Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

One suspect has been identified as Devon Erickson 184.96.147.241 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Map

Can someone add an appropriate map to the infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done IWI (chat) 18:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment, Thanks. I've removed the tag at the top of this page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

This seems WP:ROUTINE to me per List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I also want to point out that this is the 10th school shooting this year. We have the information over at: List of school shootings in the United States. Person does the shootings, people offer their condolences, its pretty much the same thing. In my opinion Wikipedia should not be blowing up these stories without any indication of lasting effects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This shooting was widely covered by the media, with one person killed and many others injured. While I agree that some of the shootings listed there are not notable enough for articles, this shooting definitely deserves one. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah so? All shootings are widely covered in the media and it doesn't mean that they aren't included at all on Wikipedia, this is why we have lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This was meant to be a mass shooting. The other 2019 ones that don't have articles weren't. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How many mass shootings have there been in the United States this year? There isn't anything in the article that cant be summed up on a list, people died and there were condolences. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't shift the goalposts. It's not just a mass shooting, but a school mass shooting. The article has barely started, and you're already making judgments that it can be summed up? Are we going to sum up every single school mass shooting? People died and there were condolences. starship.paint (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the notability template. Clearly, this article does have reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Discuss about merging it if you want, but WP:GNG is easily passed. starship.paint (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A mass shooting at a school is routine?! Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

With 10 such shootings in 100 days, yes it is! (At least in the United States). WWGB (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB:. You cited a list of school shootings. The majority of those 10 in 2019 are not school mass shootings. Only 2 others were, the one with a BB or pellet gun has no article. starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

How about 33 then in one academic year? [1] Is there a reason why all of them have to be mass shootings? What makes this one event stand out among the rest that receive the same coverage for a few days? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to add that if you do the math, this is roughly 2 school shootings that happen every month. Its covered in the media, they get suspect details, and people mourn. This by now has become routine coverage (drama aside). I am not trying to sound unfeeling, but at the same time we are not a WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This article should be merged

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.

---

While this event seems to have some notability, i don't feel like it's worthy of having it's own Wikipedia article, unless it had more fatalities. This event should instead be mentioned on the schools Wikipedia page, other schools that have had shootings have their events mentioned on the schools page rather than their own, examples are Rosemary Anderson High School & Palo Duro High School. I have never merged an article before, so someone else should do that, the steps Wikipedia gave weren't that helpful in my opinion. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)YatesTucker00090

I second this... per WP:ROUTINE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then someone should put up a notification. Doublethink1954 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Done see: Talk:List of school shootings in the United States#STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Doublethink1954 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the reason was that there isn't many fatalities doesn't convince me. The topic has got a lot of media coverage which is why it should not be merged--SharabSalam (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• per WP:DELAY - "Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." The alternative isn't deletion here, it is a merger until long term notability is established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Jeez, can't we wait even 24 hours before trying to merge? Also, Knowledgekid87, you've made your preference known multiple times above so please let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not made of paper, and this is clearly a notable event that satisfies our requirement for encyclopedic content. I'm not sure why there's such a rush to delete and merge here, but it feels untoward and ghoulish (Not enough people killed? Seriously?!), at least to me. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 01:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Knowledgekid87, come on. No. No merge. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm considering closing this discussion, I think the 3 people who wrote their thoughts made some valid points on why this article should stay. I realize my comment on not enough deaths was controversial and that I waited too soon to determine the fate of this article. I only did it because their was a brief template box saying, the topic of this article may meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and thought it would be better off to have this information on the schools Wikipedia page than have it's own. 9 people shot at a school is definitely not a typical news story and with 1 fatality and two teenage gunman does add to the story, not to mention the student who died sacrificed his life to save others, much like that other kid in the University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting. Not every shooting with numerous shot is going to have it's own wikipedia article, but because a school is such a dramatic target and the fact that it was a Kindergarten through 12th grade school makes this event notable enough for it to have it's own separate page. Let me know what your thoughts are on all this. Thank You. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)YatesTucker00090

