Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

FBI states gunman was white male in his twenties

questions about whether he had a military background and was somehow radicalized, according to ABC News — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator yet to be identified

I think we should add "...perpetrator yet to be identified..." to the lead temporarily because that is what lots of people are looking for when coming to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Added perpetrator, Devin Kelley, http://bnonews.com/news/index.php/news/id6701 supported by NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New York Times confirming Devin p. Kelley from Comal County as shooter.--81.191.117.57 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2017

Change: "he was briefly a volunteer teacher's aide for a Vacation Bible School in Kingsville, Texas" To: "he was teacher's aide for Vacation Bible School in Kingsville, Texas"

Reason: 1. Using the word "breifly" implies that he was not present for the full term, or did not, or could not fulfill his role as an aide. Vacation Bible School (VBS) usually lasts only one week at most churches, sometimes 2 or 3 weeks if the church has multiple sessions. 2. Using the word "a" as in "a Vacation Bible School" implies an institution when in fact VBS is typically just a week long activity session for kids in the summer after public school is over. 76.2.97.235 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I made the change. Fortunatestars (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Sutherland Springs, Texas)

I'm not sure if the church is independently notable or not, so I went ahead and directed First Baptist Church (Sutherland Springs, Texas) to this article, for now. Feel free to expand if appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Highly unlikely the church was notable before, and anything that needs cocerage should be in this page. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss page moves first

This page was unilaterally moved to "Sutherland Springs shooting" when the fact that it was a church shooting is pretty integral to the event. I've moved it back. Please discuss here first before moving. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't know if the massacre was religiously-motivated. Even if it was, this is the only notable shooting that's happened in Sutherland Springs. If a mass shooting happened in an office or factory, it's unlikely that we would include office or factory in the article's title. Jim Michael (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No one implied that it was religiously motivated, so that's not a pre-requisite for that in the title. We have a custom of noting whether massacres are in schools or places of worship as they are of particular human and societal interest. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is that so important that it needs to be in the title when it happens at a church or school, but not when it happens at a office, factory, shop etc.? That's inconsistent and doesn't make much sense. Jim Michael (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• ’’’Support’’’ Sutherland Springs church shooting as the most appropriate title. The fact it was in a church makes it much more of interest. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with 'church' in title. Pincrete (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Reduce map size

Can someone who knows the code please reduce the size of the map in the main infobox? It's huge! Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why Sutherland Springs?

It will be interesting when a reason emerges why Kelley targeted a church so far from his home. His mother-in-law had a post office box mailing address in Sutherland Springs, so he likely had prior knowledge of the town. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sequence of events

There was no police chase. Chase was given by local citizen Johnnie Langendorff, as per this video from KSAT, along with the local citizen who engaged in a gun battle with Devin Kelley. They held him from a distance until police arrived.

However, the video from KSAT is mistitled, it says Langendorff was the one who fired on the gunman, but he did not. Nor can I find the original KSAT instance of the video.

So I don't know what to do, since this clearly contains important and accurate information, but it's a bad citation. Any guidance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutatron (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait until the situation develops. Other sources (including this story by KSAT 12 [1], who conducted the interview you linked) state that the gunman was found dead in his car.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed account as per Daily News

@WWGB:An unconfirmed LinkedIn account for Kelley lists four years of service in the Air Force and a month as a teacher aide for a Vacation Bible School in Kingsville, Tex., about two hours south of the site of the massacre.Is what the source states as per thisPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• That is the linked in account is not confirmed by the source.Suggest we wait till it is confirmed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors edit, not quote

Please stop shoveling quotes from professional reporters into Wikipedia articles, and learn to paraphrase instead. You are supposed to be editors. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop removing clarifying terms used by editors to clarify roles. Quotes are only necessary when "editors" remove sourced material for their own personal opinions. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You statement is incomprehensible, as might be expected from someone who can't write on their own. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You statement (sic). Classic. Blather on. FWIW, I wrote it a number of times in a number of ways only to be challenged by witless requests for sources after providing multiple, cited examples. At some point, even the most clueless should be able to find an exact quote in a source. Maybe I was mistaken. --DHeyward (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Paraphrasing often distorts what the source said. Selective quotes can do the same, but paraphrasing can misrepresent what the source said if the paraphraser misunderstands the source. I'd rather have a quote than a paraphrase by a misinterpretor. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to ban DHeyward for patently inappropriate behavior. Savile's Pills (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting

@ChocolateRabbit: Since you have reverted my message on your talk page without the courtesy of any dialogue with me, I am leaving a copy of the message here. Such action does call into question your good faith and cooperativeness.

You have effectively made four reverts on the death count and perpetrator info on that article in opposition to User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa. Please engage in dialogue on the talk page as technically, you could be blocked immediately because of the WP:3RR. The edits: [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Fuzheado but ChocolateRabbit is clearly not looking for dialogue so they've been recommended for a block. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaia is incorrect with their edits. The perpetrator died in the next county not at the scene of the attack. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: in all fairness, I think Gaia Octavia Agrippa noted that in our prior articles about attacks, the number of fatalities pertains to the entirety of the incident, including any manhunt or confrontations beyond the "shooting." However, that is somewhat beside the point – the issue with ChocolateRabbit is that they are not being communicative, cooperative or assuming good faith by deleting talk page comments, and the WP:ANI comment here: [6]. So it's not a matter of right or wrong, but behavior. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily do we lump them together. Boston Marathon bombing we split the perp out. Clarity is better and it sure seems that Gaia is edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

True. So perhaps you two can come to a compromise and break them out separately if that makes sense? -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon bombing is split up because it happened across multiple times and spaces. This attack is still one event. How close does the perpetrator have to be for you to be okay with including them in the one figure? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Perps and victims are very different. The perp died in another county anyway. I’ve filed a report at 3RR because you refuse to work with various editors who disagree with an amalgamated number. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(including the perpetrator)

As this is getting a lot people reverting me: "(including the perpetrator)" is added to the |fatalities= when the perpetrator dies during the event. A chase/running away still counts as a continuation of the attack; he did not still have to be at the church. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You are in the wrong and your wording is misleading. You have already reported one editor for “vandalism” yet you are the one edit warring. My version was very clear. Your version is misleading. Now it says 26 (including the perpetrator) which appears to be wrong. Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! "(including the perpetrator)" is indeed the standard wording. Please see 2017 Las Vegas shooting for an example. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My wording was better. No good reason to remove it. Please restore it. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is "your Wording" better? The wording I've been using is the standard across attacks in the US. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s clearer and more informative. See Boston Marathon bombing for an example of a page I’ve done a lot of work on that breaks it out. Continuing to defend your edit warring is tiresome. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As explained above, the Boston Marathon bombing was a special case. More examples: 2017 Las Vegas shooting, even though the shooter committed suicide in his hotel room and didn't die in the same place as his victims; Orlando nightclub shooting, even though he died hours after he had stopped shooting people; Virginia Tech shooting, even though he killed himself in a different classroom; Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, suicide in a different classroom; Luby's shooting, shoot out with police before killing himself; this is getting terrible morbid so I'll leave it. This is the standard wording. It is only Boston Marathon bombing which is different. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Whilst (including the perpetrator) is on several articles is it necessary to have it here?. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 00:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is, because it clarifies that he is indeed dead and his death is included in the count (as in sources) and he died during this attack (rather than for example later in the electric chair). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm normally for including perps, but this event is a church shooting. If he wasn't shot at a church, his death's peripheral. Worth noting, of course, but not in the box. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Errr do we normally distinguish in this way? Normally deaths are recorded which are as a direct result of an event, rather than based on location, text identifies where and under what circumstances people died. Pincrete (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Everything results from everything, so directness is tricky, but I'd say the event ended when he fled. Then the 2017 Sutherland Springs car shooting happened. It's not worth its own article, but seems like immediate aftermath. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a suggestion he may have been wounded at the church which may have contributed to his death, so therefore surely he would be included in the total under your criteria? Still very early top determine one way or the other however I think the conservative methodology is to include the deceased perpetrator in the victim toll. Parsival74 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If the fatal shot landed on the property, I'd include him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I agree that the number "including the perpetrator" is problematic. It is adding apples and oranges and offensive that these would be summed together. Still the perpetrator is dead and should be mentioned at this item. Hence my suggestion:

Deaths: 26+ (including the perpetrator) ----> Deaths: 25+ victims and the perpetrator

Not needing the parentheses is added value of this proposal: when the statement is fair and balanced we do not need weak explanations. Please support or reject below. gidonb (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I support the proposed wording or “Deaths: 25+ victims. The prepetrator also died later” Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's standard practise to include the perpetrator in the numbers. Is it offensive and disrespectful? Possibly. But "news" should be unbiased: a death is a death. I would leave it unchanged. SiDawg (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we need the plus sign? It's not like there's rubble to clear. Should be certain by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, good point! Let's remove the + Numbers can change but the plus sign is more relevant to places that are not entirely accessible. gidonb (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The shooter should not be included in the attack death toll. He did not die at the place of attack. Died later, elsewhere. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WWGB and Legacypac, ok then let's take the murderer out altogether. Any objections? gidonb (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've put the agreements into action. If in disagreement, please say so below! gidonb (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We can forgo the plus sign but the death toll may still rise. Some of the injuries warranted helicopter transport and one died in hospital already. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

One of Charles Whitman's victims took 35 years to die. In the interim, though, he only counted as injured. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Legacypac and InedibleHulk. We can only adjust the numbers. I hope this is it and wish no more massacres. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve just taken the per out again per this discussion and now confirmation he killed himself in the next county. Yes the heading says “deaths” and “injuries” but it is intended for victims not killers. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources list 26 deaths. Until this changes, this is the number we should go with, even if we feel that the gunman should be included in the final tally.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Reactions section - thank you!

