Talk:2021 Atlanta spa shootings/Archive 1

Requested move 17 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. Thanks for the constructive discussion User:TomCat4680. The request is hereby considered withdrawn, as per WP:COMMONNAME Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Atlanta spa shootings → 2021 Metro Atlanta spa shootings – Acworth is a separate city.

Shouldn't the article title be 2021 Metro Atlanta spa shootings since one of them was in Acworth which is 30 miles from the city of Atlanta? The current title is like calling the article about a spree shooting's which had three locations "2021 Detroit shootings" because two were in Detroit proper but one of them was in Pontiac (~30 miles away too), not Detroit ; the proper title would be 2021 Metro Detroit shootings. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and boldy moved it. I'll update any links to it that I can find too. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BRD I have moved it back for discussion. The governing policy for article titles like this is WP:COMMONNAME which prefers pragmatism and find-ability over strictness. If you look at other articles, like 2017 Las Vegas shooting, even though technically it took place in Paradise, we don't call it "2017 Paradise shooting." We had the same issue with November 2015 Paris attacks vs Saint-Denis, when the attacks didn't really happen "in Paris." You're welcome to discuss it more, but over and over again, we have preferred the simpler and more straight forward name. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This situation is way different though. Acworth is a separate independent city and its 30 miles from Atlanta. Paradise isn't a city, it's an unincorporated town that borders Las Vegas but because it contains part of the Las Vegas Strip, it's (unofficially) called Las Vegas for simplicity. Add: Also the Las Vegas shooting wasn't a spree like Atlanta or Paris, it all happened in one place. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough that I thought you would be used to this naming convention. Look at the Paris bombings article. It "took place on Friday 13 November 2015 in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis." It is "located just north of Paris in the commune of Saint-Denis." link. Look at the article on D.C. sniper attacks where the vast majority were not in D.C. proper. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * People who live in Acworth don't say they live in Atlanta just like people who in live in Pontiac don't say they live in Detroit. The Las Vegas/Paradise name makes more sense though and I remember the DC sniper case and Paris shootings and that's what I always heard the news call them. I concede, keep it as is. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes the first shooting happened outside of Atlanta, but the next two shooting locations have an Atlanta address, right? So that would be similar to the Paris case where the first terrorist act was in Saint-Denis, outside of Paris, but the other incidents were within the Paris borders. Also, we go with what major news sources say, and the vast majority say "Atlanta spas" or "Atlanta shootings." Some do say "Atlanta area" or "metro Atlanta" but they are very much in the minority. The headlines and decks of the news articles use an unqualified "Atlanta." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I concede.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charges filed by whom?
The second paragraph states that investigating law enforcement agencies have charged the alleged perpetrator. I thought it would be the respective prosecuting or district attorneys who determine and file charges against defendants. Throgmo (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, updated. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No motive has been established
"While no motive has yet been established, the incidents took place in businesses that employed people of Asian background, amidst an increase in anti-Asian hate crimes nationwide.[4]"

Should be

"No motive has been established.[4]"

The rest is dubious speculation. There is a slew of angles of motivation here. We should not be jumping on the emotional bandwagon of even mentioning race until there is some certainty beyond the presumption of some factor of psychopathy. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is 20 minutes old: "Neither Cherokee County nor Atlanta investigators described a motive for any of the shootings.
 * There is also no confirmation that the shootings were racially motivated." (CNN) -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Atlanta spa shootings should be bolded
That's the name that most news orgs have given it. And bolding the name is done on every mass shooting page I can think of.

Media orgs universally refer to the whole incident as a "shooting" or "killing" at Atlanta spas:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/us/metro-atlanta-shootings/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/3-dead-shooting-georgia-massage-parlor-suspect-loose-n1261262

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/spa-killings-atlanta-cherokee/85-d8b55ae6-d3e5-44d2-975c-6334bcd27633

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/least-7-dead-following-shootings-3-spas-atlanta-area-police-say/KLS7FRQMANEXHMOM3RQFJA6EQM/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/16/atlanta-spa-shootings/

Examples of mass shooting wiki pages with bolded name at start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Muskogee_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Jasper0333 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's please not do that. It took time and perspective before those titles were adopted. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is not parallel to this. Leave the lead sentence factual and descriptive. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 02:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are also many, many, MANY other mass shooting articles that don't have the names bolded:


 * 2017 Las Vegas shooting
 * Orlando nightclub shooting
 * 2019 El Paso shooting
 * Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
 * University of Texas tower shooting
 * 2015 San Bernardino attack
 * 2009 Fort Hood shooting
 * 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting
 * Thousand Oaks shooting
 * Geneva County shootings
 * Santa Fe High School shooting


 * And those are just the examples I plucked out of Mass shootings in the United States. I know of many other examples too.


 * In addition, none of the sources that you provided gave a singular common name.


 * CNN: "shootings at 3 metro Atlanta spas".
 * NBC: "Atlanta-area massage parlors shootings".
 * 11Alive: "Spa killing spree [...] in metro Atlanta".
 * KIRO7: "shootings at 3 Atlanta-area spas".
 * Washington Post: "shootings at 3 metro Atlanta spas".


 * So, judging by these titles, there is a small plethora of potential title names: "metro Atlanta spa shootings", "Atlanta-area massage parlor shootings", "metro Atlanta spa killings", and "Atlanta-area spa shootings". Since the sources are conflicted over calling the locations "spas" or "massage parlors" and using the "metro Atlanta" or "Atlanta area" monikers (you even admit the whole incident is being called either "shooting" or killing"), that indicates that, no, there is NO single name for this Wikipedia article to pinpoint on.


 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, "some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." Until a name can be agreed on, it is best if there is no bolded name at all.


