E:C76:6518:1F8A (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Text currently has a mix of he/she and his/her. I know it's a difficult topic to settle, but I think we can all agree the current text doesn't make any sense. Btw: I can confirm the Youtube material contains a confession that Randy thought of themselves as a girl. However no one they knew was aware of this until after the shooting. Enchanted Bunny (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In the absence of a RS about Stair being transgender and preferring female pronouns, we should default to the usage of the sources. Once a RS has been established, it would make sense to revisit which gender is being used. Grandpallama (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • How in the he*k is his own Youtube confessional not a reputable source...? It's the definition of a reputable source. Advancedlamb (talk) 18:34, 12 Jun 2018 (UTC)
          • Then there will be plenty of secondary sources reporting on it. Grandpallama (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
            • On what planet are secondary sources more important than primary sources? It's coming right out of her own mouth. Misgendering a trans person because they are an insane murderer is like calling black people in prison the n word and pretending it's OK because they don't deserve respect. I'm going to revert your edit because it's transphobic and wrong. 82.34.1.182 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes, because obviously all black people in prison are on the same level as a spree killer, right? Selling an eighth of weed is morally equivalent to murdering innocent people in cold blood, right? Makes total sense. I'd say if a black guy goes on a random shooting spree which he has been planning for a year, he is fair game for racial slurs, considering the main purpose of these slurs is to dehumanize people, and spree killers have waived their humanity through their own actions. Serial and spree killers do not deserve any respect. They deserve to be ridiculed as much as possible, to discourage others from following in their footsteps. They do this to feel powerful. If we spent 10% of the time we spend focusing on the tragedy on focusing on how pathetic the perpetrator was, the rate of this problem would go down. In conclusion, it's an insult to trans people to bend over backwards and ignore RS out of respect for a spree killer, and it's an insult to incarcerated black people to compare them to him. I really doubt most black and trans people want to be used as shields for the feelings of spree killers. Trying to cater to his feelings is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Prospective spree killers need to know they won't get what they want. Need I point out that in his videos to his parents he explained that the only reason he didn't kill them was that he wanted them to suffer? Perhaps even "him" is doing him a favor, and we should agree as a society to use the "it" pronoun for mass murderers. RadicallyNeutral (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The news sources all seem to have reported the shooter as a male. If that's erroneous then that's unfortunate but we shouldn't try to rememedy it ourselves. Λυδαcιτγ 02:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that really Wikipedia's policy? Just copy what the news reports, even if we know it to be false? That's a genuine question btw. Enchanted Bunny (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What's false? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's a tertiary source, which means it is a compendium of what secondary source reporting tells us. You can read the verification policy for more detail, but essentially, Wikipedia does not contain original research (i.e., we don't comb primary sources to write our own narrative of events); what appears on Wikipedia, then, is largely determined by what the secondary sources say. If something is demonstrably false, there are usually reputable, verifiable voices saying so which can be sourced to include that information. Grandpallama (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID says to "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources." Not what the reliable sources use, but the self-designation, as reported in those sources. Several news outlets quote him as describing himself as a "woman trapped in a man's body." I'd argue that that's a pretty clear case to use she/her. Gaelan 💬✏️ 21:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Grandpallama and User:Princess1647 as potentially interested parties Gaelan 💬✏️ 21:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If the sources you mention are added, I have no particular objection. I haven't seen reliable sources that state your quoted claim--indicating a clear statement of being transgender--so much as some reference to passing comments made by Stair that are being interpreted as a clear statement. My