Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Perpetrator bio

The perpetrator section now makes up over 50% of the article (excluding the lead section). This is a heavy bio wp:WEIGHT for an event article - I don't think it should be trimmed per wp:PRESERVE but is there an interest in attempting a split to a standalone. Of course it will be immediately AfD'd but given the length, magnitude of the crime, and similar situation with Stephen Paddock, giving it freer reign as a standalone might allow for better content here and there. For example the ability to add a Fair Use image of the perp in an infobox. And to weight this article towards the event (topic of article) rather than the perp -- GreenC 16:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to split. There is only so much that can be said about the actual crime and the loser that did it is at least half the story. No need to dignify his memory with an stand alone article. He is not notable except for WP:1E. Also research shows that giving mass murderers notoriety encourages others to kill [1] Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok this is starting to sound like an AfD and your welcome to hold an opinion.. Wikipedia has many articles on mass murderers and we don't delete them because they are about "losers" or "undignified" people, nor do these articles impart dignity to their memory, or anything else like infamy (purely personal opinion). WP:blp1e allows for unusual cases like this eg. Stephen Paddock. Moral scare arguments that wikipedia might be "encouraging others to kill" is sensational. -- GreenC 17:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the bio is overly long and detailed, and it is noteworthy because Kelley's previous conduct is like a string of red flags that could easily have warned that he was a mass shooter waiting to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The biography is > 50% of an event article, it's a wp:weight problem. I agree the content it needed and should be kept somehow. -- GreenC 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:GreenC if you read the ref and dig into it, my statement is backed up by research. I did not suggest deleting the material, but sticking to the concensus reached earlier that a seperate article for the perp is not desirable or needed. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with GreenC (material should be kept) and Ianmacm (here is better than a new BLP article). Agree that Legacypac should review WP:RGW. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." In my opinion this event does not clear the "highly significant" bar intended by ONEEVENT. It will be all but forgotten in 20 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be depressing to think that killing 26 people in a mass shooting in a church in the USA was not a highly significant event. In the 1980s or 1990s this would have received massive media coverage, but the media seems to have shrugged its shoulders over the Sutherland Springs shooting and said "What's new here?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously "highly significant" is vague and open to interpretation; obviously it can be fairly applied to very different things; in one context and from one point of view, the cut on my finger was highly significant. Most people will say ONEEVENT says "no separate article" in this case, or not, depending on how they already feel about this; their application of p&g is determined by their position, not the other way around as it should be. I look for objective, disinterested guidance, and it's hard to find at Wikipedia. This is a rare exception: the one example given at ONEEVENT is of the assassination that precipitated World War I. That is "highly significant" at a historical level. It is covered in perhaps hundreds of history books and still taught to children a century later. We can't honestly say that this event approaches that in significance, and to say that is not remotely dismissive of the degree of tragedy here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the deadliest shooting in an American place of worship in modern history surpassing the Charleston church shooting of 2015 which has a separate article for the perp Dylann Roof. The two events are equally comparable, although this one doesn't have a hate crime element if it matters. -- GreenC 15:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What matters is how Roof lived to be central to other events. Court appearances, sentencing, imprisonment. They were related to the shooting, but had their own distinct and significant coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

1. The problem with using older articles to justify what we do in new articles is that it means the encyclopedia can never evolve. It means inertia and stagnation. That's why I avoid doing it. 2. When this becomes the second deadliest shooting in an American place of worship in modern history, are we going to delete the BLP article? Unlikely in the extreme. 3. Look, if you think a BLP is justified, create one. If Paddock's AfD failed, so will Kelley's. The current prevailing view in such AfDs is: It got a ton of news coverage for a week or two, so it's "highly significant" and ONEEVENT does not apply. I won't even bother !voting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The exact same idea of spitting out another page for the exact same reason was previously proposed amd rejected soundly. [2] Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This subject has a lot more justification for a seperate article than Paddock. There is virtually nothing outside the shooting for Paddock while this shooter has numerous events that have been documented. His Air Force career and crimes, his admission to a mental health hospital, his air force conviction and sentence, his abuse of anials, his religious beliefs, his domestic violence on his current wife, his relationship with his family. None of those are related to the shooting directly, and, quite frankly should be trimmed out of it. Those details are pertinent to a biography but not the shooting itself. No one who was shot or who responded saw a big line of baggage. We created all that i hindsight. Keeping it in this article trivializes the loss that the shooting represents. I know no one will support removing the scumbags details so the only dignified way to deal with it is a separate article. --DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Point of information - there was previous consensus to not split this out at a separate article. This can be found here: Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting/Archive_1#Section_.27Perpetrator.27. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

superfluous?