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping the "reactions" section reasonable and brief, and not letting it become a silly list of social media comments from anyone with a follower. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That might pick up tomorrow, once people talk about it at work and school. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these comments.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Twitter comments should be limited to important government officals such as Trump or governor of Texas. Celebrities and internet personalities tweet their own opinions regarding gun control and politics, their inclusion in the article gives a sense of bias in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blysbane (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for television, newspaper and radio. Presuming celebrities still use those. I'd like to think Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood or Olivia de Havilland can still rock a dial. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas is coming in clear at 100.9, and I just learned Vera Lynn still exists. That's amazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Good Samaritan"

One news source describes the person who ran after the shooter as a "Good Samaritan". Despite this, the use of the term is not accurate, as the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan doesn't have the Samaritan trying to kill or incapacitate anyone. See Parable of the Good Samaritan. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, many sources describe him as a "good Samaritan". I have already provided two. The term originates from the belief that Samaritans were bad but was used to shame others that wouldn't render aid. The belief that a person with a gun can't be "good" exactly fits the parable when they use a gun to stop an evil act while others do nothing. But even more importantly, it's used in numerous reliable sources to distinguish the good guy with a gun from the bad guy with a gun. Armed citizen and armed civilian apply to any number of people in this article. Good samaritan applies to the one that acted against the bad guy. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

After the villain lost his weapon and tried to flee. Didn't stop the act. Shot in revenge. What about turning the other cheek? Good and evil is complex. Calling him an armed citizen or by his name is simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the guy did the right thing by pursuing the shooter and firing at him. I just don't think he should be called a Good Samaritan. As a Christian I actually find the use of this term in this story to be offensive. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a perfectly good encyclopedic term and Good samaritan is an article worthy of it. It applies and is applied broadly to people that inconvenience themselves, often at great risk to themselves, to render aid to others. Your disparaging comments about a living person that saved people from being killed should be struck as a blatant BLP violation. The account of the acts by the good samaritan is that he shot the gunman which caused him to drop his gun and flee. There is no indication at all that was "revenge" as your blatant BLP violation suggests. No evidence that shots were fired anywhere but at the church in defense of others. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Can a BLP violation exist in comments on a Talk Page? I've always understood it to only refer to the article. InedibleHulk's assertion that he shot in revenge is not part of the article, and here on the talk page I simply take it as his opinion (which is wrong, but not libellous in my opinion) --One Salient Oversight (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP violations that occur anywhere should be removed. There is no indication that any shots were fired after the church and asserting that it was revenge or anything but reasonable and lawful is a BLP violation. Here's the account from another person involved [7]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"As the gunman left the church, a local citizen grabbed his own rifle and began shooting at the suspect, who then dropped his weapon and fled in a vehicle." When he left the church, the people were already dead. Was he leaving to take more lives or save his own? I don't know. Maybe tomorrow. But it's not a BLP violation to suggest any man might not be sufficiently good to describe him, without attribution, as good. WP:PEACOCK prevention, more like. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Odd that you think "good samaritan" should not be used, yet the description above that the good samaritan acted in revenge or shot him after the or during a pursuit or while he tried to flee is okay. There is no account that good samaritan shot him after he dropped his rifle. There are a number of accounts that said the gunman would have continued shooting if he had not been shot at by the good Samaritan. There is a reason why good Samaritan is used in many accounts while revenge is not used in any. --DHeyward (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you share one that said he would have continued? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Authorities said the armed neighbor may have saved countless lives by opening fire on Kelley and forcing him to flee the First Baptist Church. --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

May have. May not have. Depends if Kelley would have. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

CNN reports: "A man who lives next door to the church grabbed his own gun and approached Kelley as he was leaving after the shooting."[8] Seems the attack was already over? WWGB (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

He was shooting people inside and outside the church so leaving the church building was not the end. He shot at the good samaritan as well as another neighbor that described the bullet that entered his home. The bad guy fired across the street at houses and dropped his gun after getting shot at and likely wounded by the good samaritan. Regardless, authorities are crediting the good samaritan with ending the shooting by forcing him to flee. Very telling that you wish to keep talk page comments that are outright BLP violations like calling it "revenge" but have an issue with terms like "good samaritan." Parsing the narrative to try and disparage the good guy with a gun that stood up to the gunman and forced him to flee is a righteous cause, correct? Try to keep the spurious and reckless accusations of a felony to a dull roar. --DHeyward (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Revenge isn't a felony, and I'm not trying to parse anything "bad" into the narrative, I'm just keeping "good" out. Let's present his actions neutrally and let each reader judge for themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Shooting to stop a felony in progress with threat of death or grievous bodily harm to third parties (evidenced by Kelley firing into a house after living the church) is permitted under self-defense law in my state. Kelley had murdered people, was armed, and fired after leaving the church; it was not over. Using lethal force in revenge when there is no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm is felonious assault in my state too. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• The term in unencyclopedic. The press can use it, but we shouldn't. Poeticbent talk 05:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's a gross misuse of the term. Good Samaritan law refers to the protection of an individual who renders aid to someone, but also does harm to them. For example, someone who attempts CPR, but breaks the ribs of the victim in the process. It does not cover cowboys with guns chasing people. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of terms are misused nowadays. Fortunatestars (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Especially bad in Wikipedia's voice, as I just deleted it. Maybe "So-and-so called so-and-so a good Samaritan." InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedic term, nor does it stick exactly with the original parable. If used, attribute (e.g. 'was described as X by Y for their actions'), but best to not use. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"good samaritan stops shooter" returns quite the plethora of armed individuals stopping murders. Only wikipedia seems to have difficulty grasping the concept that a good samaritan can help prevent murder. --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

if you want use this antisemantic jewel please put whoown mass media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Good Samaritan" is not encyclopedic. In addition, BBC reports that at least one of the men only pursued Kelley after he had already fled in his vehicle. "Good Samaritans" don't chase others down with firearms... The parable is about healing a wounded man. [9] Bueller 007 (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is not our job to weigh, morally, what this or that person did on this or that occasion. It is also not our job to merely mimic POV language uttered by newspapers, as dependable as they may be (I read the term this morning in USA Today)--that the language is POV should be clear from the very fact that we are having this discussion. We could, of course, insert "according to some newspapers", and thus attempt to contextualize POV writing in newspapers--and what would be the point of that? No, "good Samaritan" is a value-laden term, and to have it appropriated in a context where not a single element of this allegory (because that is what this metaphor invites) lines up with the original Biblical account is wrong for many reasons. DHeyward, please keep it encyclopedic. Your opinions on violence in America can be shared on Facebook. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• As the multiple sources for this story as well as countless other similar stories, "good Samaritan" is used to describe a person that gets involved in a situation to help others, particularly in situations that other people ignore or choose not to render aid. The type of aid is not generally limited. A person who steps in and stops a rape, for example, is generally described as a good Samaritan. The two people that stopped Brock Turner from raping the unconscious woman at Stanford, chased him and held him for police were good Samaritans.[10]. The possession of inanimate objects like bikes or guns don't change the nature of rending aid or descriptions as good Samaritan. Are you really quibbling that those who stop an act of rape or murder are not good Samaritans (note that the it's a phrase, not just a characterization of "good")? I find such views that a person that intervenes and stops the rape of their neighbor is not a "good Samaritan" or that it's too POV to be a rather despicable position to take. --DHeyward (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• The despicable part here is the normalization of violence involved in someone using guns being called that. You may find this perfectly OK, but many other Christians do not. Your universalization of your limited reading of Christ and of the love shown in that parable is simply that--limited. For the life of me I don't understand why you wish to allegorize, politicize, and appropriate the Christian message that one should love one's neighbor even if that neighbor is a stranger. You see the problem? My reading of that account has validity too. Ergo, not neutral. Now stop fucking pretending that somehow I don't see the goodness in someone stopping a rape just because I don't wish to call someone who kills someone else a "good Samaritan". That is despicable. And note that I have said nothing about the person who shot that murderer. You should really mind your metaphors, and you should probably leave the allegorizing and the judging to Christ, if you are thusly inclined. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh please Drmies. Next thing you'll be telling us is the gunman meets the common definition of "victim" because the good Samaritan shot him. I've seen your version of neutral and don't need your patronistic bullshit. No one said it was Christlike or pacificist nor is the parable so limited. Sources far and wide use the phrase to describe a person that involves themselves to help others by risking something that they aren't obligated to risk. The highest level is those that risk their lives to save others. That includes standing up to stop killers and rapists. Sorry that you don't think that is worthy of the parable. Googling "good samaritan stops shooter" shows it is commonly used and not just for this one. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be calling the neighbor a "good Samaritan" in Wikipedia's voice. It doesn't match the original usage of the term, and doesn't add anything to the encyclopedic understanding of the event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Shot in the back while fleeing -- sounds more like vigilante justice. WP:RS now saying his death was self inflicted. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, sounds like defending others from being killed by this maniac. This is not the place to push liberal ultra-leftist POV - stick to what the RS's say and discuss it intelligently to improve the article. Other nonsense comments about him being some sort of "cowboy" are also just utter rubbish. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It can be both things. A crux of vigilantism is defending communities when police won't or aren't around. And liberals can rejoice in killing people, too, in certain cases where it helps the less fortunate. A good Christian can feel wrath and pride equally, and still be forgiven, as can a good Texan, American or human. An evil killer can save lives by taking his own and every innocent victim of violence had the potential to grow into an evil killer. If we can stay away from extremes like left/right, black/white, love/fear or good/evil, we should be able to pull this article together, right down the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Right now, we have a "right" side of the building and bit that says he "left" it. That's perfect balance. But "black tactical gear" is up against "Lula Woicinski White" and "a white man". Perhaps we oughtn't call him a white man. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Background check