 * Love of Corey (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Should this article title have a date? I don't believe there has ever been another Atlanta spa shooting. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See this 2012 shooting. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. OK. That's heartbreaking. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See MOS:BOLDTITLE. It isn't compulsory to bold a title, particularly if there are various possible titles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pardon my interference, but Columbine High School massacre is bolded. Isn't it basically the same? --CoryGlee (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , no. See above for examples where the majority are not bolded, even ones that are much more well-known (ie. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, University of Texas, et al) - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Article title change?
Do we really need to have "2021" in the title? Are there other Atlanta spa shootings I forgot about? TomCat4680 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See this 2012 shooting. WWGB (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , as mentioned above, there have been sadly -  - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I skipped past that section. My mistake. That was one location though not three but close enough I guess. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevancy of Leticia James, et al
Leticia James has nothing to do with this incident. It is well out of her jurisdiction. It seems unnecessary her comment is included. Same goes for Ted Lieu, Andrew Yang, Judy Chu, the NYPD, and Seattle maybe less so because three of these are prominent Asian-Americans and this is a crime against Asian-Americans. Are we going to include comments from every prominent Asian-American?Yousef Raz (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I removed the other-state non-Asian commentators. WWGB (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the NYPD/Seattle part as they are consequential reactions (i.e. not just some guy saying something).  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  03:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Ted Lieu, Andrew Yang, Judy Chu are part of the top national political leadership in the Asian American community so their comments are most certainly relevant. Lieu and Chu are at the top of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, so they should all stay. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 03:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Leticia James was the one comment that stood out the most.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think being Asian-American is a definite marker of notability here, too, and even if we decide it is, then we're voluntarily skewing the range of responses to this incident based on individuals' races/ethnic backgrounds, in violation of WP:BALASP. I added a sourced reaction from LeBron James, widely considered one of, if not the greatest basketball player in history – certainly a notable figure. It was reverted, however, on the basis that he's not Asian-American or from Georgia. I'm kind of passive on his inclusion specifically, but that's a dangerous precedent for reverting and we should clear it up now while the article is in its infancy. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree re BALASP, but the bigger concern here is WP:POVPUSH as then a false narrative is created that only Asians are speaking out against the shooting which is not what is covered by the sources. The common sense approach here is to just judge relevancy based on the notability of the individual, where a higher bar is set for people who are not officials in Georgia. LeBron deserves inclusion as he's well known in the activist community, I've re-added albeit in summarised format as there's no need to quote him word-for-word.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  06:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is common in such articles that more and more condolences are added until they are dumped into Reactions to the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings. If someone just makes "so sad" and "be strong" comments, they add nothing to the article anyway. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That should be the basis for reverting, then, not because he isn't Asian-American. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , I would support the inclusion of LeBron James, as it is rather significant for him to specifically call it out. There have been stories of Black-Asian coalitions as of late, so that would be illustrative of that . - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 06:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with adding reactions from notable individuals - and James is certainly one of them. We don't want to just include Asian responses as we don't want to skewer perspective here, as is we don't want someone to think that only Asians commented or cared about the incident because of a lack of other reactions listed. Wether or not a comment should be kept should have to do with how relevant or notable the commenter is, and not necessarily because of their race. Doomhiker (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevancy of Race
All three sources prominently state the race of the victims in either the headline or the first few paragraphs of the article. Clearly they found it relevant enough to include, so I'm just basing it off of that. However, I don't think it's appropriate to say he was racially motivated (yet) until further investigation is concluded. ChipotleHater (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:ChipotleHater says the sources are mentioning the races of the victims “indicating that it’s relevant to the story”. That’s fine, which is why it’s in the body. The lead is a summary and this info does not seem notable enough at the current stage to warrant its inclusion. It’s basically just slapped in there like it has some sort of importance possibly used to insinuate the killers motive even though that is currently not the case. We should focus on adding what the police have said about it possibly being due to his sexual addiction and that it is not currently politically or racially motivated. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted something above, not sure if you saw it. I was basing it off of the fact that the three articles used as sources indicate the race either in the headline, the subheadline, or in the first paragraph of the article. We've already included later in the article that there's the (alleged) murderer has indicated this was not racially motivated. Should that be moved to the lead paragraph? Edit: I would also settle by adding a new sentence, something along the lines of "While the majority of the victims were Asian Americans, the suspect has indicated the mass shooting was not racially motivated." ChipotleHater (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was an edit conflict. I think that is a decent compromise. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds like textbook WP:SYNTHESIS to construe relevancy from passing mentions. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think at this moment the article is balanced between what media and activists are saying about the motive, and the perpetrator's own words. Neither the words of criminals or third parties are necessarily true, and after an investigation we will have an answer that vindicates one, or both, or neither. This makes me think of the 2015 Chapel Hill shooting, where a four-year FBI investigation couldn't find a hate crime motive to debunk the perp's words that he was pissed off over a parking space; however, most of that article is about the initial suspected motive. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The media and political establishment are advancing a racial narrative, law enforcement is denying this accords with the facts - though public pressure is sufficient for them to be unwilling to categorically deny it is possible. Given the undue weight the media are given the race angle, and the reliance editors have placed on media articles, this is headed for dangerous levels of propaganda IMHO. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM. Love of Corey (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't discuss the parlors' unproven sexual motivations in Long's Motive section
Not about them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It's definitely important if that's how Long found them in the first place. Love of Corey (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm walking away from this article, it seems libelous (at least borderline). Not your fault, news is influential. Take care! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay... Love of Corey (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I went back. "Significant backlash" is a terrible way to exaggerate a few mean tweets, after the kind of things the American public has seen lately. This guy's station wasn't even torched, nor was he killed by an imaginary fire extinguisher/pepper spray. I'm not blaming you. Don't know who overhyped it, don't care. Just telling y'all, I stepped in and broke it up. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be rooted in victim shaming, but we should reflect WP:WEIGHT too (I haven't surveyed enough sources to say either way)—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is relevant info. The fact that the suspect has stated that his motive is sex addiction, and allegedly wanted to eliminate temptation is relevant information, and shouldn't be removed because we find it "libelous". Part of being neutral is showing all perspectives, and that includes that of the suspect. Doomhiker (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The original question I took to be about the spas, not Long.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My error. Either way, the questions of the legality of the spa's services are currently relevant given the alleged motive of the suspect. Not libelous yet. Doomhiker (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Libelous" may have been too strong a word. But it's definitely fucked up. We have many articles on serial killers who killed women they reportedly thought were evil whores, and write nothing like "It is unknown whether the victims were in fact evil whores, but a magazine and politician say...". His motive, his opinion, columnists and councilors belong in Reactions. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, that we're even entertaining the presumptious notion for Asian female masseuses in particular is a huge part of the problem with American mainstream media. We're meant to reflect known facts, not widely-accepted prejudices. Reliable sources are notoriously reliable for speculating wrongly and predictably immediately after bad things happen, based on identity politics only. How many times have we started with "A witness heard 'Allahu Akbar', according to CNN" and ended on "The FBI has still found no evidence of a link to ISIS"? Or "The victims were mostly gay Latinos, so the obvious homophobic racist was probably covering up his own unclear homosexuality and fiery temper"? Or "The suspect said he couldn't breathe, but police, lawyers and medical examiners disputed this based on later evidence, leading magazines and politicians to suspect a racist motive"? Same shit, different pile. Stick to facts, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as we're carefully and strictly. adhering to what reliable sources have said about the businesses, we should be good. As little as possible should be said in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "According to Outlet X, a former roommate of Long's recalled Long claiming Y about the parlors" and not "The parlours were Y"). Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would also be beneficial to wait for the court mental health experts to examine him - he could be lying to cover a racist personality - far too early at this point.
 * You're absolutely . InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/17/jay-baker-bad-day/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/us/bad-day-captain-jay-baker-atlanta.html

https://news.yahoo.com/sheriffs-deputy-jay-bakers-press-065637111.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/georgia-sheriff-spokesman-jay-baker-posted-racist-covid-shirts-on-facebook