You are right, the event is "dramatic" and is also the 33rd school shooting this academic year. [2]. The event has its splash in the news, and is then forgotten about in about a week. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• You need to stop. Step back from the keyboard, and end your participation in the discussion. This kind of rhetoric is unhealthy and possibly triggering to those of us who have experienced one of these mass shootings. We all understand that you don't like these articles, and that you think they shouldn't exist. You've made that clear multiple times in this space and others. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please WP:AGF here, this has nothing to do with not liking articles. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and have articles that have had long term effects such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Columbine High School massacre, and Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. There is a reason why we don't include everything and I have been citing appropriate policy and guidelines to back up what I post. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

---

In light of the above responses, I've taken the liberty of removing the merge tag — but discussion about it can, of course, continue. El_C 05:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

El C, Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per above, 100%. Jeez. Not a typical news event - it's encyclopedic and notable. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, the event is receiving sustained major national and international coverage, and is impacting the gun control debate in the U.S. in the run-up to the 2020 elections. Certainly satisfies WP:EVENT. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think the overall rise in school shootings is actually impacting the gun control debate in the U.S. for the 2020 elections, and not this single event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 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.

Discrepancy

There seems to be a discrepancy in the news reports. Some are saying 7 injured but others say 8. Which should we include? :

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/colorado-school-shooting.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/us/colorado-denver-area-school-shooting/index.htmlDoublethink1954 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

NYT article has been updated to 8 injured. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Perpetrator

It could be possible that the shooter is the one who made that edit on the school's Wikipedia page on 29 April? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.47.253 (talk • contribs)

• Perhaps, but let's not add speculation that isn't in the news. If anything it'll bring bad publicity to Wikipedia (I would rather not be accused of "making shooters", I doubt Wikipedia would either). Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would Wikipedia be blamed for "making shooters" just because of someone writing "we shall see" next to the anti-suicide program? Unihoof (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Eh, maybe an extreme hypothetical. The point I was trying to make is that we should not just add wanton speculation into articles, since it is a current event. I've also seen the slightest things be used to tarnish reputations, so we should be careful about things like this. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean special:diff/894656544? Who noticed this first? I have to wonder of any of those belong since sources are not given for any of them. Unihoof (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

well it could not be the attacker. Most vandalism to school pages does come from former or current students. It could just be a coincidence. This wouldn't be obvious unless the reporter is familiar with WP trends. Doublethink1954 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This is now in the news [3] [4] [5], so I have added it. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Despite the notability of this, it appears GW has removed it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=STEM_School_Highlands_Ranch which may possibly impede a police investigation. Unihoof (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare - would your action changing the visibility of that edit ^ impede a police investigation? FOX31 has told officials about our findings. - which is that edit. starship.paint (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not any more than hiding any other edit. Law enforcement knows how to contact the WMF if they need to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

second alleged perpetrator (minor)

This article indicates some confusion as to the gender of the minor alleged perpetrator. --134.153.13.39 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The article (under #4 'Suspects') currently reads: "the other suspect, a juvenile male"...but The Denver Post now says the other suspect is in fact "a female juvenile" (https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/08/stem-school-highlands-ranch-colorado-shooting/). Since I cannot correct this myself (article is currently semi-protected), I just make this note here, and hope someone else will... Steroge (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now the names of the 2nd suspect in the infobox and in the 'suspects' section are different. 2001:569:7859:2300:80B3:8682:DAE9:FF62 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

All updated. Body: The other suspect is a 16-year old female juvenile, Maya Elizabeth McKinney, who prefers to be referred to as “Alec”, with male pronouns. Infobox: Maya Elizabeth “Alec” McKinney. All okay? starship.paint (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not OK with me. We should honor the suspect's gender identity, which includes their chosen name and pronouns, per MOS:GENDERID, which applies here as the suspect was not notable under his previous name. As Alec is a minor he cannot even legally change his name or gender without a parent's permission. Being a suspect in a murder investigation, of course newspapers will want to dig into his past and publish his deadname and pronouns, but Wikipedia has no obligation to follow suit. Funcrunch (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Funcrunch. We need to go with "him" and "Alec" if we choose to name him in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare - if he cannot legally change his gender, then he is simply still legally female. We cannot report him as of male sex. So, according to the two sources cited, The other suspect is a 16-year juvenile of female sex, who self-identifies as Alec McKinney and prefers to be referred to with male pronouns. If you want to use "him", go ahead. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