Kelley's conviction for assault made it illegal for him to buy a gun. Someone involved in carrying out the background check messed up.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/06/why-did-texas-church-shooter-devin-kelle

71.182.241.20 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's mainstream news coverage about the issue, so no need for a blog. .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream coverage of this is murky and sloppy, and the Reason blog does a pretty good job of being precise with the details. Most news reports rarely make the distinction between carry permit/license for a handgun (which he was denied) and the purchase of a long gun, which is much easier and requires no permit or license whatsoever. You simply need to pass the FBI NICS process on the spot, and you can buy a long gun and carry it out the store immediately. You can also openly carry long guns in Texas. This is the only other news story that is precise and accurate: Fort Worth Star-Telegram The two sources we have now are rather poor, and not even from Texas, so they are kind of spitballing. WGN 9 Chicago BBC. I'll attempt to make sense of that paragraph by rewriting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Build up to revealing Kelley or just say it was him?

Our lead and shooting section speak of a mysterious gunman. It's not till Section Three that we find out whodunnit. That's good for short stories, but this is an encyclopedia article. Things like who, what, where, when, how (and maybe why) should be revealed upfront, no drama. I tried and received an error message. Tried to override it with logic it but it popped up again.

That last edit summary compares this to two shootings where the killer lived to face trial. In those cases, it makes sense to refer to "the gunman" to not presume guilt. But this is different. There's no good reason to keep readers in the dark this long, just builds suspense. And not even well, compared to proper suspense writing.

Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree just name him. I figured it was just how the page evolved. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't come back at me with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it has become a standard in attack articles that the perp's name is not included in the Shooting or Incident section. Rather, it is included in the Perpetrator section which follows. The reason is that the perp's identity is usually unknown at the time of the attack. No-one knew at the time that "Kelley entered the church", just that "an armed man entered the church". This is not about building suspense, as the perp is named (or should be) in the lead. Instead, it's about building an encyclopedic timeline of the event, since the perp is only identified after the attack. Please see Charleston church shooting, Burnette Chapel shooting, North Park Elementary School shooting, Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, etc as examples of this approach. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas shooting names Paddock 10 times in its Shooting section. I see no discussion about that. Maybe by asserting a "standard" in one attack article after another you can make it so. I personally don't care for such unwritten "standards", precisely because they are highly subjective and based on cherry-picked examples of one's preference. And if there were any real need for consistency in this area, we couldn't ignore the dozens of articles that deviate from the new "standard" but pre-date it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2017

Article currently refers to an "assault rifle", however the rifle used was semi-automatic, and therefore not an assault rifle. The most neutral and accurate change would be to simply remove the word "assault" and leave it simply at "rifle". 132.239.179.227 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the article says: it describes the weapon used as "a Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle according to law enforcement officials". Elsewhere in the article, it cites Newsweek for the point that "a week before the shooting, Kelley posted a photo of an assault rifle on his Facebook profile", but that doesn't mean it was the gun he used. . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please see the "Gunsplaining" section. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've changed any "assault rifle" mention to the more specific description of AR-pattern rifle. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

26 or 27 fatalities?

At this point, it is unclear if the article includes the pregnant woman's unborn child in the count of twenty-six killed. If it doesn't, it should be changed to reflect the infant's life lost, as well. ☧Catholic Laitinen☧ (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Life begins at birth, not conception. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: We are a community dedicated to the perpetual improvement of a project. If you're going to comment on a talk page, please avoid posting contemptuous sneers that contribute nothing but seeds of discord. ☧Catholic Laitinen☧ (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is sneering or contemptuous here it is your aggressive response to my simple statement, young tyke. WWGB (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Life merge at conception; joins. Life is going for milenia as long continius proccess. Please stop reapeting this antisemantic sent. Most common is believe life got began 6kya or 4gya. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. Unborn children are routinely listed as victims of violent crimes. Viability is long before birth. See Unborn Victims of Violence Act for federal law. And this is a case relating to the particular state law in Texas [11]. How it relates to this shooting is not yet clear but it's absolutely false to blanketly state an unborn child is not a victim. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Heyward, how many of your talking points are you going to get in here? Wikipedia doesn't have to count victims by way of Texas or federal law. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, how many comments are you going to misread? I responded only to the blanket statement "Life begins at birth, not conception" and that how an unborn child may or may not be counted as a victim. I don't have a talking point or opinion on whether the unborn child should be counted or not, just that they have been in the past. It's not a simple "Life begins at birth, not conception" and is up to the state to decide. The woman was 8 months pregnant. --DHeyward (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Our University of Texas tower shooting article counts seventeen people (including an "unborn child"), but this Texan newspaper counts sixteen people, plus an "unborn baby". As contemporary news put it, "A PREGNANT woman, Mrs. Clara Wilson, was shot in the uterus. When she got to the hospital she gave birth to a stillborn baby." InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57 November 6, 2017 (UTC)

One person died decades later for reasons related to the shooting and thus is not always included in the number of fatalities due to the length of time lived after the shooting

Aye, I factored him in. Didn't count Whitman, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Birthdate

Hi his birthdate is February 12, 1991 according to the database "Texas Birth Index 1903-1997." See page 2824 for details.

-an amateur genealogist Cvassilliere (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Cvassilliere: I've removed it from the article since it did not have a source. Please add the source here so other editors can take a look at it. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the citation :

"Texas Birth Index, 1903-1997," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VD1T-XDP : 5 December 2014), Devin Patrick Kelley, 12 Feb 1991; from "Texas Birth Index, 1903-1997," database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : 2005); citing Texas Department of State Health Services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvassilliere (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that is WP:OR, better to have it reported in a reliable secondary source. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Bad conduct or dishonorable discharge?

The two sources don't agree. I'm inclined to believe it's a BCD only because it seems likely that someone not previously familiar with the types of discharge would fail to make the distinction, but would be familiar with the term "dishonorable discharge". The two are not the same. 100.40.28.53 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Now the article has been edited to mention that a dishonorable discharge means he was not legally permitted to own firearms. If he did get a DD, that would be true. But it's not clear which one he received. 100.40.28.53 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources say he was DD not BCD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the Daily Beast says BCD. And that's a report that was made after investigation, not just hearsay during the heat of the moment. They also have details about his sentence and his appeal. So it's clearly a more thorough and trustworthy report than the initial report of DD. BCD seems more likely to me. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not clear, the reporter for the Daily Beast says it's a DD, [12] the only proof anyone is going by is that there was an appeal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No. The exact same reporter later tweeted that it was BCD, not DD. [13] And he has been retweeting things about this for a while. It was BCD. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line is there is no definitive proof unless we see the discharge papers. It seems that their only claim is a court docket. To be perfectly exact, we could always say discharged under less than honorable condition, which is also how many questionnaires and papers frame it.

The papers are right here: [14] Specifically says BCD, 12 months confinement, reduction to E1. Other reputable sources (e.g., NBC News) now agreeing it is BCD: [15] Bueller 007 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's largely irrelevant as the underlying crime was domestic violence. Regardless of discharge, he should have been a prohibited possessor for the misdemeanor DV he was confined and discharged for. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's only "largely irrelevant" if you don't care about Wikipedia reporting facts. But yes, he had a general court martial, so his conviction should be on the record as a federal felony. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your ignorance is showing. A BCD is not the equivalent of a felony. Nor are most domestic violence convictions a felony. If the argument was about whether he was a felon prohibited possessor, then a BCD vs. a DD is relevant. But since the conviction was for Domestic Violence, it doesn't matter whether it was a felony or misdemeanor when it come to the issue of being a prohibited possessor. And yes, I am very interested in accuracy which is why I wouldn't have said he is a convicted felon or had a Dishonorable Discharge based on being a prohibited possessor. The characterization of his discharge and his rights to possess a gun are related in more complex ways other than "Dishonorable Discharge" or "Felony" as you seem to believe. --DHeyward (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

General court martial --> federal felony; Special court martial --> federal misdemeanor. Sorry you're so ignorant. We can't all be blessed with a three-digit IQ. Back to your sandbox, child. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't even bother linking to Twitter. Even if those are reputable reporters, their information has not passed through their editors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's likely a BCD, as a DD is pretty rare. Fortunatestars (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither a Bad Conduct Discharge nor a Dishonorable Discharge would automatically prohibit someone from obtaining or owning a firearm. However, the fact that his conviction was for domestic violence would automatically prohibit him from owning a firearm under the Lautenberg Amendment. A General Court Martial is capable of hearing both felony and misdemeanor cases. A General Court Martial conviction is not automatically a felony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.40.32 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Look at question 11.g. on the 4473. A DD does indeed prohibit you from obtaining a firearm. See also 18 U.S. Code § 922. A BCD does not prohibit him from owning a gun. Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Recipients of a Dishonorable Discharge were prohibited from buying or possessing firearms by the original federal 1968 Gun Gun Control Act. It has been federal law for almost fifty years. A military memo on handling DV by military in compliance with Lautenberg Amendment can be seen here: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/memos/military.pdf A BCD for DV is apparently a disqualification under Lautenberg. --Naaman Brown (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Naming the shooters wife