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sheriffs-captain-spa-shooter-not-racist-promoted-asian-racism_n_6052a6a1c5b6f93a1d041644

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/official-who-said-shooter-had-bad-day-shared-racist-shirt.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/atlanta-salon-shooting-stop-asian-hate-b1818846.html

Notable sources are picking up on the officers potential sympathy for the perp.★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it certainly merits at least a one sentence companion to this one: Captain Jay Baker of the Cherokee County Sheriff's Department has dismissed reports that Long's actions were racially motivated, instead stating that Long simply had a "really bad day". This would be an incomplete article if it ignored what WP:RS are saying in reaction to that comment. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had mentioned the shirt in the article but it was removed by User:WWGB.--Pokelova (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ... as it is utterly irrelevant to the shootings. WWGB (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to the backlash against Baker's statement.--Pokelova (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reactions to reactions is one step too tangential. Reactions to the Atlanta spa shootings are pertinent. React to Baker in Baker's article (or his department's or county's, wherever is the notable subject here). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is noted in coverage of the event, so I'd argue it's relevant. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I'd fold. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The police are an integral first hand part of the event. This is not a reaction to a reaction, police are 1st order participants and an outcome. If something is significant, it deserves mention. such as this. Albertaont (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's twice as reverberating. J.B.'s hushing due to the tweetstorm due to the response to a reporter's question about the shootings. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "He was criticized by some Twitter users for saying "really bad day"" seems vague and unnecessary. Anonymous "some Twitter users" have no weight that deserves mention in this article. Some Twitter users can be found criticizing every high profile news issue, and government's responses to those issues.  Even if the notable people that criticized the "really bad day" comment still don't to have the weight to appear in the article.   Sheriff Reynolds's response seems appropriately stated.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It could be significant if secondary reliable sources mention the tweets. As editors, we shouldn't do original research and search Twitter ourselves. We should apply WP:WEIGHT—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Info about protests
There are protests happening in response to this shooting. Should we include this in the article or make it a separate article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/protests-across-u-s-call-for-end-to-anti-asian-violence-11616273497 X-Editor (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good source. It's probably best to add a section to this article, and split if off as needed. For example Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting fits within that page, which at just under 140 bytes, is about 3x the size of this page. If the article or the section becomes too large, we can always split it off then. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do about adding the info. I'll probably do it tomorrow if no one does it by then. X-Editor (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I added some info. Improve on it if you want to. X-Editor (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Events should start with gun purchase, not shooting
Events should start with gun purchase, not shooting .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too logical. Let's wait to see if reliable sources explicitly confirm he wasn't sent from the future to stop these women from going to university and becoming robotics majors. After all, that could have been the motive, in a future we can't see. And yes, I'm being sarcastic. But seriously, go for it, and don't be surprised if someone else thinks you're being "too logical" and reverts. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why? I don't think this is extremely pertinent information that needs to go at the front of the "events" section, the line about it in the "arrest" section seems sufficient. Volteer1 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Chronology outweighs pertinence? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though giving it its own single-sentence subsection definitely seems to be giving a strange amount of prominence to a kind of boring and only mildly relevant detail. Volteer1 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I was encouraging an opening sentence or two, foresaw no subsection, definitely undue. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Only saw this now. I had already put a couple sentences about the purchase in the beginning. Unless the timing is pertinent, pages generally read better when they recite events chronologically, not when it was discovered.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine, it's only really the way it was before that was much of an issue. Volteer1 (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful to avoid synthesis. Flowing from Long bought a gun to there were shootings must not imply Long was the shooter as that is a matter for the courts. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He's already confessed, but besides, synthesis here would be the least of our worries – the article already states rather flatly in wikivoice that he's the shooter. Volteer1 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

3D model - Google Maps Directions: Woodstock, to Gun Buy, to Shootings, to Crisp arrest
Google Maps Directions: Woodstock, to Gun Buy, to Shootings, to Crisp arrest .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Directions from HopeQuest to the location of the first shooting: Terjen (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Unillustrated
This article is currently unillustrated apart from the map. Are there any public domain photos available to use? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Good question. Many similar articles have this problem, but it could only be fixed by someone local taking the photos themselves. A quick search didn't turn up anything useful.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. The businesses in question weren't notable in any significant way before the shootings, so people are unlikely to have taken photos of them under a free license. I did a quick image/video search as well and didn't find anything usable.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * After the 2011 Seal Beach shooting, someone went to the salon and took a photo of the floral tributes outside; this is the infobox image. I was thinking along the same lines here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a Photo requested template to the talk page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a photo of the subject handed out by the police, presumedly for public use.Terjen (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless it was produced by the FBI or some other federal agency, it's not in the public domain. Since it's local police taking the lead on the investigation, the photo's probably no good. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Patar knight, unless the image was produced by a federal agency it will not be in the public domain. Though the image is informative, we have to adhere to the guidelines for images being used. See . Jurisdicta (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm local and was planning to do it but it feels disrespectful to just park down there, walk over to the building and start taking phone pics. If no one does it first, I'll do it once the police tape is cleared. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The HopeQuest treatment facility is a candidate too. —Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * HopeQuest is conveniently just a minute away from Young's massage: Terjen (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Radical Rewrite Required?
According to the Wikipedia article no clear motive has been established, yet at the same time it notes Long stated it was a response to his addiction, whilst assorted advocates, commentators, and scholars are denying the possibility of it being inspired by addiction and instead insisting racism, misogyny, and hate crime. The motive section spends more time on discrediting Long's confession and proposing intersectionality than it does on the confession. Under reactions it lists the government support for Asian-Americans, a section on Anti-Asian Sentiments, Hate Crime debate, and a short paragraph on the backlash against police.

Here's the problem. Despite roughly half the article being focused on this being an anti-Asian crime there's zero evidence of this. The NYT has run 9 different pieces pushing the 'anti-Asian hate crime, fueled by white supremacy and/or misogyny' narrative, WaPo has run 16 different stories on how critical race theory interprets the events - plus one on the actual facts, plus another denouncing the reporting of law enforcement's facts, oh and NYT ran a CRT piece for good measure, so the media narrative supports the hate crime\intersectionality claim, but the actual facts don't. Note this is not original research but reported fact as opposed to article skew. Those who know Long deny any anti-Asian hatred or bigotry, and likewise the FBI is denying any evidence of a hate crime connection. So on the one hand we have the facts saying no signs of racial motivation, and on the other we have the media and political establishments screaming racial motivation. This is a major problem.