There had been mention in the article that the pastor was not present during the shooting. I modified to include reference to where he was at the time. SamHolt6 reverted my edit and removed mention that the Pastor was not present. SamHolt6 also removed reference to the pastor's comments about carrying a weapon. SamHolt6 claims this info. is superfluous. SamHolt6: please elaborate, and other editors please share opinions on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting&diff=next&oldid=811628658 Taquim 23:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)--Taquim 23:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

The information added was unnecessary for the victims section. While the fact is mentioned in the NYT source, Pomeroy's daughter was taking firearms classes does not add to the section, which concerns victim metrics. The same goes for the quote by Pomeroy, which could in all honesty be included elsewhere in the article but is not relevant to the victims section.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note that I have clarified that Pastor Pomeroy was not present at the shooting, which should answer Taquim's (talk) concern with the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It matters that the normal pastor was not there but it matters not exactly where he was as that is irrelevent. It matters that the visiting pastor (church leader) died and it is notable that 9 in one family (which happened to be the visiting pastor's) died together. That a girl was taking a firearms course matters not. The Pastor's commemts about carrying a gun in church could go elsewhere in reacions perhaps? Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Relevance and iPhone model

Re: [3][4][5][6]

@Darius robin: First, please see this in the nutshell at WP:BRD: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." Content disputes are not resolved by repeated reverts and discussions are not conducted in edit summaries. I will revert once more to return the article to the state in which you should have left it pending a resolution of the dispute. Don't feel bad—tons of editors do this wrong—but you're better off being one of us who do it right.

No, it is not "a crime to be specific"; however, this does increase the size of the article for little or no benefit to a reader. Every little bit of information slows the reader down a little bit. We just don't add something unless it's relevant.

In a different place, the article reads: "...Kelley exited from a vehicle at a gas station". If a source reported the type of gas station, we shouldn't write "Kelley exited from a vehicle at an Exxon gas station." Knowing that it was an Exxon instead of a Valero or a Tesoro would not increase a reader's understanding of the event, so we should omit that.

The increase to the article is relatively small in this case, but the principle still applies and little additions add up. Your edit does add a new reference, so it's considerably more than the " SE" in terms of how much has to be downloaded to view the page, how long the page is, and the amount of server space required to store the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: We should not think of conserving space or users' data. More info to an article is a good thing, and besides, I’m not loading up junk there. I’m just being a little more specific. Maybe we could replace one of the previous sources which do not mention the model, with the 9to5Mac source that I added. That would reduce the data consumed. Darius robin (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: Thanks for the reply. Apparently I failed to be clear that the relevance principle is the more important thing here. Removing a different reference won't make the "SE" more relevant. I say again, knowing the iPhone model would not increase a reader's understanding, so it should be omitted. If you remain unconvinced, that's fine. In that case we should wait for other editors to comment, and please don't reinstate the edit until a resolution is reached. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ok then, let’s wait for another editor. Darius robin (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless the SE has a unique locking feature different to other iPhones, adding the model/version of iPhone does not assist the reader's understanding of the issue. WWGB (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's extraneous detail unless it's vital to point out that it was an SE. All smartphones are difficult to get into if they have been locked and encrypted with a strong password.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Add it once. Like the make, model, and caliber of the guns, it's fine to give it once. The details tend to disappear and only with prescience could we decide what detail is relevant. If in the future, certain models become easier or harder to crack, this information would be useful to have documented. The phone encryption is relevant part of the investigation and the "relevance principle" isn't so strictly enforced else the phone, gun make and model and vehicle info would all be tossed as unnecessary to understanding the shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