My point in saying that Alec could not legally change his sex is that as a minor he is even more vulnerable than other living trans (and cis) people that we are writing about. Regardless of his legal status, we are under no obligation to specify that he is "of female sex" or that he "self-identifies". I would just write that he is a trans male, as I did in an earlier edit, but the current sources do not state that explicitly. Funcrunch (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You are going against sources, Funcrunch. Reuters [6] Sheriff Tony Spurlock declined to answer a reporter's question about whether the younger suspect was transgender. "Right now we are identifying the individual as a female, because that's where we're at," he said. "We originally thought the juvenile was a male by appearance." He is not a male juvenile. He is a juvenile that who goes by male pronouns. starship.paint (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Calling out the pronouns in that unusual way reads like a thinly-veiled attempt to question the suspect's gender identity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare - I'm astonished that you would write that Alec is male. Perhaps you missed the above quote that authorities identified Alec as female? Sheriff Tony Spurlock declined to answer a reporter's question about whether the younger suspect was transgender. "Right now we are identifying the individual as a female. starship.paint (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Refresh, I already added a source supporting that he is a trans man. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare - you did that after when you should have done it with your previous edit. Your initial edit went against the source already in the article. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Heard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

McKinney should be referred to using female pronouns. Regardless of her desire to be called Alec and be referred to as male, per legal court documents, McKinney is a female.JohnTopShelf (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

McKinney is a trans male named Alec, and per MOS:GENDERID we need to honor his chosen name and pronouns. I also object to McKinney's deadname being reinserted into this article. I am going to alert WT:LGBT to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have alerted the LGBT and BLP noticeboards to this discussion, per recommendation in the trans male template. Funcrunch (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID does, in fact, say we should refer to McKinney as male, if that is what he prefers. It does not say that legal court documents govern. It also says "MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." Since this is the sole incident making McKinney notable, and he is currently being referred to as both Alex and Maya Elizabeth in reliable sources discussing this incident, we should mention both (all three, depending on how you count!) names once. After which, we should refer to him as "McKinney", since that is generally the way we refer to people in our articles, by last name after first mention. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct, we should not refer to McKinney with female pronouns or a female name in Wikipedia's own voice, per MOS:GENDERID. The way it's written now seems more-or-less OK to me: The other suspect is a 16-year-old transgender boy listed on the court docket as Maya Elizabeth McKinney,[25] who uses the first name Alec;[26][2][27] McKinney is being held in juvenile custody. (Well, it's OK apart from the fact that, in general, it causes harm to publicize suspected or convicted mass shooters' names and faces. Per the principle that we should be avoiding harm, it may be worth considering just not publishing the suspects' names at all. Though something tells me that might just be a controversial position...)  WanderingWanda (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You might be right, but not for the reason you think you're right. WP:BLP applies to people you don't like, and WP:BLPCRIME allows for consideration omitting a subject's name, especially if it is not significantly covered in reliable sources. But if there are multiple significant suspects, naming them is beneficial and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. wumbolo ^^^ 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the current version is fine. Avoid the pronouns, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, avoid confusing the readers. The perpetrator's name and status are widely-reported now, Wikipedia avoiding this coverage runs counter to WP:WEIGHT. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

GRuban's comment and rationale sounds reasonable to me, and, despite the deadnaming, I am satisfied with how McKinney is referred to in the current revision of this article. Funcrunch (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with these sentiments. With regard to whether the article "needs" to name both suspects, it is possible that the consensus view will shift, once more evidence is published. Were this a vote, I would have opted to avoid naming a 16 year old suspect in advance of the outcome of a potential prosecution, even if their name has been widely published elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Devon Erickson's alleged homosexuality