Based on the evidence it would appear this shooting is being hijacked to advance a claim that Asian-Americans are under siege by White bigots. Not only is that contrary to the facts, it is stupidly dangerous. Yes Asians are discriminated against in higher education - something that is legal according to SCOTUS, but they are far less likely to be victimised by Whites than non-Whites. I strongly advocate a radical rewrite so that this becomes a fact based article not an agenda driven article.人族 (talk)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/03/18/fbi-director-says-atlanta-shooting-does-not-appear-racially-motivated/?sh=6a5918c81a0d

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/when-the-narrative-replaces-the-news-9ea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is missing from the article that you think needs to be included? You say you're not providing original research, but then you say NYT and WaPo and all other reliable sources are wrong and actually white people never attack Asians! The sources you provide are a Forbes article that effectively is "here's what the FBI and cops said" and the blog of Andrew Sullivan, whose Wikipedia page will tell you he isn't an objective journalist, he's a hyper-partisan blogger. Both potential motives have been discussed at great length in the article, including discussion of Long's probable sex addiction and the statements by police. You need far more sources to discuss restructuring the entire article at this point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I read whites are "far less likely to" attack Asians. And the MSM isn't "wrong" but opinion-based and influenced by CRT. Weird how perception works. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To the extent that MSM bias exists, which is widely disputed, it's an unsolvable enigma for Wikipedia, which works within the scope of WP:RS. And yes, I was being a tad hyperbolic (something I've noticed you do, IH, more than anyone else I've seen on this website), but if you're seriously accepting the newest right-wing boogeyman, critical race theory, as a genuine worry as opposed to a vapid and arcane academic term, then you are accepting a ridiculous premise. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You explicitly put words in another person's mouth, just to knock them down. And again below. I would never. And I barely even know CRT exists. Repeating what I read, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We could add a section with Media Criticism under Reactions. Glenn Greenwald also criticized the racism framing of the media narrative. Terjen (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been a bunch of conservative pushback opinion pieces published, so definitely having that view somewhere appropriate in the article would be fine. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up. We don't have to make it ideological (not saying you did). Greenwald is usually considered more of a progressive, so skepticism is not a left-right issue. Terjen (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. Reliably sourced opinions are always welcome and should be given the appropriate weight. Greenwald's progressivism is from a non-American, anti-corporate, populist standpoint with a focus on foreign policy and national security issues, which has led him taking positions quite out of sync with mainstream progressivism lately, but I digress A piece on that if you're interested. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No one here is saying Long was definitely racially motivated in his shooting spree and the article should reflect as such. At worst, this article only points out the question raised by the public, regarding whether the shootings were a hate crime based on gender rather than race and should therefore be prosecuted as such. I'm alarmed that you think the article's taken a pretty clear position on a certain topic when all it's been doing is following the sources in the most neutral way possible, and I say this as an Asian-American myself. Love of Corey (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. No need for wild outside guesses to be thought of as "potential motives". Long's not dead, he's confessed and cooperating with police, like a stereotypical guilty Christian (speaking as one myself, it's cool). If it's a legit suspected hate crime, the FBI will add it to his charges. Till then, there shouldn't be a Motive section, just invites speculation from opinion pieces (whose writers aren't even named). Just a pararaph about the confession under Suspect, everybody else in Reactions. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It'll only be added to his charges if prosecutors think they have a reasonable prospect of conviction, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proving something as subjective as intent can be difficult, and since Long has apparently confessed to eight murders and an attempted murder, it probably won't have a meaningful impact on what the final sentence is. So even if there is a body of evidence, it might not be pursued for cynical/pragmatic reasons. I think this is where the problem with the OP's theory here lies. Commentators saying they believe this was a hate crime aren't saying they believe that the high evidentiary bar to convict Long of a hate crime exists based on what the public knows now. They're saying that given the demographics involved, deeper investigation will turn up additional evidence and/or the bias is something that would be difficult to prove in court. For example, if an anarcho-communist targeted somewhere stereotypically associated with Jews such as law firms where the named partners are all Jewish, and kills a bunch of Jews, and then claims that they were doing it not because of anti-Semitism, but because it was propaganda of the deed by killing rich capitalists, there would obviously be an avalanche of commentary in reliable sources arguing the opposite because of the longstanding Jewish stereotypes involved. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinions are stated as such and reflect WP:WEIGHT. We don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we wait for sources to do so (as needed).—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When has any of our current sources ever done that? They barely even correct their own old versions of articles when proven wrong. The New York Times is pretty relatively good for the latter. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