objection has been based solely on the changes to the article being unsourced, per my comments above. Grandpallama (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NB: Per BRD, I have reverted your change for now, because the extant consensus is that reliable sourcing does not exist (or has not yet been provided) to make those pronoun changes. Grandpallama (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Huh. The article currently claims that the shooter "described coming to the conclusion that [they were] transgender". The nearest citations are at the end of the paragraph, and they cite a Fox article that has the "I'm a girl who's been trapped in a man's body for two and a half decades"—presumably that's where the claim in wiki is coming from. That seems to me like a pretty clear statement of being trans, but it's definitely a bit of interpretation. Thoughts? Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gaelan: The wording in the article is probably too strong--the quotation from the Fox affiliate doesn't support the declarative, in Wikipedia's voice, that Stair came to the conclusion they were transgender, in my opinion. Whether or not that statement is enough to change the pronouns (i.e., even if we find it persuasive to call Stair transgender, I don't know if it rises to the level of a conscious decision to use female pronouns), though, I'm not really sure. I think if we want to establish that, it might make sense to open a RfC and maybe ping the LGBT Wikiproject; the best guidance would be Wikipedians who are heavily involved in editing transgender articles. I'm not very invested in this article, beyond having added it to my watchlist a year or so ago after seeing constant edit-warring. My own judgment is that a stronger source is needed, but I would happily defer to editors who are more knowledgeable in this area. Thus far, the guiding principle for the consensus on the page has been that since none of the secondary sources use female pronouns, and in the absence of a clear statement of preference from Stair, for Wikipedia to employ them would be presumptuous. But again, I'd happily defer to those with more expertise in the area. Grandpallama (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert on these issues, but there seems to be a double standard here. Other gender nonconforming people have had their articles rewritten to suit their identity with a lot less scrutiny. Vi Hart's comes to mind, for example, whose gender-fluid identity is cited by a mere Tweet here on Wikipedia. Surely a self-declaration in a YouTube video has the same validity? Noxteryn (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Noxteryn: Gender identity takes more than just a post on social media, especially since there is no evidence the shooter expressed a female identity in the real world. In general, gender identity calls for insistence and persistence. More important, if reliable sources won't buy into Stair/Blaze being transgender, Wikipedia can't say so. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, insistence and persistence is a shifting of goalposts. How many times does a trans person have to come out for it to be considered "legitimate"? Two? Three? Four? Ten? A hundred? How many is enough? Because any editor can always claim that any trans person didn't insist or persist enough, and use that as justification to misgender them. Whatever the case, the person in question didn't mention their identity only once in their YouTube videos. Also, that person is now dead. They obviously can't insist or persist any longer, while anyone can publish articles or videos or podcasts misgendering them for all eternity, so the percentage of gender references in the way this person identified will only shrink with time. Again, I reiterate that I suspect there is a double standard at play here. For example, there are notable publications that still refer to actor Elliot Page by his former identity, especially right-wing or conservative outlets. Yet, we all understand that this doesn't mean his Wikipedia page should be changed to reflect any ambiguity in his gender identity. I don't see how whether the mainstream media "buy" a person's identity is relevant to whether that person is trans. Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking would theoretically mean that, in a transphobic society, trans people don't exist according to Wikipedia, since no publication would ever acknowledge trans people. This feels wrong, almost vindictive, as if this is a form of posthumous punishment for this person. Or as if the trans community has disowned this person for their actions. Whatever it is, it's in poor taste. Like I said in my other comment, other people's Wikipedia pages have changed pronouns with much less scrutiny, with a person's declaration taken at face value as enough evidence. Yet, in this case, the person's declaration is being ignored in favour of third party reports. This is illogical.