Should the article name the shooter's wife or just call her "his spouse"? See related RfC at Talk:Stephen_Paddock#RfC:_should_girlfriends_name_be_stated. -- GreenC 01:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No need, and tying her to a douchebag is likely to convince other douchebags that she's a douchebag. Already there in the news for them to find, of course, but I think Wikipedia is copied and pasted slightly more than the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME clearly says don't name her. It was a little fuzzier in the Paddock case. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, don't include her name. I removed it once already per WP:NPF (WP:BLPNAME too).- MrX 02:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We don’t need her name. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else - no need to name her. Neutrality^talk 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Google and YouTube search results promote fake news

There's an issue about online news promising to stop featuring fake news, but failing to make their promised improvements in relation to this story – Levin, Sam (6 November 2017). "Google and YouTube promote fake news about Texas shooting suspect". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 November 2017. "Platforms offer search results that falsely say Devin Kelley was linked to anti-fascist and leftwing groups, a month after reforms at YouTube". . . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not particular to this story, though, in that it's just another volley in their ongoing war. Would've happened at the next massacre, regardless of details. More suitable for an addition to Fake news#Response. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I confirm the same. On clean VM instance first hit go ogle to snopes fake red octagon. The website monitoring how big SE broke news confirm this too. (I not put link here as it may be viewed as advertising (43.. if uknw)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Church's official website?

Do we really need to display the church's official website? This article is about a shooting, not a notable church. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If it were in the infobox, I would agree. Buried in In "External links", not so much. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not buried, it's at the bottom. Aside from the top, that's the most prominent spot there is. It's in bright blue letters, and the section exclusively devoted to it is in bright blue letters at the bottom of the ToC, near the top of the page. Seventh, even; that's like the Holy Grail of Fortunate Placement in a church article. And this is predominantly an article about a church, so an article about that church seems fitting here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't consider the "External links" section buried. I find the link's inclusion unnecessary and would only advocate for its appearance if the article were about the church itself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

C'mon, think of the children. Some readers might be comforted by knowing they're still currently working on joyful noise with lifting of hand and dancing of feet for Resurrection Day, Sundays at six. Even if not, it's still something I'd have never known without Wikipedia's help, and it's not worth including in the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Word "buried" stricken, but that's my story and I'm "stricken" to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Do we really need to display the church's official website?
• No until it links to several YT showing max 17 attendants. This will be confusing to more intelligent audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

What's several YT showing max 17 attendants? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Fake New Websites (Hoaxes and conspiracy theories Section)

Do we need Fake news websites reaction in reactions ?I see it adding little value to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. This page should not only be a reliable source of information for readers, but should also contain at the very least a couple of sentences or a paragraph in an appropriate section detailing fake news stories which have gone viral, especially if it being reported in reliable sources - it seems silly not to. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting has a subsection on fake news stories and hoaxes, I don't see why a sentence or two here is any problem.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a recent trend very few articles have this section 2017 Las Vegas shooting was amongst the first.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it might be because viral fake news has become a big issue recently, and now widely discussed in reliable sources. Jimmy Wales himself has come out hard against this fake news trend.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to think that it merits inclusion. It helps readers understand how these types of horrific tragedies are so quickly politicized. It also educates readers who may otherwise trust the information they obtain from such fake news sources.- MrX 17:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• That is a good argument, MrX. If we're going to be in the NEWS business, we might as well point out the make-believe things that are reported as news. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I guess if the existence of "fake news" associated with an event is being talked about in reliable sources, we should include it in that event's page as well. So, yes, I support this inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• I strongly support inclusion for reasons noted above. Fake news propaganda is on the rise, is growing, a significant portion of the population believes it, somewhere around 30% according to stats and growing. The only way to deal with it is head-on. Ignoring it may feel good and morally upstanding but it's hiding from reality how significant this stuff is. Also the phenomenon has been reported in other articles, the LV shooting wasn't the first. -- GreenC 01:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Fake news - relevant?

On practically every tragedy there's hearsay, premature confirmations and in this case outright politically motivated hoaxing. But is it really relevant and does it shape and define the incident? I don't know if this is a case of WP:FRINGE and we're giving these hoaxes that many have never heard of too much weight. As an equivalent, I would point to September 11 attacks a Good Article. There have been many reports, papers and documentaries analyzing 9/11 theories but appropriately the whole matter is one sentence on the main September 11 attacks page, with a spin-off article to go into more depth. At this stage, these Sutherland theories are not notable enough to be mentioned here, let alone be moved to have their own article Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• We've discussed this before--there are reliable sources reporting on the BS spouted by some websites. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are, but it's more a story arc about those reliable sources versus the BS. This shooting is just another point of contention, in that context. More pertinent to the fake news article. Similar to when Democratic media blasts Trump for responding to something the "wrong" way; never about the thing itself, just an opportunity. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. This is discussed above and it looks like the emerging consensus is that it stays.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

And yeah, by mixing bullshit few people had heard into an article many people read, it does clearly spread the stuff. Smart people can distinguish it by the section header and wording, but not everyone who can read is smart. The problem isn't in making dumb people dumber, but in giving them new ideas to misinterpret. Some things are harmless to misunderstand, like magnets and mirrors, but when it comes to race, religion, politics and insurrection, worse conclusions than "I have the right to put beans in my nose" become likely. In this short section, we name seven separate and vaguely-defined groups in a potentially inflammatory light. All because none of it's true and our sources verify it isn't. When I was a kid, encyclopedias didn't teach lies. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, and on a certain level it makes sense. But the world has changed. I remember a time when such encyclopedias existed as well, and also when journalists, newspapers, magazines and news reports etc. didn't feel compelled to warn the public about viral fake news. The problem is that this stuff is out there, and unfortunately many people are seeing it and believing it (I've literally heard people discussing this incident in public places and blaming antifa for it). This is why I feel it is important to include such a section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Antifa seems to be the new al-Qaeda or Anonymous, just some vague cloud for people to yell at when remembering individual names or purposes gets in the way of a good yarn. They're safe from retribution by virtue of not technically existing, but I'd hate to read some kid in a black hoodie gets stabbed for resembling someone's notion of the "suspected" conspirator from a story found on Wikipedia. Bad enough that our Shooting of Trayvon Martin article helped cause our Charleston church shooting article. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

But as long as it's not in the lead, I guess it's cool, by today's standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Section 'Perpetrator'

Currently, the section about perpetrator is totally out of proportion to the rest of article. The Sutherland Springs church shooting article is devoted to the actual incident, NOT to Kelley. Kelley's life can be summarized here but briefly, with focus remaining on the victims and the aftermath. — Any objections to moving Kelley to a separate article, similar to Paddock? We have specific rules regarding wp:infoboxes, which should be used at the top right corner of an article. If there's enough justification to have an infobox person (#2) here with no outright objections, there is enough reason for a WP:SPLIT and replacement of the existing redirect. Poeticbent talk 17:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• No split. Kelley is not notable enough for his own page per WP:1E. There is only so much that can be said about the shooting - and what the reader mainly wants to know is who was the killer and why did they do it. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• No split needed for now. Concur with Legacypac here. Unlike Paddock and the Las Vegas shooting, the background of Kelley seems to be directly related to the shooting and motives, since he had a connection to one of the victims and the church. Splitting it up would be a disservice to the reader. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• No split. Not notable enough. There is more information currently available about the shooter than there is about the shooting. As details about the shooting emerge, the article will fill in. See Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator for an example. Leave it as is. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think it should be split because of WP:BLP1E, however, we should be able to trim some of the extraneous detail. Per my comments in a previous section, I think we could condense the atheism paragraph to one sentence. We could also trim the girlfriend/mobilehome/Colorado background, the name of his high school, etc. I also think that we should remove the photo—this is not a biography.- MrX 18:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• No split, per above. Having some level of detail on Kelley's life is probably appropriate in this article, since the perpetrator's history/background are key to the reader's understanding of events (and make up a large proportion of volume of sources' coverage). Extraneous details can be cut, of course. Neutrality^talk 01:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No support for splitting article - Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Under 'Ability to Purchase..."