1. If in the future... violates WP:CRYSTAL, part of Wikipedia policy. We don't edit according to what might happen in the future. If that detail disappears (I assume you mean the sources for it disappear), we lose verifiability and it shouldn't be in the article. If it doesn't disappear and it becomes relevant, it can be added then. That's how all editing is done and, while it isn't perfect, it surely beats adding a bunch of irrelevant details on the outside chance that they might become relevant later.
2. The fact that nobody cares to take on a complete cleansing of the article of irrelevant detail, which could reasonably be seen as disruptive editing, cannot be a rationale to oppose the removal of one small bit of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. If your understanding of WP:CRYSTAL is so poor as to think it applies to verified details, you should stop weighing in on it. It would be a better argument to say in should be included because forecasting that it will not be useful to future readers violates WP:CRYSTAL. But your argument is simply disproven by the fact that the model is verifiable information. Adding the model doesn't violate anything and it is sourced, verifiable and as relevant as the manufacturer. And yes, the SE model encryption is different from past models and different from future models. Does anyone seriously doubt that blindingly obvious level of tech knowledge drop? --DHeyward (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Point me to one reliable source that discusses the model's relevance specifically to this article subject, then add some content explaining that relevance to the reader, and I will happily drop my opposition. We don't add content simply because it's verifiable; see WP:ONUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There, I fixed it and ended silly dispute. [8]. Much easier. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The source you cited mentions the model multiple times, but it says nothing to indicate that the SE is different from other iPhones with respect to the FBI's ability to unlock it. I would revert you on that basis if you hadn't hidden the model in a piped link, but that seems like a reasonable compromise to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Dean Winslow

Dean Winslow was a Trump administration nominee, but his nomination was put on indefinite hold after comments he made about the Sutherland Springs shooting. He recently had an oped in the Washington Post titled "I spoke my mind on guns. Then my Senate confirmation was put on hold." Would it be worth mentioning something about this here (perhaps in the see also section) or is this too tangential? I don't have a strong opinion but I thought I'd mention this here. Marquardtika (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

This is not an article on the perp. There is way, way to much coverage on him. Each section probably should be cut down to, at a maximum, a paragraph. As it stands there is more coverage of him than there is of the rest of the incident. Jbh ^Talk 22:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I will take a whack at whittling it down to proper form tomorrow. After I give relevant Wiki pages a thorough read (anything related to what belongs in a wiki article and what doesn't considering the subject matter). AllSidesMatter (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun details

diff. Is there a reliable source that actually says this? I don't mean to say the poster is wrong, but how can anyone verify it? I'm not a gun expert - do we trust anonymous Wikipedia editors and hope for the best? Relevant policies are WP:OR (Original Research) and WP:V (Verify) and WP:RS (Reliable Sources). The other problem, is this the same weapon he used on the day of the shooting .. was all that gear on the gun when at the church? -- GreenC 21:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a gun expert either, but @Mandruss: is right that the detail was excessive even if correct. It was an AR-15 pattern rifle, which is enough info for an average reader. There is a tendency to add excessive detail about the type and model of the gun, and it doesn't appear to have reliable secondary sourcing. The reverted edit used an interpretation of Kelley's Facebook page so it is classic WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Here is the gun as it appeared on Facebook on October 29, 2017. As previously mentioned, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is the gun exactly as it was used during the shooting.--11:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, I'd want not only WP:V but also RS saying that some gun characteristic or feature bears some relevance to the shooting. A good example is the bump stock at 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Even if such RS could be found for the details here, which seems unlikely, the article should mention only that characteristic/feature, not the complete list thereof, and it should explain its significance by paraphrasing the RS.
This is a similar situation to that of the iPhone model, above. A by-the-way mention in RS, alone, does not necessarily qualify something for inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is some reliable sourcing about the gun on Facebook. It quotes a law enforcement official saying "the rifle Mr Kelley used is similar to the one in the photo but could not confirm it is the same weapon." Here the New York Times says "The cover photo on Mr. Kelley’s Facebook page appears to show a Ruger 8515 rifle, equipped with additional aftermarket products, including a red-dot aiming sight for faster targeting and a two-stage trigger for greater accuracy". However, it would require confirmation from investigators that the gun shown on Facebook is the one used in the shooting. It seems logical that the gun in the photo on Facebook is the one used in the shooting, but there is no confirmation. What is notable is that neighbors knew that Kelley had a gun because they heard gunfire at his property, but no-one connected it with a problem although Kelley should not have owned a gun at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