Anyway, I don't mean to make a big fuss about this, I'm just expressing my concern for the record. Even if the article doesn't change for the time being, I'm content that my objection remains here. Noxteryn (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Shooter's internet presence

I'd removed the following for lack of sources and trivial content; it's since been restored as not trivial. The article is about the shooting, and while this refers to the shooter's personal life, it's unclear whether this is relevant to the article's topic. Appears to be tangentially related at best, and without WP:RELIABLE it's hard to see rationale for its inclusion. 2601:188:180:1481:4999:EC19:B1C1:9CC6 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Since 2007, Stair had a presence on YouTube with his channel Pioneers Productions, which featured short sketches and collaborations he did with other content creators. By 2014, however, he announced that he was going in a different direction with his content, citing numerous unfortunate events that had occurred in his life during the previous year; this led to the creation of "Ember's Ghost Squad" (EGS), an animated series focused on a fictional organization based on the character of Ember McLain from the Nickelodeon animated series Danny Phantom.

I restored the text because it leads directly into the sourced text about the problematic internet material. A couple of sentences indicating that Stair's online activity began innocuously and then transitioned into more troubled territory is directly relevant to the shooting. Its removal makes the subsequent paragraph nonsensical, since it references material that is introduced in this paragraph. Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, a cursory glance at the sources provided in the following paragraph show they support the sentences in this deleted material, so it is sourced, just not repeatedly or directly after the sentences. Grandpallama (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Then a few problems remain. The paragraph in question isn't written so as to make that connection clear--in its current form it merely reads like a history of internet use, rather than providing insight into an accelerating problematic behavior. So its current connection to the subsequent passage is tenuous. The sources for the next paragraph or mostly inconclusive, at least insofar as one is a broken link, another rests behind a paywall. One that's accessible doesn't confirm the specific time line of the previous paragraph, nor some other details. 2601:188:180:1481:4999:EC19:B1C1:9CC6 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The paragraph in question is two sentences. The first sentence states, in fairly general language, that Stair was a longtime presence on YouTube. The second sentence indicates that three years before the shooting, Stair indicated personal problems on the YouTube channel, and changed the direction of it by creating videos about a fictitious organization. This leads directly into the following paragraph which discusses videos being posted about that new organization that presaged the shooting. If you want to find new sources that aren't behind a paywall, that's probably for the best, but I don't see that the connection is at all tenuous or that it simply reads like a history of internet use. What is it that you feel isn't sufficiently supported? The specific description of the new animated series that was created? Grandpallama (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like every single detail is covered in the provided sources, other than the very specific "2007" claim as when he started on YouTube. I'm not entirely convinced that requires a source, but it shouldn't be too hard to find one. Grandpallama (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Motive

He stated his motive (several times, actually) was to be part of EGS after he died, is that relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC on pronouns

MALE PRONOUNS:

The consensus is that the perpetrator, Randy Stair, should be referred to with male pronouns since (1) the sources reviewed by RfC participants did not refer to Stair with female pronouns (2) no sources have been presented to verify that Stair was transgender or preferred female pronouns.

If sources are found that contradict these conclusions, there is no prejudice against a new RfC to discuss what pronouns should be used.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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 perpetrator be referred using male or female pronouns? Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this a while back, which I forgot to come back to (no deadline and all that), but I don't feel that it's been resolved. My opinion is that per MOS:GENDERID we should use female ones, but others argue that no RS uses female pronouns, and they may not give a clear enough statement that the perpetrator was transgender that the use of female pronouns is justified. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow the sources. An MTF person who "presents" as female at the time of a notable event would have some claim to female pronouns, but otherwise we enter into the world of Chelsea Manning with "gender change after notoriety". In this case, it appears that the sources did not identify the person as female, and so we do not. Collect (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Male pronouns I'm sensitive to the concerns raised in this case, but per my earlier comments on this talkpage, I don't see RS using female pronouns and I do not see a source providing an explicit declaration by Stair that they are transgender (much less that they prefer female pronouns). In the absence of that, I think the evidence that has been pointed to is too tenuous for WP to employ female pronouns, and that to do so would be overreach. Grandpallama (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot): it's not obvious why there should be any question of which pronouns are correct. The article doesn't specify Stair's self-identified gender (or lack of one), so I don't see any issue where MOS:GENDERID would be relevant. Is there another reason to deviate from what published sources say? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, if you look at the earlier discussion on this talkpage, you'll see that Stair made comments about gender in YouTube videos; views differ on the weight those statements should be given in choosing the correct pronoun(s). That's the source of the question. Grandpallama (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Skimming the above discussion, I see a reference to being a woman trapped in a man's body, but no source is given, and that statement is not in the article. I think more detailed info is needed to establish Stair's self-designated gender. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2019 (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.