There seems to be a conflict here: "An FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check is required at the time of purchase for all firearms except for purchasers with a valid license to carry a handgun.[50][51] Texas denied Kelley's application for a license to carry a handgun,[44][49] although a license is not required to purchase firearms under Texas state law.[46]"

Either a license is required (under federal law) or it is not (Texas law?). Need some clarification here. Jdevola (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Federal law and Texas law are two different things. And in Texas, you need a license to carry a handgun, but not to purchase one. Exactly as the sentences indicate, federal law requires you to undergo a federal background check for any gun purchase unless you already have a Texas license to carry. The license to carry is a concealed carry license for a handgun, but--as stated--you can purchase a gun in Texas at a gun store without one as long as your NICS check is clean. (And you are always able to carry a legally owned rifle in Texas.) No clarification is needed. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Since a Texas license to carry requires a NICS background check to approve the license with periodic NICS rechecks to stay current, the federal ATF accepts possession of a Texas license to carry as proof you have passed NICS requirements and the dealer does not need to do the additional NICS background check for the 4473 gun transfer to a licensed carrier. --Naaman Brown (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Wording in the article is clear on the "license to carry" in public as state law, and the NICS background check as federal. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

The word vigilante is incorrect. It should be changed to citizen or some other nonjudgemental word. MAMpride (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Change has been made to "a local bystander who intervened." Neutrality^talk 02:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree - "vigilante" is a poor wording choice. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The word “vigilant” would be okay, but “vigilante” incorrectly suggests they were out to punish the guy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Vigilante is not in any sources. He witnessed a felony in progress and acted lawfully. He had powers of arrest at that point as well as justification to fire in self-defense and others. The only part that would need more clarification is firing into the car as it left. He didn't hit anyone with those shots, however and didn't fire after that. Even after the crash when they could see the brake lights being activated on and off on Kelley's car. They couldn't see Kelley moving but apparently his leg was twitching on the brake pedal he shot himself and the good Samaritan was rather restrained by not firing but knowing his leg was moving. --DHeyward (talk)

Resolved

 – Vigilante has been removed and should not be re-introduced - Fuzheado | Talk 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Victims

I believe that the victims section of this article should be revised. It is disrespectful to all the other victims of this tragedy to not be named. Only a select few individuals were mentioned such as the pastor and his 14 year old daughter. I think either all victims should be named or none. There should be no preference given to who is mentioned based on their position in the church or any other factors. They were all innocent victims whose lives were tragically lost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthangavelu (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Listing all of the victims' names has become a perennial debate. Personally, I'm against this per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP for the surviving relatives, but I know that some people will insist on having a full list of the victims' names, citing WP:OTHERSTUFF.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As ianmacm says, this is a continuous debate we have with nonobvious outcomes. It can be seen either way: naming the victims is providing publicity they did not, nor did their family, seek for themselves. Issues of privacy and WP:BLP come into play. On the other hand, one can argue that putting their names here honors them, and they are not just anonymous faces of a death toll statistic, but real people who deserved to be remembered. It's not an easy call. In recent years, BLP considerations tend to win out, and only in unusually notable cases are names mentioned (ie. people who died young, or an entire family falling victim to the crime). I think the main question one has to ask - is it in the public interest to have specific names mentioned? And does that public interest override our BLP norms? It's not an easy call, which is probably why it varies from event to event, and article to article. In this case, I think our approach so far is probably best - no exhaustive listing of all the individuals, and the ones that are identified by age or name are there to illustrate the tragedy of the event, rather than to fully document every person who was a victim. However, I respect those who may differ. Tough cases make for tough choices -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Rough consensus

 – No comprehensive list of victims names should be in the article at this time. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement from the Air Force needs to be kept

To @Bueller 007: - Please stop removing the quote from the Air Force regarding their failure to enter information about Kelley into the NICS database. The precision of their statement is important, and a paraphrasing is not appropriate. This is their statement: "Initial information indicates that Kelley's domestic violence offense was not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database by the Holloman Air Force Base Office of Special Investigations." When someone steps up and puts out a public statement of this nature, the exact wording and details are extremely important in terms of what they are, or are not, admitting to. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

They are admitting to exactly what the summarized version says. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem keeping the quoted statement. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The quote seems to be pretty critical to understanding the shooting, keep verbatim. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 13:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Words can have common meanings and legal nuances; paraphrases can easily be misinterpretation of what was stated. The quote would be what USAF said, a paraphrase could be what the editor thinks they meant. --Naaman Brown (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Statement from the Air Force should be quoted exactly and not paraphrased. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

I am requesting a change to the number killed in this incident. The article states "The gunman, 26-year-old Devin Patrick Kelley, killed 26 people and injured 20." When if fact there were 27 that were killed. One of the victims was 8 months pregnant. It has been established in numerous court cases that an unborn child who is killed can be counted and prosecuted as a homicide. Jackieson (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Sources consistently report 26 dead. We have to reflect what the sources say, per WP:V.- MrX 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we know the fetus isn't already counted? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Time counts it along with the eight other family members as "at least eight", contributing to a total of "at least 26". There'll be no prosecution, though, so the legal definition doesn't matter here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

All the notable mainstream sources say 26, so we say 26. See WP:RS and WP:NOR -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Time isn't reliable or mainstream anymore? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me, as I'm not debating you. NY Daily News also says the unborn child was counted: "Pregnant woman’s unborn child counted as 26th Texas church massacre victim" [16] - Fuzheado | Talk 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I showed a notable mainstream source for "at least 26" and you, directly underneath and indented, said they all say 26. Doesn't that sound like an argument? Anyway, your link's pretty explicit about it, so 26 is good enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The death toll in the article will be reported as 26, which mainstream news sources use and includes the death of an unborn 8-month old. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Newsweek admitted that he was an atheist and considered religious people foolish

,,Authorities are still probing Devin Patrick Kelley's background and what caused him to snap and target a peaceful congregation Sunday afternoon, leaving both children and adults dead. But a clearer image of the gunman and a possible motive has started to come into focus: He'd been fired, divorced, thought Christians were stupid and had beaten his wife and fractured his step-son's skull while serving in the Air Force.: He was always talking about how people who believe in God were stupid and trying to preach his atheism,” Kelley's former classmate Nina Rosa Nava posted to Facebook, according to The New York Times."

- http://www.newsweek.com/texas-church-shooter-was-atheist-threatened-mother-law-who-attended-church-703266

We should write that he was an atheist but we do not know what was the cause of the attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.143 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that what Newsweek calls a classmate, the Times calls a Facebook friend who defriended him over it. Not that classmates are particularly good judges of what someone "always" does (especially primary school ones), but they at least meet in person. Inflection and body language go a long way in telling how serious someone is about anything, and everybody seems a bit more trollish online. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

USAF Court of Criminal Appeals

The upheld ruling against Kelley is at http://afcca.law.af.mil/content/afcca_opinions/cp/kelley-38267.pc1_-_corrected_copy.pdf 76.185.209.233 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This was more interesting [17]. A reliable source pointed to it as the original court martial. On page 3, the ruling has two items at the top. The first is for DNA collection. The second is a reference to the Lautenberg amendment 13 USC 922(g)(9) which the Air Force failed to properly comply with. The court seems to have explicitly spelled out that the conviction was a disqualifying DV offense that prohibited possession of a firearm. It's usually a requirement that military personal are allowed to possess firearms and the law doesn't exempt military members. Also, he appears to have plead guilty. Unfortunately, I have only found a reference to the document, not any explanation. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

"According to a former Air Force colleague who temporarily got reacquainted with him online, Delley claimed he would buy dogs and other animals and use them for 'target practice'."

Who's "Delley"? That name should be Kelley.

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Image of perpetrator

@Bueller 007: @GBRV: I've removed the image File:Devin Patrick Kelley.jpg of the perpetrator per WP:NFCC #8. The image itself has nothing to do with the crime except to depict the person in question. It's not an image of him in the act of the crime and has no prose (much less cited prose) to support the need of the image. The person's visual appearance has no effect on the reading of the article.

A few months back, there was a very lengthy series of FFDs and DRVs that never concluded in favor of keeping an image in a very similar circumstance. In this case it was an image of the perpetrator in the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting article. That image was deleted as well. See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_7#File:James_Thomas_Hodgkinson.png and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 26. I realize some people wish to include this image, but the use is not permissible and precedent has established this. Just because this person perpetrated a crime is not sufficient justification to include a non-free image of him. Please do not restore it again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I previously made a similar suggestion that the image is not important because the shooter is not the subject of the article.- MrX 20:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an odd rationale for not using it. The image is widely available in news outlets precisely because it is a "fair use" of the image that accurately portrays the now deceased perpetrator. The image is not part of a broader work that is being used to illustrate a narrower subject (what #8, and a number of the other criteria, seeks to stop). #8 is not outside the general "fair use" doctrine and is why the press will never use a baseball card to depict Barry Bonds or clip out a rose from album cover art to depict a rose. That is not the case here as the image is a "fair use" permissible representation in anything that describes Kelley. Using NFCC #8 as a reason stands "fair use" on its head. --DHeyward (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• #8 limits non-free content only to where it is contextually significant. Since the perpetrator's appearance is not relevant to the crime, displaying an image of him adds nothing to the article that isn't already in the article. If we had a biography of him, we would permit it as we generally allow non-free images of dead people for depiction purposes. However this of course is not a biography of him. In the Hodgkins case linked above, arguments were made that the article about the crime constituted the perpetrator's biography. This argument did not sustain sufficient weight to prevent elimination of the image. I readily grant the image is fair use, and that we could legally use the image under fair use law in the United States. However, that's not the issue at play here. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the perpetrator served with the Air Force for 5 years, it could perhaps be possible to locate an image that could be uploaded to Commons under a {{PD-USGov-Military}} license. That way there would be no need for the hassle of fair use rationales. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the rules and your standing it on it's head. The shooter is relevant to the story as are details about him. That you acknowledge we would use a free image is an indication it is relevant. That we would use a NFCC in the top image slot on a bio is confirming it is relevant and fair use. In short, the shooter is a main element in a story about a shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I can only point out that the fair use image of Adam Lanza got removed from the Sandy Hook article because of the same NFCC objections. Some people will always raise NFCC objections to fair use images of people. However, I don't think that the image of Kelley here was adding a great deal of additional context to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

NFCC aside, there have been studies indicating that publicizing these spree killers inspires mentally/emotionally marginal individuals to emulate them for the attention. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. There have been claims that publicity for mass shooters could encourage deranged people to do the same things, but this isn't a primary concern on Wikipedia if the material is encyclopedic and necessary for the reader to understand the case. A police mugshot usually isn't necessary. Far more mugshots have been removed because they failed WP:NFCC than because someone might be offended/be inspired to do something similar. Charles Manson is featured because someone found a copyright free image, it's that simple.[18] --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• The issue has been brought up already on this page in Section 'Perpetrator' only a couple of days ago. Everyone was against moving Kelley to a separate article. In the discussion, User: MrX aptly noted: "we should remove the photo—this is not a biography." So, if such biography is not needed in Wikipedia, neither is the WP:FUC photo per Wikipedia:Infobox policy guideline. Poeticbent talk 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Including a fetus?

