Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting

Alec McKinney's name and pronouns

per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity Alec McKinney shouldn't be deadnamed or refered to with she/her pronouns. While obviously what he did was horrible, we can be civil when discussing him and his actions Anothermedgirl (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Talk:Devon Erickson#Merge proposal

I've suggested merging the article on shooter Devon Erickson to this page, 2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting—that discussion . According to the lone comment on on Talk:Devon Erickson, Erickson is notable for his role in the shooting and his conviction. But the significance of that conviction is, plainly, derivative of the shooting—it's part of the legal aftermath of the shooting. And if every person who committed a high profile crime became separately notable by virtue of their conviction, we'd have a lot more Wikipedia pages.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I went through with this merge. There was noting in the Erickson article that wasn't either (1) uncited or (2) already in this article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing Dispute on Alec McKinney's birth name

Background: Hello! I recently reverted an edit inserting Alec McKinny's birth name by @CountMacula:, and I explained my reasoning on that user's talk page. However, CountMacula has disagreed with my reasoning; my revert was reverted, but today, a day later, I reverted back. Though not set in stone, I think given the (1) contentious-topic notice and (2) the (admittedly possibly tangential) BLP considerations, the status quo should remain in place until the issue is discussed on this talk page.

But I don't want the above to detract from the fact that the interpretation I have of MOS:GENDERID has been challenged. The relevant portion of MOS:GENDERID is If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists.

Opinion of User:Jerome Frank Disciple

I think the best reading of MOS:GENDERID requires a living transgender or non-binary person to have been notable prior to socially transitioning for their name to warrant inclusion. Since the person in question was not notable under his birth name, I believe MOS:GENDERID dictates exclusion.

From what I've understand, CountMacula suggests that the post-transition coverage of McKinney's birth name and the legal documents filed using that name render McKinney notable under his birth name. But (1) while this is admittedly wikilawyering, I'm not sure that reading is consistent with the tense used in the MOS:GEDNERID clause, which asks "[i]f a living transgender ... person was ... notable under a former name". And, (2) Criminal-case court documents will, at least as I understand (having worked in a federal court), merely reflect the legal name of a person. So, for such persons who are convicted or (where BLP:CRIME allows) charged with offenses, CountMacula's interpretation of MOS:GENDERID will effectively require the person to have legally changed their name. As I understand, GENDERID has never been associated with such a requirement.

I'll concede that this isn't explicit in the guidelines, so to prevent an edit war, I've brought the issue to this talk page to seek input from other editors.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinion of CountMacula

McKinney was "notable under a former name"--under the name that we now call a former name. A web search on: "maya elizabeth mckinney court documents" shows that:

• McKinney was notable to the court, at trial, under the name Maya Elizabeth McKinney.
• McKinney was notable to dozens of reliable secondary sources under the name.

So the condition "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname)" is false, and MOS:GENDERID does not apply. CountMacula (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (disagreement as to MOS:GENDERID: Is a living person notable "notable under a former name (a deadname)" if, post-transition, many (possibly most) reliable sources and court documents refer to that person as his "former name"?):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on 2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think that User:Jerome Frank Disciple has the better interpretation of MOS:GENDERID. Alec McKinney was not notable under a prior name because he was not notable until the shooting; rather, he was an unknown high school kid. The examples cited in MOS:GENDERID support that conclusion (compare Laverne Cox, who was not famous before transitioning, with Chelsea Manning, who was). Moreover, I do not find User:CountMacula's reliance on court documents persuasive because those court documents themselves are WP:OR, not WP:RS. And, although reliable sources indicate that although court documents include McKinney's deadname, the court referred to McKinney as "Mr McKinney". Finally, the fact that reliable sources use McKinney's deadname is insufficient to establish that McKinney was notable under that deadname under Wikipedia's notability standards. To return to the examples cited from MOS:GENDERID above: if a source refers to Laverne Cox by her deadname, that would not be sufficient to show that she was notable under that deadname such that it should be included under MOS:GENDERID. Jerome Frank Disciple is correct that a contrary interpretation of MOS:GENDERID would render it a dead letter. References voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the time, the careful response (great thought to search for something like the Reuters piece), and, above all, the exceedingly generous comment that my helplessly (but unintentionally!) technocratic ass wasn't actually wikilawyering. Thanks, @voorts.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Post 3O discussion

Responding to my opinion, stated above under the bold heading--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A couple things to mention:

• I don't see that the concept "birth name" is germane to the discussion. The relevant concept is "former name".
• I don't see that the issue had been thoroughly discussed or that the discussion was at a standstill, both being required by WP:Third Opinion. You were editing this talk page materially five hours after you requested a third opinion, and no one had had time to respond to your opinion. I don't understand the hurry on your part, as you were maintaining the status quo version. Maybe before requesting a 3O, be done stating your opinion and stop editing it, and ask the other party whether they are done stating theirs, and give others some time to review them? As there was and is no apparent editing crisis, I don't think a week would be too much time for the arguments to age before going to 3O.

CountMacula (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Hope it's okay that I moved this—since the 30 is closed, I felt it was best to preserve that portion of the discussion as was.

• Here, birth name, former name, legal name, and deadname are all one and the same. I don't think the 30 was thrown by me using birth name instead of deadname, but I'm sure you could ask!
• In terms of timing, just to be clear, I only made one edit after your last edit to the talk page (before the 3O was announced as being prepared). My edit ... added a break.
• I think the question here is purely one of interpretation of MOS:GENDERID—put simply, we just fundamentally disagree on what the MOS says. I think that a person has to be notable pre-transitioning for their pre-transition name to warrant mention under GENDERID, and you think that post-transition exposure of a person's deadname can render that person "notable under their former name". I don't really see more discussion between you and I as resolving that. That said, if you'd like to discuss the issue more, we can absolutely do so—I certainly don't want you feeling like you weren't fully heard out! I'm also happy to continue to discuss the issue and then ask the third-opinion editor if our subsequent conversation would change his/her mind, but if we end up circling the drain (as I sort of imagine we will, since, again, this is an interpretation disagreement), then there'll be no point in further discussion.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2024

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

---

2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting → STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting – Remove the year as it can’t be confused with another shooting as no other shooting has happened at that school or any school sharing that name. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, it was moved to the current year included title without a move request by the user “Love of Corey” who had done this before with other school shooting articles and is now banned for using sockpuppet accounts. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 8 February 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.