Please, be cautious about speculating on his sexual orientation. It may tend to stigmatize gay teens across America in High Schools. Just a thought for editors. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LLcentury: Wikipedia is not a platform for your propaganda to promote/prevent stigmatisation of gay teens. Wikipedia observes a neutral point of view and is not censored. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both editors here. We should be "cautious" and avoid "speculation". We also should keep in mind that Wikipedia is "neutral" and "not censored". :) WanderingWanda (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please, I never tried to promote any agenda, I just tried to contribute to the local communities in America, just to "save" (perhaps a strong word) gay teens from further bashing. No agenda intended. I understand Wikipedia neutrality. My apologies. --LLcentury (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for, this is a serious subject and the article must avoid speculation. Newspapers make all sorts of personal claims, it is not encyclopaedic to quote potentially damaging claims about living people that are not backed up by firm evidence. Wikipedia not being "censored" does not mean Wikipedia must reprint sensational or tangential juicy claims of the day for the sake of it. I suggest ignoring the response about your comment being propaganda, it was not. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ It also does not mean keeping materially relevant verifiable facts off Wikipedia because it would have a tendency to stigmatise a group of people. If multiple WP:RS have mentioned it, it WP is inclined to assume that fact to be relevant per this consensus.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury was flagging a concern, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were not advocating censorship and they certainly were not publishing "propaganda". It should remain the norm to respond to serious concerns with civility, not rush to make hostile accusations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This has no place in the article. Our general policy is that we don't include speculations about a person's sexual preference, or even public accusations. We call a person gay if they self-identify as gay. Not otherwise. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN Can you show me substantive policy support for your claim? As per my understanding, anything that receives substantial coverage by WP:RS will be included, the persons' personal opinion on the matter is totally irrelevant unless it is supported by WP:RS --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines: "A living person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) only if they themselves publicly identify as such, e.g., Billie Joe Armstrong." -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This just a guideline, not an official policy. WP:RS trumps guidelines. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game of top trumps. Guidelines vary in importance but are established through case histories and community consensus. In this case the LGBT guidelines are an explanation of the consensus for how BLP should be interpreted. BLP requires respect for living people should "trump" all other concerns. Just because you can point to what you think is a reliable news source which makes a claim about a teenager's sexual orientation, does not mean that BLP is satisfied. The Wikipedia default position is that any living individual's sexual orientation and their sexual identity remains theirs to define and nobody else's. This article is about the shooting, so the rationale for including claims about a suspect's sexuality or other aspects of their personal life, is at best thin unless demonstrated to be of direct encyclopaedic value to understanding the crime. This may be raised in a later prosecution, or it may never be relevant. Until we have more than sensationalist gossip stories in news papers without it being legal evidence presented for the case, or statements from the suspect, these fail BLP. --Fæ (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ I am afraid this consensus would disagree with you. It holds that a particular fact is deemed relevant if it is mentioned by multiple WP:RS, despite the fact having no relevance to the overarching article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That is such a bad example. You do understand that BLP is about living people, and by definition a suicide bomber that killed themselves in an explosion is not a living person? The discussion was not even a proper RFC, it was an informal !vote by a handful of contributors in an article discussion about a dead person. BLP has literally had input from several hundred contributors, many RFCs, and is underpinned by a vast array of complex and encyclopaedic significant case histories of living people. --Fæ (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I need more editing

Since I heard about this, I was going do more editing about the student who was trying to protect his classmates before he was shot dead by the gunman. CarsonKnight02 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Erickson's social media posts about Christianity

For his 'perveiced hatred' Christians 'do have' toward hoomosexuals. He also experessed to be 'not a fan of President Trump'. Should that be included?. Thanks.

Source: 1 Colorado school-shooting suspect hated Christians, Trump - WND. --LLcentury (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Since this may be a motivation for the shootings, it is relevant, but I am concerned about the source. Is there a better cite than WND?JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool, New York Post? Devon Erickson, Colorado school shooting suspect, shared anti-Trump post on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLcentury (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have an issue with WanderingWanda reverting LLcentury's edit, which included Erickson's hatred toward Christians who hate gays. Since hatred of some sort is no doubt a motivation for the shootings, this certainly appears to be relevant. And it was reported by a number of sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What sites? The NYPost is a conservative tabloid and WND is a fringe conspiracy site. Was it reported in any mainstream publications (like the The Washington Post, The New York Times, or the BBC)? And if so, do any mainstream sources specifically interpret the posts as "hatred" of Christians or as "anti-Christian"? Do any draw a direct link between the shootings and the posts? WanderingWanda (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll add: If the Post's quotation of the suspect's social media feed is accurate: to me, the idea that the suspect expressed some sort of militant anti-Christian hatred is a humongous stretch. All I see is a middle-of-the-road statement about Christians who selectively quote the Bible to justify homophobia. It seems like the kind of thing my mom would say. Note, for example, that the post begins with You know what I hate? NOT You know who I hate? Don't take the (click)bait. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? Daily Mail article on the case which covers Christianity issue. --LLcentury (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not considered reliable:

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly understood, thank you, still searching for reliable sources, Washington Times, is it this reliable?, I am sorry I just want to help expand the article. Washington Times?. THanks again. - --LLcentury (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing the article I think not, it has been accused of racism and conspiracy theories. I just want to help. --LLcentury (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith effort to improve the article LLcentury, I just don't think the suspect's views on Christianity are relevant to the article right now. That might change as the story continues to develop. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda and Newimpartial: A reliable source was given. The information was also noted in many other sources, including ones Wikipedia considers potentially reliable as per WP:RSP. If the specific placement of the information is considered suggestive, I would like to hear suggestions for another position. LilySophie (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The correct procedure is that we discuss the possible sourcing here in Talk before making a decision about including potentially controversial material about living persons. So let's see the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A reference that is considered fully reliable by WP:RSP was already given in my edit. It was also reported by The Wall Street Journal (also considered a fully reliable source by consensus per WP:RSP), the Pulitzer prize-winning The Gazette, the New York Post (explicitly not considered an unreliable source), and The Washington Examiner (not considered unreliable, only restricted when making exceptional claims, whose requirements are not met by this addition). There are more, but this is enough to establish the inclusion as justified according to the rules of Wikipedia. LilySophie (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking here about the DV issue, or the Facebook posts? I am confused. On the latter, I can't read the WSJ article (late all), but is it a reprint of the Examiner piece? That's what the Gazette is doing.

As far as the Post is concerned, I am agnostic about its reliability, but would observe (1) that it places much less emphasis on the Christianity posts than it puts on Obama/Trump issues, and (2) the FB post about Christianity dated from 2014,i.e., five years before the shooting. This rather salient piece of context was missing from your edit (as, indeed, it was missing from the less reliable sources themselves). Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops. This was supposed to go in the section "Erickson's social media posts about Christianity." My mistake. As for the sources, we have two independent and fully reliable sources, a very likely fully reliable one and a handful of ones in which the consensus was that they are not unreliable. Hence, if you have no other objection, I would re-add the information. Which placement would you consider best? LilySophie (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have only seen one source on this that is not reprinting the dubious Examiner piece, namely the Post; I would also see it as quite UNDUE to emphasize the Christianity post in comparison to, say, the Obama/Trump posts thAt have received more emphasis in available sources. So no, you do not yet have consensus to re-add. And please note that you already exceeded 3RR for this tidbit, so it would be quite unwise to re-add it without consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Neither the NBC ref nor the Wall Street Journal reprinted the Examiner article. Your problem with accessing the Wall Street Journal article is unimportant, as per WP:PAYWALL: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Therefore, we now have enough reliable sources for the inclusion of this information. It is also in no way WP:UNDUE, since UNDUE doesn't work that way. Suggest a place, if you like. Otherwise I will find one. If you keep objecting without legitimate argument, I will have to seek the involvement of a moderator. Thank you. LilySophie (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Seek the involvement of whomever you want, you are currently a minority of one. And this is BLP material, so affirmative consensus is required before including. Also, I don't know how you think UNDUE works, but your edit summaries have shown no comprehension of that principle, or of BLP and 3RR requirements for that matter. But my all means seek moderation if that is likely to help your process. Just don't add controversial BLP martial without consensus, please. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Also note that your original source was actually "Inside Edition", which is not notably a RS. As far as the WSJ is concerned (I got in), the context they provide is "Friends of Mr. Erickson said the 18-year-old high-school student had been bullied because he was short and slight. He was also protective of people who identified as gay, they said. In a Facebook post attributed to him from 2014, he wrote, “You know what I hate? All these Christians who hate gays.”" That context is not adequately reflected in the content you are edit warring over, which is a shame considering that this is the best source we have so far. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. LilySophie: Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on you to get consensus for adding the sentence about the suspect's Facebook post: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

2. I don't think the Facebook post merits inclusion right now. It does not seem very relevant to the shooting to me. (And it's especially not relevant to the section on threats, because there is no evidence that the post was a threat.)