I recently learned the 26 dead people include a fetus. Said as much in the lead, to prevent confusion over whether they do, and was told to seek consensus.

If the idea that fetuses are people is contentious, saying 26 "people" died is already contentious, because the fetus is already included in them, whether we say so or not. Clearer to clarify, and let readers make an informed decision whether to subtract one or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If a fetus is one of the 26 reported dead, then readers deserve to have that information up front.- MrX 23:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

One is. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

According to this CNN article, "Authorities have included Crystal Holcombe's unborn child in the death toll of 26." We should probably say 26 victims rather than 26 people so as to avoid the inevitable debate that would otherwise ensue. Of course that would require some wordsmithing.- MrX 00:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a matter of replacing one word. An oafish apprentice or even an apprentice oaf could do it. "Parishioners" could work, too. It was more dragged to church than actively attended and didn't fully grasp where it was, but the same applies to many certified and registered children and spouses. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I keep hearing that the youngest victim was 18 months--but that's on NPR, haha (psst...it's an eminently reliable source...). Drmies (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

FOX 40 says that's old news now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Address the (relatively minor, at least for now) controversy briefly in the Victims section. Omit it from the lead and the infobox, where it can't be dealt with adequately. "Killed 26" and "Deaths=26", respectively, is the status quo and that seems fine to me. If reliable sources start revising their numbers downward after learning the truth, this will need revisiting. (This will mean more to editors who maintain Wikipedia's sortable "worst mass killings" lists, where it might - gasp! - affect this one's relative position. Then we'll need one or more RfCs about whether all other entries in the lists need to be researched for pregnant victims and adjusted. Texas does like to cause trouble.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The current text {"ages of the dead ranged from unborn to 77 years old") is correct and sufficient. WWGB (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd disagree, since it fails to explain why we're counting the unborn. I think (1) we need to find a way to be clear that we are merely using the number given to us by Texas authorities through our RS, and (2) if RS addresses a controversy about this in the context of this case, we should consider briefly touching on that as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How about a note attached to "unborn" to explain the circumstances why it is being counted as a casualty? WWGB (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need lengthy explanations and "unborn" is not part of an age range. We can simply say that the number of dead (or victims) includes one unborn (or fetus).- MrX 13:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Then what do we do with the sentence about the age range? Zero to 77? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

One option is to leave the sentence out. Another is to list the age range of the already born people, which of course what 'age' means in this context.- MrX 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm down with leaving it out, if zero truly isn't a valid numerical age. Maybe "The dead were up to 77 years old" or some better variant. Can't get behind including this victim as killed in some parts and not even as a victim in the range part. At the end of the day, its cells were dividing until a lack of oxygen triggered bacteria to eat them, just like what went down in its future grandfather-in-law and the grown man who would've otherwise been convicted of stopping its heart. (I wish I knew the gender, "it" makes death sound creepy). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As above and as in the previous discussion now archived, whether or not unborn children are included in the number of people killed is not up to us. It is up to the authorities to declare how many people are killed, issue death certificates, etc. There is no need to inject dogmatic abortion politics on definitions of "person" when this incident has nothing to do with abortion. There was no choice and no abortion so it is best left to sources. I doubt we will see a statement from any group that would be seen as equating murdering a pregnant mother to the personal choice to end a pregnancy. Nor do I see any reliable sources seeking to diminish the loss experienced by that family and community. That would be rather insensitive and pointlessly cruel. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No one has said anything about abortions here except you. Such discussions have no place here.- MrX 13:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Then there is no controversy in naming the unborn as a person and need not be discussed as it is clear from the reports. --DHeyward (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

If we're literally naming him or her, it's Carlin Brite "Billy Bob" Holcombe. The nickname is no more or less legal than the rest. That sort of issue is why personhood controversies remain when abortion politics don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's disingenuously broad. Beginning of human personhood is more relevant regarding whether a fetus is a person but again it's moot as the reports indicate the victim was a person. Regarding a fetus, that argument is steeped in abortion politics. Being that this incident is not related to the abortion debate, it's not controversial outside Wikipedia political editors injecting their own political views. No sources question it even if they explain it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The mother of the fetus was described as "eight months pregnant" -- so an unborn child one month short of full gestation is a mere fetus? I believe 8 months would have been viable if prematurely delivered. I have heard some claim that born children less than six months old have not developed distinct personalities -- are not fully human -- and terminating them should not be counted as infanticide (a very minority opinion I should not have to add). Where to draw the line? When we could feel our unborn child kick, my wife and I considered him our baby. I suspect the family of that unborn baby considered it human life. --Naaman Brown (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about article content, see WP:NOR. If not, see WP:NOTFORUM. Either way, this kind of discussion has no place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a human and it's a fetus. It's a human fetus. No matter how developed, it stays one till it's born (leaves the womb and loses the cord). Doesn't mean they're mere or not, simply unborn. The lack of independence, social connection and civic registration makes them not quite people, but they have the same genetic makeup they'll have when they're included in a census (some possible radiation damage aside). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I take it you disagree with my previous comment. I don't think many editors with your experience would. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Which one are we talking about? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The one previous to the one where I said "previous". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There are three previous ones. I'll assume immediately prior. I think it belongs on this page till we figure out whether it belongs in the article, and how. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, I don't think it's for us to debate the status of the unborn. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I see it more as a survey, to determine consensus on how to go about it in this article. Definitely not the venue for establishing an absolute truth or any far-reaching implications. We normally count dead people, sources count a fetus, some people don't think fetuses are people, some sources explain how they count, some don't...how to present it is all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Point of information - I have no strong feelings one way of the other, but this may be relevant to the debate. "Why the Tally of the Church Shooting’s Victims Included a Fetus" (NY Times) - "Texas is one of many states with broad fetal homicide laws that define a human being as including 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.'" -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Until reliable source update their list of casualties,its not particularly relevant. Just as Wikipedia isn't in a place to add casualties when editors argue that unborn children should be added, Wikipedia is not in a position to remove them. I doubt we will see a statement from any group that would be seen as equating murdering a pregnant mother to the personal choice to end a pregnancy. Nor do I see any reliable sources seeking to diminish the loss experienced by that family and community. It is what it is.--DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Texas has a similar law, but in Alabama it is considered a double murder to kill a pregnant woman and they are bringing such a case to trial either now or relatively soon. Also, an eight-month fetus can survive if it is born at that stage of development; plenty of babies are born earlier and survive. I doubt they had time, but it might have been delivered alive if they had got to the woman in time. I've heard of several cases where a woman was in a car accident or whatever when she was that pregnant and they performed an emergency c-section. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've heard two months pregnant and eight, but at eight, the gender shouldn't be unknown. Leaning more toward two. Certainly not saved this time, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic atheism edits by User:The New Classic

@The New Classic: - Can you please refrain from adding unfounded information about the perpetrator "deconverting" to atheism and that he was a Sunday school "teacher?" These are not supported by any of the sources you have referenced. Instead, you simply speculate with an edit summary like this: "I am sure that at least one of the sources mentions that he taught Bible classes." They don't. Here are your revert diffs: [19] [20] Wikipedia requires proof and verifiability, not wishful thinking. You have added this in without discussion while contravening at least three other editors, including myself. They are POV-pushing statements, and I've tried to WP:AGF to fix your prose, but if you don't stop you may be blocked. Copying involved parties: WWGB and Somedifferentstuff. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources say that he is an atheist, and one source (the BBC one, say that he taught summer Bible classes. The New Classic (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the text that you added is not an improvement over the brief, informative text already there. You seem intent on pushing a narrative that the shooter was motivated by his atheism. Giving that view prominence as you have done is not proportionate to what the most sources are reporting.- MrX 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You need more proof then that the sources said he was an atheist. None of the sources include good evidence. It is a confusing time right now and many news sources are getting bad info. Koorblaad (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Up to 450 rounds?