At that close range, and considering that his shooting was largely indiscriminate, I don't think any "faster targeting" or "greater accuracy" features have any relevance to this shooting, and your NYT quote does not suggest such relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A red dot sight is meant for close to mid range combat. A mass shooter is interested in killing as many as possible and at close range, a red dot sight does help towards that goal since it does improve accuracy. Some people don't know how to properly use iron sights but a red dot sight makes it very easy to tell exactly what part of the body you're going to hit. I agree with Mandruss in that I don't think it's particularly helpful or necessary to list the attachments used, however his reasoning behind why doesn't make much sense to me. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit: articles should not have photos of guns which were not used in the shooting, as this is misleading and unencyclopedic. A photo of a similar gun on Commons won't do the trick. Kelley did post an image on Facebook which is possibly the gun used in the actual shooting. It looks quite different from the generic gun photo that was removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi @Ianmacm: Regarding this revert [9], could you clarify which debate you are referring to? I'm not seeing any discussion on the Talk page pertaining to this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There is one particular blocked user, User:DisuseKid who has added this to a range of articles, eg here and at the Sandy Hook and Las Vegas shootings articles. Personally, I don't think it is necessary to say "AR-15 style rifle" in the infobox. The Sandy Hook shooting used a Bushmaster XM-15 and Sutherland Springs used a Ruger AR-556. They are similar but not identical guns. There is also a risk of using "AR-15 style rifle" to make a point about gun control as the AR-15 variants have been used in several high profile mass shootings. The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is another example, where the gun was a Smith & Wesson M&P15. I'm not a gun expert, but if you look at the article AR-15 style rifle and the various related articles about the individual guns, you can see that these guns can be considerably different, despite being placed under the label "AR-15 style rifle". The infobox should stick to the actual make and model of the gun and leave the rest to the wikilink. It's misleading to give the impression that all AR-15 style rifles are very similar or the same, because they are not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Regardless of their appearance, AR-15 style rifles have certain common features and characteristics: light weight, usually short-barrel, magazine-fed, semi-automatic fire, relatively lightweight round designed to tumble after impact. Perhaps not all of this is common knowledge, but that's just a matter of education and will change with time. I think saying "AR-15 style" is a convenient shorthand that conveys a lot of information to many readers, and I find it a welcome alternative to the common preoccupation with gun model specifics. I personally don't care whether it was a Bushmaster XM-15 or a S&W M&P15, the capability and use is essentially the same for my purposes. That the Stoneman Douglas article shows the specific model at all is a compromise, and we've managed to confine that to the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The “AR-15 style” rifle can come in a dozen different calibers and hundreds of configurations and modifications. These changes make the capabilities quite various. The one thing that is certain is that it is one of the most commonly owned semi-automatic rifles by private citizens in the US since the mid ‘70’s. Generally referencing this firearm is like saying a “four cylinder sedan” is accurate enough while it actually covers everything from a Mini Cooper to a Olds “88. Davemartinwood (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Naming Willeford in the opening paragraph

I am opening this thread because the editor Mandruss has fought me repeatedly on this, going so far as to engage in a mutual edit war over it. So, here's an opportunity for anyone else to weigh in. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Willeford ought to be identified by name in the opening paragraph as he was the second most important and noteworthy individual involved in this event -- second only to the active shooter himself.

Stephen's role in this shooting was critically important. He singlehandedly stopped the shooter from committing further murders and he singlehandedly pinned the shooter down after he had crashed his car so that he couldn't escape before law enforcement arrived. Naming him does not violate any clause in WP:BLPNAME; in fact, WP:BLPNAME seems to support the idea that Stephen should be named early on in the article given that Stephen isn't low-profile and was such a critical component to the event.

Mandruss does not want this hero to be named in the opening paragraph because, according to him, Stephen's name is already mentioned in the body of the article and it would be redundant. His reasoning for this does not extend to any other names mentioned in this article that are repeated -- only Stephen, for some reason. The second reason Mandruss gave for this is he felt that Stephen's name has no place in the opening paragraph, given that the open is just a basic summary of the event. If the name of the hero who singlehandedly stopped the active shooter isn't worthy of mention in the summary of the event, then neither is the name of the shooter himself because Stephen's role is essentially a co-starring role.

In fact, I would argue that the name of the shooter should be struck from the article entirely because naming mass shooters gives them notoriety and fame -- something that would-be shooters find attractive. There's a solid argument to be made here that refusing to immortalize active shooters by withholding their names from publication would go a long way towards reducing these kinds of crimes. But that isn't an argument I'm going to make today. Right now I'm only interested in getting Stephen's name in the opening paragraph.