−
 * And if there's a clear divide between the MSM righting wrongs to use your terminology, and reporting of the facts elsewhere? Okay quick Duck for a result: https://www.fox19.com/2021/03/20/sources-feds-have-no-evidence-yet-ga-hate-crime-charge/  According to the piece federal statutes require prosecutors prove victims were targeted because of specific protected factors, typically relying on text messages, internet posts, or witnesses that show the defendant expressed racism etc. No such evidence has been uncovered to date. Despite the fact no evidence of anti-Asian bias presently exists, and that there is thus no possibility at present of prosecution for a hate crime (or should that be hate crimes?), this article primarily focuses on racism and hate crime issues. I realise this is a systemic bias issue, but is there any way to resolve it? Should the article perhaps be split between what actually happened i.e. the facts, and the conversations that have arisen despite the facts? Advocating solidarity with Asian-Americans for instance is a fine sentiment, but completely irrelevant as a response to a shooting of employees, and people around massage parlors. Similarly advocating Long be prosecuted for a hate crime is problematic. What hate crime is Long guilty of, apart from being White? If text messages, internet postings, or witnesses exist then prosecutors can and should charge this, but as it stands the lynch mob is well in advance of the evidence and it is prejudicing Wikipedia's content. 人族 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You say no witnesses claim this was a hate crime. I'm going to assume you then missed this quote from the article: "A Gold Spa employee who escaped from the store during the shooting stated that the shooter said that "I'm going to kill all Asians."". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Has that witness filed a hate crime complaint, or told social media something to that effect? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're giving this quote too much weight given its low prominence in mainstream RS.Terjen (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not American, doesn't mean it's not mainstream media. The Chosun Ilbo is one of the largest South Korean newspapers. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A kxan piece claims a Korean newspaper claims a witness reported Long as saying this. According to Google Translate the Korean piece also reports police advised local businesses to shut because of a possible hate crime, and that no motive has yet been confirmed. Given no other source for the claim, and that police seem to be saying no evidence of a hate crime, there's a lot to question about the piece. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it needs confirmation before being used as evidence IMHO. 人族 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it's not KXAN claiming that the Chosun Ilbo reported it, the Chosun Ilbo itself did report this, citing a local Atlanta Korean outlet. I think it's possible to reconcile your concerns with the eyewitness claim. The authorities did not (and still haven't) definitively given a motive and probably won't until they wrap up their investigation, and most of the information we know about motive comes from the shooter's mouth, so it's unclear if police have actually talked to all the witnesses yet. Given the language barrier has revealed that government officials and progressive news outlets specifically dedidcated to Asian-Americna issues apparently don't have the institutional capacity to get something as basic as Korean names right, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a few days before the authorities or American media deal with the veracity of the claim. Since it's a newspaper like the Chosun Ilbo and not some less-reputable outlet, I would lean towards inclusion as long as we don't say it in Wikipedia's voice. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not discrediting Korean media here, just noting that the quote has had little traction in RS media vs the widespread coverage you'd expect if it was highly credible and significant.Terjen (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I empathize with the sentiment of this, but the currently existing paragraph about speculation at the end of the "motive" section seems due to me, as long as it doesn't continue growing. In addition, it's also true that condemning notions of anti-Asian sentiment or speculating on hate crimes has been a major portion of the wider public's response to the shooting, so it deserves significant mention in the section on responses to the shooting. Even if you disagree that people should be doing this, it is noteworthy, encyclopedic information that for instance Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both called the shooting a hate crime. I think there's definitely the potential for this to balloon out of hand and become a problem of undue weight, but at present I don't see any grave issues. Volteer1 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My gravest challenge is that the Motive section is under Suspect, and none of these angry public types are or have any part of that suspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the statement by Nancy Wang Yuen could probably be moved. In general though, speculation about motives, *especially* by scholars, does deserve to receive a mention in the section about his motive. It’s relevant, noteworthy and due information about his motives. Volteer1 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? We don't know who these scholars are, we don't know their credentials, biases, or objectives. Without context what value do their opinions add? At most a summary with a stack of references would suffice - experts quoted by NYT, WaPo etc contend XYZ. 人族 (talk)
 * The only scholars whose takes are actually presented in the article text all have Wikipedia articles and the news sources quoting experts not named in the article give their credentials, so I'm not sure what additional context you're looking for. The whole point of using reliable sources is that they vet the experts they source, so unless you have evidence that they're horribly biased or have ulterior motives, I don't get this line of argumentation. What we currently have is a summary. If you look at the articles cited for scholarly analysis, there's a ton more experts with lots of stuff that's more in-depth that what's currently in the article.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This whole argument reeks of WP:POINT at this point (no pun intended). Love of Corey (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the article - "Advocates and scholars have speculated ..." Only when you check the AP link do you find out the advocates and scholars are an advocate for Asian and Asian American sex workers and allies, the founder of gun-control group Moms Demand Action, an organizer and advocate for sex worker rights, a sociology professor who studies the sex industry etc. This is not advocates and scholars as I understand it, but individuals directly involved in or closely associated with sex work by migrants etc. In short it's deceptive. 人族 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the information you pointed out should be added into the Wikipedia article for clarity's sake. That's not deception. It's just a work in progress. Love of Corey (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a solid WP:RS - Associated Press - summarizing what advocates and scholars say about the issue. No need for a stack of references to substantiate them. Terjen (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some parts don't mention him at all, just general information. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution might be something akin to Charleston_church_shooting, which gives the societal context of the racism at issue while the section on the perpetrator sticks to things that they are actually alleged to have said/done. Then just have a short summary of the broader racism theory somewhere with a link to the new section Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't too bad, though they're not exactly comparable events – Roof's white supremacist motivation is known, and is covered in wikivoice as a statement of fact. In my view, I think we should move down things like Nancy Wang Yuen's statement into a similar paragraph like the "context of racism" paragraph in Charleston church shooting article, but leave at least some scholarly speculation as to the currently unconfirmed motive in the motive section. Volteer1 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

How about referencing an article such as this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atlanta-shooting-white-supremacy-robert-aaron-long-sex-addiction ? As it stands the Wikipedia article feels skewed to me - yes YMMV. Noting that Democrats are rushing to blame "anti-Asian sentiment, and white supremacy" even as law enforcement state there is as yet no evidence of the shootings being racially motivated, would permit a wide range of claims to be extended since the facts demonstrate the claims are unsupported. Thoughts? 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We already cover the alternative perspectives brought up in the article, except the idea that they're in conflict. We could introduce that in a new section under Reactions. Or am I missing something? Terjen (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, where criticism exists of the hate crime/anti-Asian sentiment angle, it should be included in the article. Volteer1 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article reports Democrats criticised a Republican questioning whether a committee's attempts to prevent hate crimes and incidents would hamper free speech. There is however as yet no reference to criticism of Democrats for their rush to blame White supremacy and anti-Asian sentiment. Yes an informed reader can arrive at this conclusion but it is not stated by the article and anyone ignorant of American politics will miss it. My recommendation is a short insert between the Reactions heading and the Government subheading saying "Democrats rushed to to blame "White supremacy" and "racism" for the mass shooting despite law enforcement stating there is no evidence of a racial motivation." This would IMHO naturally lead into the following sections. It's an easy change but I'll propose it here rather than immediately doing it. If there's a major backlash over the next couple of hours, or folk scream it down, with valid reasoning, then I'll refrain. If nobody see's a problem then I'll do it. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * During the first few days after a mass shooting, the media often goes way over the top speculating about a motive, and this case is a good example. Most of the victims were Asian women, therefore the motive was anti-Asian racism. Perhaps, but maybe other factors were involved. Even though sources like the NYT are reliable, speculation about the motive is just that, and it takes time for an investigation to be completed. The article may look different once things have settled down.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a wise man once said about "Reporting mistakes" 95 months ago in Boston, "I agree. Maybe when the hoopla dies down, we should revisit this question." InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Scanning their edits, User:%E4%BA%BA%E6%97%8F clearly has a contrarian conservative axe they wish to grind, and it's quite unlikely any suggestions offered will actually please them. There's much more fun to be had in the disagreement than the solution. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:79EE:3B1E:C248:985D (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this whole discussion is a tanget and user has not made clear what is the edit they propose. Albertaont (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't judge a book by its cover subject header.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm going to recap my stance on this issue. Is the story as reflected in the vast majority of reliable sources being distorted by MSM/CRT/Dems/BLM/etc? Maybe! Who's to say? If so, is there anything we can reasonably do about it? No, because then we would be giving fringe sources and beliefs – broadly construed, those not echoed in the vast majority of research and reporting on the subject – undue weight. Our job is to relay to a fair extent the overall sentiment of the responses. And yes, that does include significant minority views – but all of them have to be verified by RSes. In my view, we can do more to balance the article, so long as many reliable sources exist portraying the events in a different context (which I personally am not sure of, but other editors aiming to include something they feel is missing are very much encouraged to search for and add). However, I do not believe the article is so wildly distorted that the proper vehicle for balancing it would be a "radical rewrite." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet we have the likes of the Fox news story linked above noting the Democrat rush to racialise the event when law enforcement deny any racial motivation, and acquaintances deny any racial grounds. This isn't being contrarian, this is simply highlighting bias. I have suggested one specific change above (Democrats rushed to to blame "White supremacy" and "racism" for the mass shooting despite law enforcement stating there is no evidence of a racial motivation.), which IMHO would put the reactions in context, and yet the response seems to be it's not clear what changes I propose. What level of specificity is desired? 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that Fox piece warrants inclusion or that there'd be anything particularly interesting to say about it, though others might disagree. I think this piece by Andrew Sullivan, written in both the New York Post and on his personal substack  (and also picked up by Fox News ) probably warrants inclusion though. Criticism of the supposed over-racialization of the event in the media seems to exist, so I think it should be discussed in the article. Volteer1 (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors have determined that the New York Post is not a reliable source, and many think with regard to political issues, Fox News isn't either. As for Substack, that's a self-published source. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * this is not a statement of fact, it is Andrew Sullivan's opinion. It can be used with attribution, especially given Sullivan's notability. Volteer1 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fox News piece about Democrats doesn't seem like it would be more than a one sentence thing like "Fox News criticized what it described as over-racialization..." The New York Post article is just an excerpt from his substack, which is self-published, and the one major editorial difference I was able to pick out from reading both is that the NYP just removed the reference to the Cholsun Ilbo claim about the shooter shooting about killing Asians, which was at least mentioned in the Substack, so not an improvement. Taking this into account, under a strict interpretation of WP:RSOPINION, using it might not be allowed since it could be construed as talking about other living people (Long, journalists, commentators). The better source is the Fox News one about Sullivan's article, which isn't just an excerpt and should probably be fine as long as we attribute it to Sullivan. There's other, non-selfpub sources like and presumably others available as well.,   Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:RSOPINION, if you stick to Sullivan's criticism of the media nebulously (or even specific outlets like the NYT or WaPo), rather than any of his specific opinions about the motives of Long or actions of specific journalists, it will be fine – though it would at least be worth citing Fox News as well. I agree that Reason piece would make a good inclusion: "The motive for the shooting, which left eight people dead, is still unclear, despite many in the media attributing it to anti-Asian racism." I think there's clear due weight for a paragraph at the end of the "commentary on anti-Asian sentiment" section regarding these criticisms, I'll probably go ahead and chuck them in a bit later. Volteer1 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

