Talk:2019 Saugus High School shooting/Archive 1

Title issue
I just want to point out that there is a Saugus High School in Massachusetts. We should change the article's title to reflect what state this took place in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. We have not (yet?) had a shooting at another Saugus High School. TheHoax (talk)

"Berhow school shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Berhow school shooting. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable?
How does this event stack up against List of school shootings in the United States? There was a school shooting on August 30, 2019 that injured 10 people with no article. I know WP:OSE, but some in depth coverage is going to be needed other than the usual coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's one death, but it probably won't be enough; at least, it seems that way right now. Probably best to redirect to the school article once the furor dies down, like the Forest High School shooting. ansh. 666 18:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is gaining notability as it is gaining heavy coverage not to mention some foreign news picking it up: BBC and El Pais (with more likely to follow). Plus a student died with others under critical care. While yes school shootings are common (just shots fired and an injury here), students dying as a result are rare if not merits some notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Must we have this argument right this minute? Why can't we wait a day or two before having this discussion? Is a notability tag really helping build a great encyclopedia? --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in my opinion the decision to make this article was a bit rushed. Sadly school shootings in America have become routine coverage as shown by the linked list. As an encyclopedia we should try to avoid breaking news stories with unclear potential notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Any followup stories or side effects of that August one yet? If so, maybe it's time. If not, let's just see if this one is as forgotten in February. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is notable enough for an article now it's known that 2 of the victims were killed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two teenagers are killed and another is brain-damaged in all sorts of ways every day. Car crashes, suicide pacts, getting too high. Death is the end of being killed, but being shot by a minor for going to public school has a lasting impact on people who might one day be old enough to vote or legally drop out of public school. Nine survivors learned about "the problem" firsthand back in August, which is three times more than in today's school shooting. We're basically telling people who can still read Wikipedia that their life-changing experience isn't as important to learn from as it would be if any two schoolmates or staff happened to die, if we treat death as a measuring stick. Let significant secondary coverage guide you, not body count. Same as any other event, even non-violent. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think this shooting is notable enough to have an article? Jim Michael (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Too soon to tell. But coverage past this first spike will let us know, not more wounded dying. The fewer survivors, the less likely follow-up stories become, though we've kept briefer blips before. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Super-notable in view of comments that the perp. had been regarded a normal, likeable young person. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing remarkable about normal people. At least with antisocial bullied druggie bedwetters, catkillers or firestarters, we can expect interviews with talking heads about warning signs and preventative measures. Now that this mundane kid is dead, we won't even see legal proceedings. And unless the minor patients come forward willingly, confidentiality laws will slow the press from elaborating on them. Not looking good. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Content based on the comments of one person
The "Perpetrator" section includes this sentence: "One student said Berhow was a quiet, normal student who ran cross country and was a Boy Scout." Although there's a source, a description of "a quiet, normal student" by merely one person most certainly does not belong in an encylopedia article. Now if a number of people gave a similar description (all with good sources, of course), then it would warrant inclusion. I've read and heard other stories that said he did not act normal; that he was very troubled and people knew that by his behavior. That sentence should be removed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The same source also said “Neighbors and classmates described him as pleasant but noted that he was changed by the death of his father two years ago.” And a neighbor said “Though the teen was sometimes a little sad, next-door neighbor Jared Axen said he didn't come off as depressed.” It should be possible to confirm if he was a Boy Scout or ran cross country, and I will look for sources. Meanwhile, could you show us those sources that say he was very troubled and people know by his behavior? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The BSA itself has confirmed he was a Boy Scout. I will add the reference to the article. And here’s a second kid saying “quiet, normal student” and a reference for track and cross country. And a third kid saying he was a “good, quiet kid” and “seemed like one of those regular kids”. I’ll add this reference also. Thanks for calling this to my attention, it really did need better sourcing. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A simple google search does not seem to bring up any results mentioning the shooter as "troubled" or "disturbed"---but rather "quiet". I know that Inside Edition described him as "not fitting the typical description of a shooter" and backing up this claim by taking note that he had a girlfriend and was a "talented" athlete who did cross-country (even supplying video proof). See the Inside Edition video here. I'm interested to see if you could provide any sources to back up your claim that he was described as "troubled". —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Response Section
I think this page had a response section, but it was deleted from the page early on so I'm hesitant to add one. Most of the other school/mass shooting pages that I'm aware of have a response section to not drag it into the AFTERMATH SECTION. There have been responses by students covered in the Aftermath section, but others have made comments about the shooting such as politicians and anti/pro gun groups. If no one states objections I'll just add it.

To also add to it, there's the response of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) who was reportedly giving a speech about gun control on the Senate Floor when he was notified.

Leaky.Solar (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted the last attempt because two responses were backed by the candidates' self-serving tweets, and the properly-sourced one contained no response, just a Trump mention. If you can do better than that, don't worry about me. You easily can, I'd wager. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Photo Removal
The above photo was removed as per WP:BRD based on a claim it is not fair use because a free image is available.

The photo is a picture of the event which is the subject of the article in question. Contexual significance? It depicts an active crime scene which is central to the subject of the article and not just a photo of a building. Free equivalent available? Not without a time machine. The photo clearly states that is depicts abandoned backpacks and is an active crime scene. The photo even states what it contains. So I object to the claim it is not fair use. Show me a free equivalent of the active crime scene I can upload and use if there is a free replacement. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of the photo in the infobox. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ---  Coffee  and crumbs  08:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding crime scene details to the photo you provided would be WP:OR. The photo you have provided is not a photo of the active crime scene with abandoned backpacks and police tape.  Adding those sorts of details to this photo is clearly out of bounds and runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:RS.   The photo you have offered is not a WP:RS since it does not contain the details of a photo of the crime scene following the event.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not saying we should steal from Google. I am saying, since the photo does not show the actual crime scene on the actual date, it is replaceable. We can send a helicopter and take a photo and recreate the image. Just because it is difficult to recreate, it does not mean it is irreplaceable. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, what you just said was "We don't have a free replacement since we cannot steal from google" -- then why suggest a another non-free image from somewhere else? Flying over in a helicopter and taking our own photos then misrepresenting the image to be of the actual crime scene would most certainly be WP:OR.  So where does that leave us - free image is not available (your words) :-).  Octoberwoodland (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The photograph you want to add is not from yesterday. It is from Google Maps. A free image can be created to represent the location of the incident. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe you are this obtuse. It is a photo of a live crime scene, and is labeled as such.  It's a photo taken from a police helicopter.  Either admit you were wrong and improperly removed the image or tag the image at files for discussion, or I am going to reinstate it.  While it is reinstated I will tag the image at file for discussion.  You are not allowed to remove the image until the discussion concludes.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare the two and look at the cars in the parking lot. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I compared the two images and the cars along Centurian Way are different and in different locations. Sorry, but your statement is inaccurate.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please compare the Google Maps Image and the crime scene image .  You will note that in the Google Maps image the parking spaces next to the three trees off of Centurian Way are mostly empty, where in the crime scene image they are filled with vehicles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have tagged the photo in question for deletion since another photo has been located and placed in the article based on editor consensus. I have asked to go ahead and delete this image.  My position is still that this photo qualifies under fair use, however, if the consensus of editors is to use a different photo, then it makes no sense to keep this photo around. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question content and placement of Background section
This is a strange article, as the Background deals with efforts the school district has taken about training related to school shootings. I think this should come after content about the shooting, not before. It is not background to the shooting, but a separate account that describes what one school district has done to deal with this public threat. They were not able to prevent it. It sounds like an apologia to put it beforehand.Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)