3. My opinion is backed up by how little coverage the post has gotten. I'm not saying that no reliable sources have covered it. But my impression is that few have so far. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm also weighing in as I was one of the editors who reverted an addition of the Facebook comment. I did so because the text at that time characterized the statement as "anti-Christian" and linked to the article on "Religious intolerance". LilySophie subsequently removed that qualifier. But based on their apparent conflation of "Christians who hate gays" with Christians in general (hating gays is not a required part of being Christian, though speaking as a queer atheist, I understand how some might feel that it is), and LilySophie's subsequent addressing of a fellow editor with the pejorative "transtrender", I do question whether they are acting in good faith here. Funcrunch (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll add: if we do decide to cover the facebook post – and again I don't think we should, but if we do – it would need to be done very carefully and in a way that does not imply it is connected to the shooting. I think we'd need to make a separate section called "Suspect background information" or similar that was devoted to trivial, non-shooting-related, information about the suspects. (A "color" section, in journalism-speak.) WanderingWanda (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think any reliably-sourced information on the shooters and possible motivation is relevant and should be included. I am rather certain that if Erickson stated that he is a huge Trump supporter who hates gays, the editors here would have no issue including that information. In this case, when the opposite is true, it should be included. JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on 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 have done quite some research looking for sources, and the earlier mentioned WSJ article was the only reliable source I could find that even mentions the post. Mentioning the post would give undue weight to it. Mentioning it a "Suspect backgroud" section is also a bad idea. This article is after all not on the suspects, but the shooting, and thus should only contain information directly related to the shooting. WP:UNDUE requires us to fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources (emphasis mine), but considering there has not even been more than 1 source it would most definitely fail it. MrClog (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is already consensus for including political views of school shooters even when their rampages were not political terrorism.

Columbine High School massacre: "Harris at least did revere the Nazis and often praised them in his journal".

Santa Fe High School shooting: "The Facebook page also included photos of his black duster coat with several buttons on it, with an accompanying caption: "Hammer and Sickle=Rebellion. Rising Sun=Kamikaze Tactics. Iron Cross=Bravery. Baphomet=Evil. Cthulu=Power".

Umpqua Community College shooting: "According to the Los Angeles Times, unnamed law enforcement sources described him as a "hate-filled" man with antireligious and white supremacist leanings, and with long-term mental-health issues".

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting: "Police said that he held "extremist" views; social media accounts that were thought to be linked to him contained anti-black and anti-Muslim slurs...CNN reported that Cruz was in a private Instagram group chat where he expressed racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant (xenophobic) views".

Please do not revert this as forum chat because I am discussing changes to the article. I personally do not believe that any of this material should be included, because all were random attacks on the general public, not hate crimes. But if a collection of random and conflicting buttons that the Santa Fe shooter had are relevant to his crime, there is no reason not to include the views of these shooters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.225.135 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There's political views and then there's political views. I see a pretty gosh-darn big difference between the suspect supported such-and-such presidential candidate and the suspect is a Nazi. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Name used before context is given

The last sentence of the "Shooting" section currently begins "Officers also went to Erickson's home..." but who Erickson and what their connection to the event is is not mentioned until two sections further down the article. I guess most people will assume from context that they are a (suspected) perpetrator but that sort of assumption shouldn't be required - they could easily be a victim (not named until the following section), an associate, or someone else entirely. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No longer an issue, Erickson introduced earlier in that section. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspect's Parents

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Eric_Harris the page lists information about the family the suspects came from. One of the suspects in this case, McKinney, has a father who engaged in DV, and was an illegal immigrant. https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-mexican-father-of-alleged-colorado-school-shooter-alec-mckinney-16-was Why should this not be included in the write-up for this section?