adultsearch.com

 * https://adultsearch.com/georgia/atlanta/erotic-massage-parlor/gold-spa/15937
 * https://adultsearch.com/georgia/atlanta/erotic-massage-parlor/the-aroma-therapy-spa/17698
 * https://adultsearch.com/georgia/acworth/erotic-massage-parlor/youngs-asian-massage/33696
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is WP:PRIMARY sourcing based on online reviews. It doesn't say much that is not known already, which is that the spas/massage parlors were allegedly offering sexual services for money.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Adultsearch is user submitted content and fails WP:RS anyway --LaserLegs (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:USERGENERATED, it's not a reliable source. It's also covered by the reliable source that's already in the article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I second what Patar knight stated, these are not reliable sources and seems to add little to the article except to suggest victim blaming. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Police captain "paraphrase"
The aricle currently reads that ... Captain Jay Baker of the Cherokee County Sheriff's Department paraphrased what Long told investigators about his motives .... Paraphrase is a strange word for Wikipedia to use. I don't think it's typical in other articles where a police spokesperson is expected to use their expertise and gathered information to summarize the situation—said and its equivalents are typically used instead. It seems that paraphrase was taken from a cited Reason article.

WP:RSP says that Reason is ok for news and facts but that Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. This article is tagged by Reason itself as "MEDIA CRITICISM". It's interpretting video, and seems to be analysis or an opinion piece. Not what we would trust for Wikipedia's voice. Frankly, I don't understand the article's premise either. For the record, Baker was responding to a reporter asking, "Did you get the sense that [the suspect] understood the gravity of what he did?"

I proprose removing paraphrase per WP:UNDUE, or at worst provide WP:INTEXT attribution that this is Reason wording.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I retired from Wikipedia yesterday, but can't let this slide. The current sentence isn't. 01:48 UTC, March 21. The captain is relaying the gist of what the suspect said; not his opinion, and not verbatim. "[O]r giving the meaning in another form", as Merriam-Webster puts it. Single common English words are not quotes, no attribution needed. Unless you're "trying" to make arbitrary "things" look "dubious", and this pervasive "habit" is partly why I retired. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reason or not, do we use paraphrase anywhere else on Wikipedia in this context? If it just used said or the like, would we otherwise think the captain is merely improvising? Would we think it's the suspect's words verbatim? For the record, added paraphrased (without the currect citation) before I removed it and you added it back.  Not sure if you or anyone else introduced it even before then.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Ruby, Rodney King and Zodiac Killer, among others. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm torn between genuinely wanting to escape this virtual reality, and genuinely wondering whether you mean "current" or "correct" by "currect". Not even kidding. See also Larry Davis (born 1966). Prosecutors and reporters, close enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * currect How AGFy are you feeling today? LOL. So "paraphrase" use is rare and not non-existent. Said or wrote seems more appropriate in each case.—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just called for my missing cat and at least four wolves called from the two spots I figured he'd be. My last three living ancestors are all dying of brain diseases. And now you're trying to convince me I'm crazy for thinking paraphrase is a regular word, that two regular people who had the same thought independently must have gotten it from a unreliable source that wasn't even there. FFS is my current faith. Can you agree to say "Baker said Long said..."? Or "Baker said police said Long said..."? I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The cat is fine! But the wolves are now missing. The elders remain somewhere in between. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the term Paraphrase is a condensed way to correct and clarify the context of the "bad day" statement, now that the full video is available with the statement in context, saving us from a "Baker said the investigators said that Long said..." per MOS:SAID. An alternative is a more detailed explanation, possibly attributed to Reason. Terjen (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think we should say it's a paraphrase without attributing it to the Reason opinion piece it's based on when other reliable sources haven't framed it that way. Would it be better if we provide the transcript, similar to how Snopes covered it?
 * Reporter: “Sheriff, did you have a sense that he understood the gravity of what he did?” Baker: “When I spoke with investigators, they interviewed him this morning, and they got that impression that, yes, he understood the gravity of it, and he was pretty much fed up and had been at the end of his rope, and yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.”
 * It doesn't seem like a paraphrase of what Long said to the investigators, Baker's telling the reporter what the investigators' impression of Long was after talking to him. So the investigators' impression as given by Baker does track the public outrage that police thought Long was having a "really bad day". At the very best, investigators paraphrased what Long told them and Baker just phrased his answer poorly so it portrayed the investigators as more empathetic towards Long than they actually were. The fact remains that Baker said what he said and that led to outrage covered by reliable sources. Though if that was what investigators said their impression of Long was, Baker might've gotten the short end of the stick here. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Baker is an investigator, so we're clear. Not chopped liver, either. Captain. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that's relevant. Baker's clearly not speaking about what he learned after talking to himself. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully plead no contest, you're right about what matters here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Though in fairness, strictly literally, yes, it's a paraphrase of a paraphrase. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe technically, but saying Baker was just paraphrasing Long elides the plain English meaning of Baker's words, which is that he was relaying the impression of Long held by the investigators. Maybe he misspoke, but Baker said those words and got backlash for it. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reason isn't alone in questioning the framing of the Baker quote, it is criticized among notable journalists, like Glenn Greenwald and Kenneth P. Vogel of the New York Times. Unsurprisingly, Fox News has a piece on "Vox reporter's misleading framing", saying "Mainstream and liberal journalists criticized for Rupar omitting the context of Baker describing Long's wording." Even Aaron Rupar - the Vox journalist under scrutiny for the out-of-context clip - acknowledges that "The cop was paraphrasing the shooter's rationale in his own words, not quoting him." Terjen (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I see it was originally 's word, 21 minutes earlier. Bagumba reverted, removing Long entirely. Good job, T! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not remove "Long entirely" Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The shooter", close enough. And I meant from the chain of information we described, not the literal words we used. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reason is considered a reliable source. As with all sources, we should separate facts from mere opinion; Reason has an obvious political bias but that's not an issue here. Reason originally reported on 3/18 that "Police have also expressed what seems like sympathy for the shooter's sexy-women-made-me-do-it defense, with Cherokee County Sheriff's Office Captain Jay Baker saying at a press conference yesterday that..." followed by the quote. Practically, their article on the media getting the quote wrong is a retraction/correction of their previous reporting. Terjen (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