Mandruss has not presented a sufficient case as to why Stephen should not be named in the opening paragraph. Referring to a person by name twice in an article is not "redundant." In fact, if you didn't refer to the person you're writing about by name at least a few times, readers will likely get confused as to who you're referring to. That's why the shooter's name is everywhere in this article.

Beyond that, even if it was necessary to identify a person only once in an article where they are referred to multiple times, standard writing practice tells us that you should identify the name of the individual the first time that person is referenced. Standard writing practice also tells us that if you're going to refer to that person again later, it is best to refer to them by last name alone for sake of brevity. So standard writing practice doesn't even support Mandruss's assertion that IDing Stephen in the open would be "redundant."

It is interesting to me that this article almost seems like more of a bio on the perp than an article on the event. It is interesting because Mandruss (and also Ian, the Admin -- you can find the related dispute where Ian weighs in on the admin complaint board) is trying to make the case that since this article is about an event and not a bio on an individual, Stephen's name should not be included in the open. There's a -lot- of illogical reasoning going on here for such a supposedly minor detail. I don't think it is a minor detail but Ian has said it was. Makes me wonder why there's been such fuss about it in the first place.

I support the previous commenter's ( ) assertion that there is way too much about the perp himself in this article. As either Ian or Mandruss has already pointed out (they're pretty much a united front in this issue and I forget which said it -- important bit is that one of them did) this is not a bio. Yet this article is mostly about the perp and not the event.

I will wait until tomorrow to revise the article again so that Mandruss (or any others) have time to weigh in. Know that for this issue to not be elevated further to Admin review, a good case needs to be made based on either a syntax/grammatical defense, a Wikipedia Terms of Use argument, or some other argument that shows how naming Stephen in the first paragraph would explicitly break a Wikipedia rule. Not wanting his name in the first paragraph for political reasons is not sufficient cause.

Finally, I would like to point out that if I do make another revision before a resolution is had, it's because Wiki told me to.

From Wikipedia Notices: "You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!" ;) AllSidesMatter (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss does not want this hero to be named in the opening paragraph because, according to him, Stephen's name is already mentioned in the body of the article and it would be redundant. - A misstatement of my rationale, clearly stated in this edit summary. The OP is free to disagree, but I don't think anybody but the perpetrator needs to be named in the lead. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidance on this either way, except the general WP:LEAD principle that lead should summarize body and minimize unnecessary details. OP believes, as seen in their statements elsewhere, that there is some nefarious agenda behind my position, and that is simply false and fails WP:AGF. If there is a consensus to include the name, I oppose anything about his NRA connection per Ianmacm's edit summary here. I'm not going to be involved in a long debate on either question; in fact this will likely be my last comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, if you are bowing out at this point without defending your revert based on rules or guidelines, then you'll have no reason to revert my edit when I add his name in the intro again. I've made a very strong case for why his name should appear there. I haven't seen anything in wiki rules stating a multi-editor consensus must be reached among editors not involved in the dispute. Of course I welcome others opinions and such but to uphold a revert you need to defend it. Saying his name doesn't add to the story is false -- if people hear that a lone gunman stopped a mass shooter, their first question is going to be "who?!". Adding his name in the intro is giving the readers pertinent information they will certainly want to know. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I will wait until tomorrow to revise the article again so that Mandruss (or any others) have time to weigh in. OP is advised that any article changes in this area without consensus in this thread will be seen as a continuation of the disruption that resulted in today's ANI complaint. I strongly suggest they don't do that, as they will be less likely to escape without a block the second time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I also did not mischaracterize your rationale. Your rationale, according to the edit log, is quote: "anyway this person is named in the body and his name is excessive detail for the lead - lead is summary/overview)". "This person is named in the body..." suggests your rationale is one of redundancy. As in, He's already named in the body, it would be redundant. Beyond that, naming the hero is not excessive detail. That's a silly argument. Like I mentioned above, the first question on anyone's mind when they hear a lone private citizen singlehandedly stopped a mass shooter, the first question on everyone's mind is "who?" Naming him is -just the right amount- of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"OP is advised that any article changes in this area without consensus in this thread will be seen as a continuation of the disruption that resulted in today's ANI complaint." the complain has already been resolved, there is no continuation. Interesting, you seem to be speaking on behalf of the admin here. Just because you don't like an edit doesn't mean it is disruptive editing. I am attempting to DISCUSS this issue with you to come to a consensus here, between us. You are electing, voluntarily, to refuse that discussion based on your statement "I'm not going to be involved in a long debate on either question; in fact this will likely be my last comment here." If you choose not to discuss this with me and reach a compromise, you will be seen as the party who caused the breakdown in communication. I will be seen as the one trying to follow the BOLD, Revert, Discuss guidelines because that is what I am doing. At this point, there is no disruptive editing going on and it won't be disruptive editing to go ahead with an edit that you've failed to appropriately revert. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy not to name the civilian in the lede. The perpetratorwas already outside the church when the civilian started shooting at him. It is unclear if the civilian saved any lives, but is clear that he helped end the life of the perp in a wild west use of an assault rifle. Perhaps some called him a hero, but that is not sourced, and he could also be termed a vigilante with an AR-15. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose him being named in the lead. I think it is unnecessary. We do not name police officers who shoot perpetrators, so why name civilians. Also, the name should not go in the lead until consensus is gained. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose naming him in the WP:LEAD because it is a summary of what happened, although I wouldn't argue about naming him later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No need for a mention in the lead. I also strongly oppose Willeford being listed as a defender in the infobox, he was clearly responding to the events of the church shooting. He should however be mentioned later in the article where appropriate.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yea, I also oppose him being mentioned in the info box. Wikipedia is not a place to glorify people. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose his name in the lead FTR, for the sake of anybody who doesn't care to read the wall-of-text. I'll also oppose his name in the infobox, per others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lead and infobox. The name of the civilian adds nothing to the understanding of the event. I would even support its removal from the article unless there is some follow-on ie covered court cases addressing his behavior etc which gives context to why this named individual in particular is relevant to the understanding of the event. Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lead and infobox. Nom said: Mandruss has not presented a sufficient case as to why Stephen should not be named in the opening paragraph - other way around, as a low-profile individual, per WP:BLP, the responsibility is on you to make a case for inclusion. I have no problem with a single mention in the text body, he certainly should be named. If there are sufficient number of sources that called him a hero, that might also be mentioned in context, like "Many sources later identified Stephen's actions as heroic", assuming it's a majority of sources including mainstream national. -- GreenC 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nom I already have made a solid case, you must not have read it. Also, Stephen is not low-profile. He made national headlines in all major news outlets. Tell me how that is low-profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