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold is a biographical article, STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting is not. What may apply to one article has no carriage to the other. In McKinney's case, his father's history has not been shown to have any relevance to the shooting, and so it has no place in this article. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We should be guided by reliable sources. Doing a search on the news tab of Google, I see very little coverage of this suspect's father, and none from mainstream sources. (Canada Free Press has been described as "an online conservative tabloid." and has an axe to grind.) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. On present indications the claims about McKinney's father fail all three of those criteria. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning suspects' names

Although both suspects' names have been reported in reliable sources, do we think it is appropriate to name them? There are two things to consider:

1. Some sources have chosen not to report the younger suspect's name because he is a juvenile. Should we follow suit?

NPR (1): Two students are under arrest — one has been identified as 18-year-old Devon Erickson and the other is a juvenile.

NPR (2): Two suspects are currently in custody. Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock said one suspect is an adult male and the other is a juvenile male. Both are students at the STEM School, and were not previously known to local law enforcement. / The adult suspect was identified as Devon Erickson, 18.

NBC News: Erickson, 18, and a juvenile, who police identify as a girl but who prefers male pronouns, are accused of entering the K-12 school with handguns Tuesday.

2. We also need to consider WP:BLPCRIME, which was brought up above. To me, it indicates that we should "seriously consider" removing both suspects' names:

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. 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.

WanderingWanda (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. 84percent (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The names of both suspects have been published around the world by multiple reliable sources, so they now satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN. There does not appear to be any judicial order to suppress the name of McKinney. Even then, Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. LilySophie (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. While I am sympathetic to the "don't make the shooters famous" position, we have a duty to include sourced, reliable information in the article. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe for the 18 year old, considering most countries class them as an adult, but there is no obvious encyclopaedic urgency to name the 16 year old. The context is allegations about the role, motivation, and even past social media posts of a 16 year old. Different states and countries have very different legislation about how to publish statements about the prosecution and even conviction of 16 year old teenagers. If the prosecution concludes with a conviction of both suspects, then Wikipedia will have far firmer grounds to repeat the details of the proven case. For all we know there may be a successful defense or mitigation based on controlled coercion, mental instability, or similar. Wikipedia is not a place where we encourage a free for all on the personal data of a 16 year old, simply because they are in the process of being prosecuted for a serious crime. Though "not censored" is being repeated constantly, the real question should be whether this personal data is critical for the Wikipedia article to make sense and to be encyclopaedic. Just because juicy data is available in tabloids and websites obsessed with filling space in the 24 hour newscycle war, does not mean that the encyclopedia article stops being written for the long term.

As MrClog succinctly put it in the 3O above, "This article is after all not on the suspects, but the shooting, and thus should only contain information directly related to the shooting." --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We don't get to make value judgments as to the information that reliable sources report. While you may not like it, who the shooters are is a HUGE part of "the shooting", and as such, if reliable sources include their names, the article should include their names. This isn't even a hard call. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually the events of the shooting, the impact and the criminal case, pretty much everything encyclopaedic about the incident, can be perfectly well conveyed without publishing the name, birth date or image of the 16 year old suspect. The long term value to the encyclopedia article is what counts on this project, not what tabloids think sells more papers. If there is sufficient uncertainty here as to whether the child suspected of a major crime but not convicted of anything, should be treated with exactly the same respect as is extended to any BLP of a child, we could always run a RFC. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not current policy regarding including reliably sourced information in an article. If you want it to be policy, you should advocate for that change at the appropriate venue. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP & BLPCRIME & BLPNAME. At the very top of the policy, BLP spells this out "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Including the names of perpetrators is not "sensational" or "tabloid" in any way. It is reliably-sourced information that you simply don't think should be included. And wrapping the fact that you don't like it in a complete misapplication of BLPNAME and BLPCRIME doesn't change the fact that the core of your argument is that you don't like it. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll point to this portion of the quoted passage: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. We are supposed to consider whether what we publish might cause harm, and I think its fair to say, publishing the name of an underage suspect who has not yet been found guilty of a crime may cause harm. Giving notoriety to mass shooting suspects may also cause harm. Note also that it says we're supposed to exercise "editorial judgement", contradicting your claim that We don't get to make value judgments as to the information that reliable sources report. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