We are currently saying, "Kelley used 15 magazines, firing up to 450 rifle rounds during the shooting." The cited source says, "...he was armed with an assault rifle, 15 loaded magazines...". That's quite a leap in my opinion. There is little connection between bringing mags and using them, and we shouldn't be inferring one even with the "up to" qualification. Never mind the implausibility of firing anywhere close to 450 rounds from a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage and killing only 26. We should say only that he brought 15 mags and, if it can be reliably sourced, that each one had a capacity of 30 rounds. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat a point: some insisting that editors paraphrase rather than quote sources leads to misunderstanding. The source said he had 15 magazines and could have fired up to 450 rounds, not did. I have seen reports he had 15 and emptied 13. I would wait at least for forensics on the number of fired casings recovered. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Source says nothing about using all magazines, or about number of founds fired. Article adjusted accordingly. WWGB (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have seen sources that say he fired around 450 rounds and that the magazines were empty. I will see if I can find them shortly.- MrX 13:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, folks this isn't hard. "15 empty magazines found at Sutherland Springs church massacre" - (KXAN); "Hundreds of shell casings, 15 empty magazines found at church" (Austin American-Statesman). -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The empty magazines statement has been added, in addition to the two sources above. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Text now says empty magazines and two sources are provided - Fuzheado | Talk 15:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect. The AR15 and the .223 cartridge developed for it was designed to wound, not "maximum carnage." Wounding combatants in battle is more effective and the military transitioned from the heavier .30 caliber rounds from WWII to .223 caliber rounds for weight reasons. Carrying more ammunition was preferred over lethality. AR15's and the .223 cartridge are not sufficiently lethal to qualify for hunting deer because the deer will survive and suffer after being shot. It's not used for hunting anything but small game and rodents. The purpose of the military, per longstanding treaties is that death of combatants is not the objective of war and weapons, rather it is the goal to make them ineffective on the battlefield. A round like .223 accomplishes that with less lethality than what the army used in WWII. It is not surprising that there are not more deaths with so many rounds. The gunman was shot twice with that same round and drove away, made a phone call and had to shoot himself with a pistol in the head to die. --DHeyward (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I was taught in the military that the round was designed to tumble after impact, precisely to cause maximum damage. With somewhat the same rationale as cops are trained to shoot to kill, not wound. Merely-wounded enemy combatants can recover and come back to kill you. But I'm not particularly interested in debating such trivia, hence my minimization of the point using "Never mind...". It was not my "premise". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• For once, I actually have to agree with Mandruss here. The .223/5.56 was designed to kill, and soldiers, like police are taught to 'shoot to kill', not 'shoot to wound'. Can you (DHeyward) cite any int'l convention that the US is a signatory to where they promise to "only wound, and not kill their enemies in battle"...? - ^theWOLFchild 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fun Fact: "Carnage" isn't death. It's disembodied flesh. This comes off during serious "damage", fatal or otherwise, also known as "wounds". It's a "fun" fact because it means you're both right. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reactions - Piers Morgan

I can't believe that someone restored the opinion of WP:DAILYMAIL columnist Piers Morgan, please leave it out. Unbelievable. zzz (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

DAILYMAIL was found to be unreliable by the community by RfC, there has to be a mighty strong justification for this inclusion. -- GreenC 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. Per WP:UNDUE, not everyone needs to be quoted in the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Re the latest re-insertion - @WWGB: I propose we call a cease fire and enter negotiations on this page (you know, like reasonable experienced editors do). My preference would be to remove the content until there is a consensus to include it, but that's a relatively minor procedural nit. What's important is to stop the war and discuss the right way. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Morgan's comment has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, the above is a spurious argument. IMO, there has been no rational argument for its removal, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The removal was contested and therefore the content should have remained while it was discussed. Subsequent removal by SamHolt6 promoted your "edit war". WWGB (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And you could have started the discussion at any point. There is no rule as to who starts it, and editors who try to assert one are inexperienced, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or both. I've observed over the years that you don't start many discussions and don't participate much in discussions started by others. As I tried to indicate, I don't strongly object to leaving it in pending the conclusion of discussion, but so far the discussion isn't going your way. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratuitous opinion. WWGB (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So, in the section you have the President and 3 local politicians, and one Daily Mail columnist. Various editors have pointed out that is undue, and no reason has been suggested why it should remain. Have I missed anything, User:WWGB? zzz (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Raising the Daily Mail in this discussion is a straw man argument. Morgan made his comments on Good Morning Britain and they were subsequently reported in a number of reliable sources, such as [21], [22] and [23]. If you want to object to Morgan's commentary, you will need to come up with a better argument than a false claim connection to the Daily Mail. WWGB (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have struck the reference to the "false claim connection" Daily Mail which you objected to. So now you can state your reason for keeping his opinion. zzz (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated, because it is covered in multiple reliable sources, satisfies WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So you don't think it improves the article, but you think it has to remain in the article because 3 articles mention him. It doesn't seem like anyone agrees with you. zzz (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment. It is unimportant because it is an opinion of an opinion. It is merely Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's opinion that churches employ professional armed security guards. In Piers Morgan's opinion Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a "brainless moron" for expressing the opinion that churches should employ professional armed security guards. If we locate a source in which another person has an opinion to express of Morgan's opinion of Paxton's opinion—should we include that too? The inclusion of the Piers Morgan opinion is in my opinion superfluous. Bus stop (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but please don't introduce false claims. Morgan did not respond to Paxton wanting security in churches. Rather, he ridiculed the suggestion that church-goers should take guns with them. And if we cannot have "opinions about opinions", then why is Manny Garcia's counter-opinion being reported? WWGB (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as no consensus has been reached in regards to the Piers Morgan quote, I have removed the content again. User:WWGB, I recommend you start a WP:RFC survey.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

1. We don't need an RfC for every little content dispute. 2. WWGB: WP:SIGCOV is about whether an article should exist, and has nothing do to with inclusion of content in one that exists. Perhaps you mean WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There are probably a few people ridiculing the suggestions by an AG that a 50 member church in rural Texas should employ armed security. Any significant criticism of that amazingly stupid idea should be succinctly covered. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

1. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is an invalid reason for your edit 2. Your edit is against consensus. 3. Stating that one particular tabloid journalist agrees with your opinion doesn't help you to RGW, obviously, since it makes it look like a fringe position. zzz (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Morgan's comment has problems with WP:NOTNEWS anyway. It's not all that notable in the overall context of the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The attack at New Life Church was ended when Jeanne Assam a retired cop and member of the church's safety team used her licensed carry handgun to shoot Matthew Murray who killed two and injured three before being stopped. Closer to home for me, an armed man who entered a local school and pulled a gun an the principal was held at gun point by the school resource officer (SRO) until other deputies arrived. If these men had not been stopped by armed security at a church and school, those incidents may have become mass shootings. They were ended early by armed private security and SRO, regardless of people ridiculing armed security at churches and schools. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Piers Morgan's opinion about a politician is not relevant to the event. We have enough reaction to the event without starting to include "reaction to the reaction." Invariably, every event will have comments about the event, whether or not the event could have been prevented, whether or not the response to the event was adequate, what should or should not not be done for the future, etc, etc. One degree of separation is adequate. We don't need to keep adding sections until we end with a final "Kevin Bacon said" section. --DHeyward (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. So no reactions from other counties, to include country flags? Does this mean that Ann-Margret is not coming? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2017

The line:

An FBI [[National Instant Criminal Background Check System]] (NICS) check is required at the time of purchase for all firearms except for purchasers with a valid license to carry a handgun.

Should be changed to the following:

In Texas, an FBI [[National Instant Criminal Background Check System]] (NICS) check is required at the time of purchase for all firearms except for purchasers with a valid license to carry a handgun.

This helps to clarify the statement and brings in in line with the Permanent Brady Permit Chart reference listed. Thanks! 192.88.255.9 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

PolitiFact article on Ted Cruz comment

"In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They [The Obama administration] prosecuted only 44 of them."

— Ted Cruz on Monday, November 6th, 2017 in an interview with Shannon Bream of Fox News

PolitiFact rating: Mostly true

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2017/nov/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-obama-administration-prosecuted-few-/

71.182.244.53 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Fortunatestars (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

IPhone

The article states, "Kelley carried an iPhone with him during the attack; however, investigators have not been able to unlock the phone". Why do they need/want to unlock the phone? 2601:644:1:B7CB:B4C3:1CC5:3D29:2D2F (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

To get more information from him, why else would they need/want to? Fortunatestars (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the anon IP means "why is the reason not reported in the article"? WWGB (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious parallels with the 2015 San Bernardino attack here. In any case like this, investigators would want access to computers, phones etc used by the perpetrator. It's unclear whether the data would be of any use to investigators, but they would want to see it anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at my phone, there is a history of who I called when, who called me when, txt msgs incoming/outgoing/drafts unsent, photo gallery, my driving history, a lot of forensic data in those little gadgets. Why would they not want to open the phone? --Naaman Brown (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Atheism

Of the two sources, one says he had "liked" pages on atheism, while the other says he "liked" pages on atheism, glocks, karate, and german shepherds. Neither source is particularly reliable but, regardless, unless atheism is tied to the shooting, we shouldn't include this stuff because it gives the impression that the shooter was an atheist and that's why he targeted the church. I suggest waiting for sources to do make that link before we add it to the article otherwise this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--regentspark (comment) 01:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant to the perpetrator though, even if not to the shooting. Heavy.com's internet sleuthing looks legit, but I'd prefer to wait for legit news media and ideally FBI/ATF/Texas State Troopers. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless he was an atheist, I don't think it is relevant. Liking pages on atheism is not the same thing as being one. --regentspark (comment) 01:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's true especially if it falsely ties atheism into this. Fortunatestars (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. In particular, given the fact that he was a teacher's aide at a Bible school, the implications of atheism should be taken with three spoons of salt here. Nsk92 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can find something on Heavy, you can find it where Heavy did. Shouldn't cite it directly. That aside, singling out atheism's not cool if a source gives many options. Personally, I blame karate. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, atheism does seem more likely than karate. Personally, I blame German shepherds. Fortunatestars (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