We are writing an encyclopedia article here, not a news story. The dispute occurred over naming him in the WP:LEAD, and the WP:CONSENSUS seems to be against naming him in the lead, but it would be OK later on in the text of the article. Please read WP:STICK, as we are moving in this direction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Noting that the OP has been indefinitely blocked for disruption, their access to their own user talk page has been revoked, and they have exhausted the appeal process. One can't be much more gone than this. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support First, just because an Editor has been "made gone" doesn't mean his suggestion(s) aren't/weren't meritorious, and second just because a handful of editors agreed in March 2018 (possibly whipped-up into fighting frenzy by extraneous conflicts with the now-banished Editor) does not mean the Titanic could not/should not reverse itself. For me, it has to do with the fusion of the connotations of the word "lede" with the word "narrative". I think the lede should give a rough outline of the story, and then flesh-out the details in the body of the Article. If I remember the Wikipedia guidelines on the Lede, it is supposed to "invite the Reader to continue reading". Bogging down the Lede with "technical details" while omitting the gross details is less inviting than the reverse, IMO. Not fighting with anyone over this; just offering my perspective FWIW.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the article: whether this is a white or black church. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't really relevant, as no reliable source has suggested that racism was a motive, unlike the Charleston church shooting. Most of the victims were white.[10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Several Minor Issues

1) In the Infobox, the "Weapon" field is crafted "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle (Ruger AR-556)". This appears backwards to people who are familiar with firearms. Technically the weapon was a "Ruger AR-556", and one would expect to see the "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" part mentioned parenthetically, as an informative afterthought to those that do not know this. The Wikipedia Article on the JFK Assassination formats it:

"Weapons 6.5×52mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle" with "bolt action rifle" being a class-describer, which is what "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" is.

The mass media puts a lot of effort into demonizing the supposedly controversial "assault rifles" and so that is why the class of the weapon ("AR-15 style...") is widely reported vs. the more precise technical name of the weapon. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not news. Meaning that the information should be presented as an encyclopedia would present it, and not necessarily exactly as it was reported by "reliable sources".