We could say that Reason, Fox, et al. said he was paraphrasing. Wikipedia voice should just write what the captain said, either via quotes or summarized based on reliable sources. If context is missing about what he said before, add that too. Some of the criticism is that the captain was making the suspect into a sympathetic figure, whether they were his words or not. So Wikipedia's own voice shouldn't use paraphrase here, but can attribute that counterargument to its sources.—Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So now several editors, several sources, several Wikipedia articles and the writer who started the tweetstorm have all used the common English word. It's nothing to do with opinion, counterargument or politics. It's a verb that precisely and concisely describes what Baker did. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with you here. I really don't see an issue with the word "paraphrase", so long as it's accurate, which it seems that it is. If the concern is over whether or not the cops were telling the truth, then say he said he was paraphrasing the suspect. Done. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If an inedible hulk and alleged human can agree about the simplest things, nobody can't. Everything else, though, that's debatable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Day spa" versus "massage parlor"
Every source I have seen uses the term "massage parlors". I never saw the term "day spa" until I came to Wikipedia. What should we be using here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If "day spa" is intended as a WP:EUPHEMISM to dispel the seedy, spidery connotations Hollywood has (allegedly, figuratively and remotely) planted in our heads about "parlors", I say just call it like you see it. But we needn't must rely on RS for choice of synonym. Just the facts, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The businesses have been fairly widely described in RS as "spas"; just take a look at the headlines in the references section. Evidently the "day" in day spa is just to distinguish them from destination spas. I never knew there was such a distinction either, but it does seem to be the accurate term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pretty confusing distinction. Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Even "massage parlor" is a euphemism although most people know what it means. I'd never come across the term "day spa" either before this shooting. The wikilinked article Day spa isn't very helpful, because it doesn't suggest that the term implies offering sexual services.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Me neither. All of this is pretty new territory to me. Love of Corey (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh. According to Massage parlor, it wasn't Hollywood's idea. Still did nothing to stop it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have to speculate or allude to that these businesses offered commercial sex. It is sufficient for motive to document that Long equated the parlors to sex. Terjen (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the incorrect topic to post this...? Love of Corey (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it addresses the concern about euphemisms: We don't have to use a term that alludes to these businesses offering commercial sex. Terjen (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just proves the now-apparent rule, advertise "parlor", expect a certain segment to think sexy or unsexy thoughts. You ever see a health club bill itself a "den"? Same effect, different product. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed the infobox says the target was spas and massage parlors, suggesting there is a real difference. Not saying there is, not saying there isn't. Just food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Seeing that for the first time, I thought it was just a compromise that was reached by consensus on here. Seems like it's not, now that I look at it. Love of Corey (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The places have legally operated for years without any recent arrests for "massages". NPOV would be to call these "spas" (disambiguated as "day spas" i.e. no hot springs) that are suspected of being massage parlors.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The targets are named Young's Asian Massage, Gold Massage Spa and Aromatherapy Spa, so they are not just spas, "massage" gets a rub too. WWGB (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Spas do massages too. Having "massage" in its name doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a spa. Not that massage parlors all offer illegal services, it's just that massage parlor can also be a euphemism for a sex shop, so it's ambiguous.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

why？
2021 Atlanta spa shootingsThe third paragraph of the article：Although Long has not been charged with a hate crime as part of the ongoing investigation, some commentators have characterized the shootings as a hate crime, noting the backdrop of rising anti-Asian sentiment in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021 Boulder shooting,The suspect is a Muslim and an anti-Trump Democratic supporter. Why can't it be stated in the main text of Wikipedia? Why do you ignore such important information?——209.150.148.39 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your point?
 * Because so far "Muslim" and "anti-Trump" are both irrelevant to the shooting. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think this shooting has nothing to do with religion and race, then I also think 2021 Atlanta spa shootings has nothing to do with hatred of Asians, so this paragraph should be deleted.The two shootings should be treated equally, not double standards.——209.150.148.39 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard is WP:WEIGHT. If you have a problem with Boulder page, take it up there. This is not an WP:ALLORNOTHING game.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WWGB,If the 2021 Boulder shooting has nothing to do with religion or anti-Trump, is the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings related to the hatred of Asians?It's not related either!Why write in the third paragraph of 2021 Atlanta spa shootings a view that may involve discrimination and hatred of Asians?——209.150.148.39 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WWGBYou cannot double standards.——209.150.148.39 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to decide whether race is relevant to these shootings, that would be original research. We reflect what is published by reliable sources, and it's clear they consider race important here. Whether or not reliable sources consider the race of the shooter or the victims noteworthy in the 2021 Boulder shooting is an issue you should instead bring up at the talk page over there. Volteer1 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP has posted the same comment with the same inane title at the Boulder shooting article. Honestly, I don't think we need to engage with the drive-by outrage of an IP editor --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation
"members of the public" are not notable and I've removed this content from an already outsized reactions section. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Public views can be notable, but there's no indication how this debunked claim is significant and not just a news blip.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just a fake facebook post that got a modicum of attention on social media, agree that it's not at all noteworthy. Volteer1 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue with last sentence of "Motive"
I think the last sentence of the "Motive" section is not particularly supported by evidence.

The sentence: "Multiple experts have stated that race cannot be ruled out as a motive because Asian women are fetishized in American society."