He murdered dozens during a Church service. The relevance of this to his apparent atheism is materially obvious. Bojackh (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A little too obvious. Feels lazy to bite on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How is this consistent with his gig at a bible school? Abductive (reasoning) 03:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not consistent at all. There's no credible evidence to atheism being a motive. Fortunatestars (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's just wait to see if WP:RS picks up on it or not. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

RT says a he was in at least four Facebook atheist groups, but also that it's unknown whether he wasn't religious. Is joining a group as simple as liking a page? If you need to actively contribute to something, four seems like a suspiciously high number. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources besides RT say he was an apparent fan of multiple groups devoted exclusively to atheism. Bojackh (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

But what does it take to be a fan of something? If it's an alphabetical list of things one has merely clicked over the years, four Atheism/Atheist titles in a row isn't so weird. Being "devoted" to atheism is a bit weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In this context the word denoted a page revolving around a solitary subject. On that matter I'm starting to suspect some editors aren't really interested in the facts they simply don't want his POSSIBLE atheism to be mentioned. --Bojackh (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, we currently don't mention the glock fancy, dog fetish or karate obsession, either. It's not that atheism is a particularly poor reason to be an awful person. Just that Facebook snippets don't always add up to why someone nobody's heard of does the one thing we've recently heard about. In the early stages, we should focus (devote ourselves, even) to figuring out what happened, not why. Why comes later, if ever. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

None of those are relevant to his committing mass murder in a Church. Atheism may very well be his motive or at least a large component of his actions. --Bojackh (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

May or may very well not be. Let the cops decide. They're slow, but they dig deeper than we can and care more for truth than news does. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, anyway. Some cops are worse than YouTube comments. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm just glad you're not trying to conceal the apparent truth. Bojackh (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If anything, I'd like you to reveal it. How does a seeming interest in atheism lead a homely gun enthusiast and wifebeater to reclaim his lost militancy against the faithful in a neighbouring village instead of his own? That's a highly-loaded question, but it's not entirely rhetorical. Where's the middle bit that all atheists (or their ponderers) should avoid to not kill their neighbours? "Atheism" may be the truth, but it's definitely not the whole truth. We haven't even gotten to the drug talk yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know exactly how his twisted mind worked. IIRC there have been killers who said that since God doesn't exist all is good if it's good for them. --Bojackh (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's how my mind works, too, but I've never felt like this sort of thing would be good for me. Must've been something more sinister at play than mere consideration of his free will. Suggestion, immersion, anxiety...that sort of jazz is vital to doing anything but puttering around the house. But where did it come from for this guy? More likely the secular (and sectarian) TV news than Satan (or lack thereof), I'll presume. No clue, in reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I can wait but the evidence is now growing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5053013/Devin-Kelley-outcast-preached-atheism.html --Bojackh (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Fuck the Daily Mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, that fake news garbage was successfully killed? Too bad the FNC RFC is flailing. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Source article (29) doesn't mention atheism at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.185.73.110 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The bbc page that references atheism is simply referencing heavy.com ... can we please wait until this tidbit is confirmed as a characteristic of the perpetrator before parking it in the article? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, has this "snapshot" of his likes actually been verified as legitimate? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what @GBRV: is reading, but the stuff they're adding [24] is not even in the cited source. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Turns out he didn't like karate or dogs the day he wrestled and boxed one into submission. So it's at least possible he didn't like other things on other days. Let's figure out his favourite band. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Dogs clearly have no relevance to the shooting. His atheism may very well be part of the motive. Bojackh (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

My point wasn't about dogs (or karate). Was meant to illustrate that people's Facebook likes don't shape their daily decisions, and such decisions needn't conform to the likes. Real life and social media are largely separate things. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be left out. It seems to be non-noteworthy trivia unrelated to the shooting. It doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article about the shooting.- MrX 04:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

non-noteworthy? trivia? unrelated? He committed mass murder in a church it's relevance is materially obvious. --Bojackh (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Show sources that attribute his motive to atheism and we can go from there.- MrX 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone reported that Omar Mateen hated dancing, would that be relevant to the Pulse club shooting? -Jordgette [talk] 04:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I support inclusion of referenced info on his religious views. This was a church shooting after all. He could have attacked his family anywhere-but he attacked a whole congregation. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like speculation. Unless multiple sources say that atheism was a motive, it's not relevant. As far as I know, atheists don't usually go on murderous rampages because of their atheist views.- MrX 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

To you it may sound like speculation but to us it's relevance is materially obvious. Bojackh (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what "materially obvious" means. Do you mean "obvious"? Let's just use sources. Are a lot of sources saying that it's relevant or is this a minority view?- MrX 04:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It means among other things that multiple news outlets have reported his atheism not because it's trivia but because it's relevant. --Bojackh (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop typing "materially obvious" when no RS has reported that atheism was a motive. Just because this factoid was reported does not necessarily make it encyclopedia-appropriate. -Jordgette [talk] 04:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

He committed mass murder in a church it's relevance is materially obvious according to RS who see fit to include it in their articles. Why don't you want it included? Bojackh (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that find his religious views relevant enough to report on, in relation to the shooting. This coverage in reliable secondary sources is what makes it noteworthy. If this was purely based on pages he may have liked on Facebook it should probably be left out, since people do "like" things they don't really like, but it does appear that multiple reliable sources have verified this from contacting his friends. This too shows that they consider this topic noteworthy, in relation to the shooting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We include details like a 1 day volunteer gig, 5 week long night security job, wife beating and where he went to high school. None of this info is necessarily related directly to motive but atheism looks as or more relevent to building his profile as any of that detail no one is arguing about. Don’t try to whitewash his (non) religious beliefs out of the page. It makes it seem like some editors don’t want to allow mentioning beliefs because they share similar views and find mentioning this a challenge to their sense of well being. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, good point. Include it. But it should not be called out separately in its own paragraph so as to create some special significance which we don't know exists. -Jordgette [talk] 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I can live with that. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it being smaller but so far all attempts to reduce it's size have resulted in editors downplaying the matter at hand and then others declaring it trivia on par with if he likes dogs. Bojackh (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If we include stuff like his high school and his private sector employment, we ought to include atheism to the extent it’s deemed significant by reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean we have reached a consensus? Bojackh (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

His religious views do need to mentioned as it involves a attack on a religious institution and is coverage is significant by reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources focusing on Devin Patrick Kelly being an atheist:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/devin-kelley-atheism-texas-shooting-who-was-he-creepy-weird-classmates-latest-a8041161.html

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/former-classmates-say-texas-gunman-was-an-outcast-who-preached-his-atheism-online/news-story

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/high-school-classmates-say-texas-church-shooter-preached-atheism-online/article/2639727

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/6/devin-patrick-kelley-anti-christian-atheist-outcas/

I have shown there are reliable news sources focusing on his atheism.Knox490 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It is inherently ideological to deny that reputable sources (like The Independent) have confirmed that this man was an avowed, loud, anti-religion Atheist -- with a capital A because he is obviously part of the online network of Atheists. No evidence of formal ties but multiple reputable news sources including this one confirm it. There is no point in denying that ideological, Militant Atheism was part of this, at least according to current sources, and it seems wildly ideological to deny it. Even when I was an atheist (which I was for many years) I would have said this. desmay (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

From the Independent: Freeman Martin, the regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, said “there was a domestic situation going on within this family.” He said the shooting “was not racially motivated; it wasn't over religious beliefs.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.185.73.110 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As always, we wait until more information become available. At the moment, most sources that mention the shooter as an atheist cite his former friends and Facebook posts. Until in-depth coverage about the motive of the shooter is made available and more concrete evidence comes forward (if it ever does), the page should remain as is.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind if we mention that he was an atheist, but nothing more needs to be said about it. Who cares about his classmate reflections on it? Also, the bible school, bible classes, and church attendance should not be intermingled with information that he was an atheist.- MrX 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on all the recent comments here and the fact that multiple reliable sources mention his atheist religious affiliation, we have consensus to include it. Which only makes sense, given the ideological nature of these anti-religious sites. desmay (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, we don't have consensus. Feel free to request a formal close if you believe otherwise.- MrX 01:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Second MrX's point, consensus has not been reached.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Far more concentrate on his state of mind and mental problems.. the Atheism angle is only included by the religious right to take digs at Atheism. Many sources aren't even mentioning it anymore. https://www.yahoo.com/gma/texas-shooting-suspects-phone-too-encrypted-access-now-181005096--abc-news-topstories.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.185.73.110 (talk • contribs) 00:23, November 8, 2017 (UTC)

Second that. His atheism seems inconsequential to the shooting, much like whatever Dylann Roof's religious views are to his massacre. I'd focus on his domestic abuse (wife beating and cracking stepson's skull), starving his dog, being kicked out of the military and escaping a mental institution as well as the fact that his in-laws attended this particular church. --Killuminator (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, a malnourished dog doesn't always get that way through active starvation. Sometimes they have worms, cancer or some other digestive problem. Beating a non-violent dog is a clear symptom of a sick mind, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't really read all the minutiae on this guy's background but he clearly wasn't nice to living beings, human or animal. An abuser for case studies. --Killuminator (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Tread cautiously - Kelley's atheism merits minor inclusion in the article, but should not be emphasized as a motive or indicate any kind of causality. Texas Department of Public Safety said, "there was a domestic situation going on within this family." The shooting "was not racially motivated; it wasn't over religious beliefs." -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Liking pages on atheism isn’t really proof. He could’ve changed his beliefs and forgotten about liking those pages. Koorblaad (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)dd

Reversing auto-archive of an unresolved topic. TheFisherking (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)