2) The Article states that Kelley had lost his right to purchase and/or possess weapons, but in the Shooting Section, it says:

"Two handguns were found in the vehicle: a Glock 9 mm and a Ruger .22-caliber, both of which Kelley had purchased."

I think the sentence should include the idea that those weapons were purchased illegally, for purpose of "internal consistency", to remind people of this "theme". Also the illegal nature of the purchases is very relevant to the whole story.

3) Investigation Section: As a Reader I'm interested in the nature of the "dispute with Kelley's mother-in-law". As a Reader, it feels very wrong, like there's a big huge hole titled "WHY?" that is not answered. If the information (or more information) is available, it should be included. The only source for Kelley's motivations is Law Enforcement, and given the highly-charged and political nature of the crime, and Law Enforcement's recent history with regard to "fake news" it's possible this information is false. If available, I'd like to see a non-Law Enforcement opinion (or report) on Kelly's motivation, particularly if it is inconsistent with Law Enforcement. The idea that someone would go from being angry with their Mother in Law to killing a whole church full of people seems highly suspicious to me. People that hate their Mother in Law kill their Mother in Law, and Law Enforcement may have some (political) motivation to obfuscate the truth. If corroborating or contradicting information exists, it should be included. If there is some connection between the Mother in Law and the Church, I'd like to know about that.

4) In the "Military service and violent behavior" Section, one sentence reads:

"In June 2012, Kelley escaped from Peak Behavioral Health Services but was soon apprehended ten miles away at a bus terminal in El Paso, Texas.".

One does not "escape" from a mental health hospital unless one has been involuntarily committed, and the Article does not mention this legal term. Instead it uses the word "admitted" which leaves open the possibility that he could have voluntarily admitted himself. If Kelley was involuntarily committed, the Article should say so, so that the word "escape" used later on makes sense. If Kelley voluntarily admitted himself, then the Article needs to either explain how his departure was an "escape", or dispense with the word. I also wonder if it's possible that his admission was initially voluntary, and then became "not voluntary" at some point. My primary point is that the idea of "admitted" needs to reconcile with the word "escape". HOW was he "admitted" and how did that admission later turn into an "escape"?

5) In the Ability to purchase and carry firearms Section, one sentence reads:

"The State of Texas denied his application for a license to carry a handgun, although a license is not required to purchase firearms under Texas state law."

My issues centers on the use of the word "although". It seems to be tying two very different ideas together, and the only reason I can see is expediency. "Open Carry" and "Firearms Purchase" are both separate and distinct topics under the larger umbrella term "Firearms Possession". One is about how you acquire a firearm, and the other is about how you carry a firearm, and the association between the two ideas seems forced, and uninformed. "Although" implies irony, where no irony exists, since the law only regulates the "open carry" of handguns. These are two very different topics, and very different issues, forced together in a single sentence, and held together only by the use of the word "although" which implies irony where no irony exists. The two ideas could be presented as separate, standalone facts by dropping the word "although", and splitting the single sentence into two separate sentences. It wouldn't be elegant, but it would be brief, factual, and much clearer. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

1) I think this is fixed now; 2) meh, main point communicated is that the guns weren't stolen. There is already enough discussion of his legal eligibility elsewhere in the article. 3) if RS for the info is available then sure, go for it. 4) I agree, clarification is needed. 5) I don't see irony, sentence seems ok to me. It just de-confuses that someone can be allowed to buy a gun without being allowed to carry it.

An issue I would add: lede says shooter killed 26 people "including an unborn baby", but of course whether fetuses are people is a polarizing political dispute in its own right. So I'd look for more neutral phrasing. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Statistics in the lead