McKinney has now been charged as an adult, so there is no argument to suppress his name. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a number of editors who seek to include content in cases like this on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not censored" haven't really understood the purpose of that policy. It primarily regards posting content that some might find offensive, such as nudity and profanity. It doesn't mean that we can or are obligated to report every fact or opinion stated about living people, even if found in reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Organization

Would it be better to combine the shooting/victims/suspects sections into one chronological timeline? I see, for example, that the shooting is described twice in two different sections (and the descriptions contradict each other slightly):

From the Shooting section: According to a student, Devon Erickson allegedly pulled out a gun and yelled, "nobody move". Kendrick Ray Castillo jumped on him and was fatally shot in the chest.[16] Erickson was then subdued and disarmed by two other students.

From the Victims section: At least three students, 18-year-old seniors Kendrick Castillo, Joshua Jones, and Brendan Bialy lunged at an attacker, later identified as Erickson. The three students jumped from their desks and slammed the gunman against the wall. The shooter fired off several shots as they struggled with him. Castillo was killed in the process, the only student killed during the shooting.

WanderingWanda (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

Hello, I would like to add this image to the Shooting section. I believe it would add to the quality of the article by having a photograph description of the police response to the event and fulfilling the request for a photograph. Thanks! Cocohead781 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a picture of some trees and some cars. There is a sheriff car in the middle and if you look close there are some police behind the car. I do not see this really adding to anyone's understanding of the article. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Richard-of-Earth, but thank you for offering the picture. I think a clear establishing shot of the school might be considered useful, such as a picture of a "STEM School" sign that I've seen in a few articles. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Good article?

Do any editors have a sense of how close this article might be to passing GA criteria, or even care to nominate the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspect's Gender

The suspect is a girl. Not a boy. Does this criminal really deserve to be referred to by their 'preferred pronouns'?

What anyone does or does not deserve is subjective. Wikipedia:Gender identity is an essay that covers the policy Wikipedia operates under. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotal Victim Stories

Heya, so I was a victim of the STEM shooting, and have personally talked with many of my close friends who were also there that day about what they thought. I was wondering if I could possibly edit the article with some of the quotes from both my friends and those who were interviewed by the media? To me, it would help humanize the victims and allow for a full perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelle Wilkoff (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Erickson's trial

Ericksons trial began on May 28, 2021, someone please add that.--Paddock Roof (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Not in the source cited. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Does the suspect really need to be deadnamed?

As the title says. I see no reason why Mr. McKinney should be deadnamed in the article. KDNX-Wyatt (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly Mr. Erickson only shot up that school because of societies blatant transphobia, the government, corporations, all these transphobic institutions pushed him to do the shooting and now people have the nerve to deadname him? Sick. 47.157.131.107 (talk)

And I think you're sick saying that a murderer was "pushed" to do it. I bet you were outraged by stories which aimed to humanise or rationalise other sick killers like Brenton Tarrant or Thomas Mair, as we all should be. And you must surely be trolling by bringing up "government" and "corporations" unless you are a troll or a time traveller from 30 years ago. Really I would like for admins to revoke your comment for encouragement of terrorism, as I would say to anyone who played Tarrant, Mair, Roof, Breivik as poor victims pushed to the edge. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Dead naming is in of itself an act of terrorism and you are threatening the very existence of trans people when you do it. 47.157.131.107 (talk)

Change Convicted to Perpetrators

Please change convicted in the infobox on the top of the article to perpetrators because most school shooting articles have the perpetrators listed under perpetrators not under convicted.--Afjnsd (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

EDITORS: User Afjnsd is very likely a sockpuppet of Cadeken (talk · contribs), a prolific sock master who has edited similar pages with numerous sockpuppets. Cadeken socks always deny that they are socks until they're blocked. See the most recent sock report: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken. For the long list of previous socks see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken/Archive. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)