Pronouns and seemingly malicious argumentation regarding misreported information

Unproductive discussion collapsed by request.

I'm unable to understand why there seems to such a fixation on ensuring the incorrect pronouns are kept on the page. From all I can see the media misreported her pronouns. In her journal she explicitly talks about being a "girl trapped inside a boy's body" (in file February 2017/02:11:17/02.pdf) and "I'm one of you, not a male" on 03.pdf. Reading the 2018 discussion it seems as if whatever the media reports is the truth no matter what. A video of her was linked explicitly describing herself as a girl at 23:03 . It was ignored in the discussion, the user who repeatedly reverts attempts to fix the pronouns ignored the evidence. How is that video considered less reliable than whatever the media assumed at the time? There seems to be a user engaging in an edit-war spanning multiple years in which a majority of their edits are reverting other users attempts to correct the false information in the article. In what world does it make sense that the person's written words and a video of the person using their own voice to express their identity are considered unreliable when the assertion is about their own identity? Why is one editor taking it upon themselves to make sure the misinformation stays and using mental gymnastics to try and flip the roles of primary and secondary sources? This all seems to be done in bad-faith, it makes no sense to me at all that misreported information is considered more reliable than someone's own speech and written words. Xorkle (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Might want to rethink your bad-faith assumptions about, and personal attacks against, me. Also, pretty cowardly to do all that and not ping me. WP:V is a policy, and if you actually read the discussions you referenced, you would know that. If you actually want to gain consensus for a change instead of just shit-talking editors, you're free to open a new RFC. Grandpallama (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC) I've not made any personal attacks, I've observed your behaviour and in response you threatened to have me blocked on my talk page instead of answering any of the questions. Where in WP:V does it say pretending a primary source doesn't exist is constructive behaviour? I don't see what other sort of faith I should assume given the arguments you've presented in the face of a primary source :contradicting you. I read the discussion, you ignored the video which renders your bogus argument moot, but you persisted with the flawed reasoning regardless. The video isn't fake, so I don't see why it's considered invalid. "ping me" - I didn't know Wikipedia has user-mentions, my bad Xorkle (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC) @Xorkle: Long story short, if independent reliable sources won't buy into the shooter's real world gender identity being female, Wikipedia can't say it. Nobody is ignoring the video or presenting bogus arguments. For WP:V purposes, independent WP:RELIABLE sources (defined by reputation for fact checking) are always favored over primary sources, especially self-published and social media. Social media is not the real world. Without better evidence that the shooter was Andrew Blaze in the real world, Wikipedia cannot say so in a factual voice. Grandpallama is not the only editor concerned here, and your persistent accusations of bad faith/deadnaming do constitute a personal attack. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC) You feel like you didn't get any answers from me because you started off with the insulting proposition that my editing included "malicious argumentation", insinuations that I was promoting some sort of misinformation agenda, and factually incorrect claims that my reverts to protect the consensus version of the article represented "edit war" behavior. Of course, you did in fact get your questions answered when you read through the previous discussions, because you asked nothing that wasn't already asked and answered, and which is explained pretty clearly via WP:V; Wikipedia is a tertiary source that compiles the information in secondary sources, which means we don't independently declare that the news "misreported" events, and we follow reliable sources rather than contradict them. As I said, you are welcome to suggest that it's time to issue a new call for consensus (the aforementioned WP:RFC), particularly if there are new or previously undiscussed secondary sources that might change the outcome, but if you do so while flinging around accusations of bad faith at editors in good standing, it's not getting very far. Grandpallama (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Understood, I apologize for my accusations and behaviour, I was having a horrid day in the first place and it seeped into this talk page. I would appreciate it if you could give consent for me to remove this talkpage section. Xorkle (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Perpetrator's name

I don't get why some people tried to edit this page by changing his name from Randy Stair to Andrew Blaze. It's just an internet persona. 175.141.174.250 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)