@Bbb23: Seeing as how you immediately reverted the change, it might help if I point out what was problematic with previous wording. Kelley fatally shot 25 people, one of whom was pregnant. How do we correct that in the lead, given that it currently (incorrectly) says he fatally shot 26 people? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead says he shot "26 people (including an unborn baby)". The body says, "The dead comprised ten women, seven men, seven girls, one boy, and an unborn child." The infobox says, "27 (including the perpetrator and an unborn child)". All of those statements are consistent with each other, so I don't see how you can say the lead is "incorrect".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead says he shot 26 people. He didn't shoot 26 people, he shot 25. One of the 25 was pregnant, and the fetus ended up expiring when the mother's body no longer sustained it, but he didn't shoot the fetus. So it's incorrect for the lead to say he "shot 26 people." Is that more clear? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's clear now. I don't want to get into a debate about whether a fetus is a person, but the article has been treating the fetus as a person for quite a long time. If you believe the fetus should not be treated as a person, then the lead, the body, and the infobox need to be changed. You'd need a consensus, though, to make such a change.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are in a hurry today, and have not looked very closely at what the changes were. My edit kept the death toll at 27, both in the lead and the infobox. It did not try to change the status of the unborn child with regard to whether or not a fetus should be treated as a person; instead my version explained that 25 people were shot by the perpetrator, the perpetrator was shot by somebody else, and that 27 people died in total (including the perpetrator and an unborn child). Do you see that now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop loading your comments ("immediately reverted" and "perhaps you are in a hurry"). I didn't undo your changes because they were inaccurate. My edit summary was clear. They were wordy/awkward and unnecessary; what the article said before was accurate, clear, and consistent. You're more than welcome to try to obtain a consensus for your changes. And for the moment I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My comments were sincere and written from the perception that you haven't been investing much time in looking at the edits or what we've been discussing. If you're actually putting a lot of thought into this, my apologies. I won't make any more references to what I have perceived to be a rush to judgment here. Nonetheless, it's an indisputable fact that the article is incorrect and inaccurate when the very first sentence says the perpetrator shot 26 people. He shot 25 people. If he had actually shot the unborn child in the womb, then it would be accurate and correct to say that he shot 26 people. But he shot 25, and 27 people ended up dying in this mess. There has got to be a better way to phrase the text so that the lead stops being incorrect. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "indisputable". It's demeaning to those who dispute what you're saying. I've looked back at various wordings of the lead all the way back to March, and although they vary, all those I looked at say he shot 26 people. Nonetheless, I've tried to come up with a simple wording that accommodates your views without (a) being excessively wordy and (b) is consistent with the article as a whole, and have been unable to. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, as is the infobox, and that's precisely what it does as it is presently worded. We need to hear from other editors (Mitch's suggestion below is not a satisfactory resolution in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::::How about you word it as he shot "26 people/victims ~ according to Unborn Victims of Violence Act" ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC) & I respect Bb's view ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

For Mitch: Appreciate what you were trying to do there. Technically, the UVVA didn't apply in this case because the killings were state crimes as opposed to federal crimes, but Texas is one of 38 states that has it's own fetal homicide law that would have been used if the shooter had been taken alive (I'm an attorney in civilian life).

For Bbb23: If we corrected the number shot, we could add a sentence like "An unborn child of one of the victims brought the death toll to 27" at the end of the first paragraph and it would fix the problem. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

May - June sunday school teaching

As for his teaching it just had June 2014 which means he might have been thrown out after one day. He also wrote as an obvious inside joke that he was “enlightening” or “opening the minds” of the children. He was in fact asking children if they had dead relatives amd telling them heaven did not exist so they would never see them again. It was obvious his intention was infiltration and in bad faith.

Also, he was following tons of left wing things on facebook including left wing media and atheists who are openly politically left winf, Hardly far-right propaganda. wikipedia is such a misleading site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.32 (talk • contribs)

lol wut? Love of Corey (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding the names of the victims

Here is a request to include the names of the victims please. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Naming the perpetrator

I’m here to voice a concern that I don’t expect to be remedied. Many of those people commit atrocities like this for infamy. They realize that it’s the only way their names will be indelibly marked into history. I think that history should recall the events and forget the names of the perpetrators. From initial reports through to trial summaries through any and all written documents afterwards I believe the suspects names ought to be changed to numbers. This would take one of the motivations away and could possibly save lives. 174.247.209.91 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, and this wouldn't be the first time that someone proposed damnatio memoriae for a mass shooter. Wikipedia does not hide things that are widely available in reliable sourcing. To paraphrase Cicero, I would rather that people asked why a Wikipedia article did name a mass shooter, than ask why it did not. This type of ban could easily set off the Streisand effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Devin-Patrick-Kelley-driverlicense.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong information on non-reporting

It's known that the suspect was in the Air Force and yet the article says the Navy didn't report the suspects violent information for background checks. The Navy has nothing to do with the reporting of the violations this suspect had while in the Air Force. 47.185.77.48 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair point. I've fixed it now. While consultation on a talk page is no bad thing, you are welcome to go ahead and fix obvious mistakes like that yourself in future, if you want. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)