The article that the sentence links to, Asian fetish does not confirm the existence of a widespread or habitual fetishization of Asian Americans in American society. There is very little quantitative information cited in the article or in the sources linked to support the sentence's claim. The so called "multiple experts", which I'm pretty sure is also an issue in its own right although I can't find the specific WP essay for it, are not actually sociology or psychology experts but columnists for op-ed sections of news sources that tend to lean left. I think this sentence is not adequately supported by fact to justify its sweeping claim.

Any opinions on deletion or revising this sentence? Shotgunscoop (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Another problem with that sentence is that most anti-Asian sentiment isn't fetish-related. The sentence should end after motive. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most All of the Asian victims were also women. Are you saying the sources don't support this, or just that you dont agree with their premise?—Bagumba (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources support that most of the victims were Asian women, but the article already clearly states that so it doesn't need to be restated in this sentence. There are conflicting reports about whether or not the victims were targeted because of their ethnicity &/or gender. Jim Michael (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The last sentence, which the OP wrote about, says mult. experts think the shooter could have been targeting Asian women because of the stereotype, not necessarily the "I hate all Asians (including males)" perception of Asian hate. It doesn't say the motive is definitive. It doesn't restate anything.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources cited do echo the sentiment that "race cannot be ruled out as a motive because Asian women are fetishized in American society", but certainly not that "multiple experts" have stated it. The second and third source do not cite any experts that claim that statement to be true. The first claims that, in a general sense: experts and activists said it was nearly impossible to divorce race from the discourse — regardless of whether Long will be charged with a hate crime — given the historical fetishization of Asian women, which has made them uniquely susceptible to sexual and physical violence. They've cited two experts here, the second is a historian talking solely about the history of Asian women in the US, and the first is a professor of ethnic studies who said "Killing Asian American women to eliminate a man's temptation speaks to the history of the objectification of Asian and Asian American women" and that "Saying that this violence is not racially motivated is part of a related history of the denial of racism in the Asian American experience", which I mean I guess is somewhat close to the statement it's sourcing, though i'm not sure how being a professor of ethnic studies makes one an expert in criminology (could I cite a physicist as an expert on a criminal's motive?).


 * This sentiment in general seems to exist and is plausibly due, but we do not have a source for the "multiple experts" qualifier (we have one, dubiously), and we'd also need to tie the explanation to "historical fetishization" or something along those lines instead. Volteer1 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The excerpt that you presented refers to "experts" (plural), which is the same as "multiple experts", or we could also just remove "multiple" from the article. Some might worry about WP:WEASEL, but its ok if an RS made the assessment about "experts": Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Are you implying that an ethnic studies prof wouldn't be involved with crime issues against a given ethnic group? Like a physics prof?—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on your point about tying the explanation to 'historical fetishization' or something along those lines instead. It's a bit unclear to me. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To have no qualifier and just say "experts say x" seems an even worse thing to state in wikivoice, as it makes it sound like all or at least most "experts" consider it to be true, which... I'm not even sure what that would entail. Here are some more sources though, with more named scholars/experts/professors/whatever else:  . I think if we add/swap out some sources the statement is basically fine, actually. The "historical" thing is a very minor point – the sources seemed to describe things in the historical context of fetishization, though I'm not sure how much that matters. Volteer1 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The major points on the "historical context" are the Page Act of 1875, already mentioned under "Anti-Asian sentiment", and GIs in the sex trade during American occupation in various 20th century wars in Asia. Seems we have motive interspersed at the "Motive", "Anti-Asian sentiment" and "Hate crime debate" sections. At some point I might figure out how to improve the organization along with adding one sentence on GI history.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Waiting period
I've restored info of gun purchase waiting periods here with additional sources. It meets WP:WEIGHT, and most non-Americans not familiar w/ U.S. gun laws, nor would some U.S. non-gun owners.—Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. Gun advocates frequently bring up how many shootings are committed with illegally obtained firearms. We want to avoid implications that the gun shop did something wrong for those unfamiliar with the state of gun laws in Georgia/US, so we should make it clear that the gun shop didn't break any laws here. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to be helpful context for the section on gun reform anyway now. Volteer1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section and content seem like very useful information. Love of Corey (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The current Gun Reform section includes the claim that "It is easier to buy a gun here than it is to vote" but this sounds a bit hyperbolic. We could at least include an alternative viewpoint, like. Terjen (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hate crime debate
Both Andrew Sullivan and Elizabeth Nolan Brown are right wing commentators with no actual connection to the events or to public policy. Their comments were published in WP:NEWSOPED which fails WP:RS, on top of that both Fox and New York Post are not considered WP:RSP reliable for politics, and reasons opinion pages are also identified as biased. I've removed their statements from the article. If the article is overweight with comments from other activists who are not WP:RELEVANT then trim it down, don't pile on more turning the thing into a WP:SOAPBOX --LaserLegs (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the hate crime debate section is overweight, it's 4 paragraphs long. Please read WP:RSOPINION, neither of these articles are used to source statements of facts, but statements of opinion. I also don't know why you think those authors being "right wing" means they shouldn't be included in the article, I don't think this should be a factor (though it's not obvious that Elizabeth and her ilk would fit neatly into that categorisation at all). Without this section, it's not really much of a debate, and it would give off the impression that literally (or effectively) everyone agrees that this shooting was a hate crime, which is not true, and would not be adhering to WP:DUE. --Volteer1 (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Their being "right wing" has nothing to do with it other than being a fact. Their comments don't belong in the article because they're not WP:RELEVANT ... just the angry nonsense from people who were neither there nor are able to affect change. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is about whether Long's actions constitute a hate crime (and also what it should mean if they do), that paragraph is just the other side of the "debate". Andrew Sullivan saying something to the effect of "I don't think we have reason to believe it's a hate crime" isn't going to "affect change" or change policy, but that's not why it's relevant – it's just the other side of the "debate". --Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If this article is going to reference the pro-hate crime arguments when no hate crime has been proven yet, we're going to need opposing views to balance out the article a little. Love of Corey (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't a "debate" though just some talking heads who don't like the facts. The President calling it a hate crime is relevant. If law enforcement calls it a hate crime it's relevant. Talking heads from LOL "reason" magazine are not relevant they're just selling more fake outrage. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just "the facts" that his actions constitute a hate crime, what do you mean? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 anti-Asian violence rallies
Page watchers are invited to help improve 2021 anti-Asian violence rallies. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up! Love of Corey (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME
Recommend removal of name per WP:BLPNAME as the person is only notable for this one instance. Can be revisited later if necessary, but this is too recent to override BLPNAME at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That policy only applies "when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations". Neither of those are the case here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you may also note that its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories - meaning news media using the name does not give us permission to use it as well. We err on the side of privacy, not on the side of WP:RECENTISM which we are explicitly not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is general consensus here for including the name of perpetrator. Whether or not victims will be included is still under discussion above. We can see if anyone else agrees and wants to establish a new consensus. WikiVirus<u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 00:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No BLPNAME vio. BLPCRIME may apply, but in cases like this precedent has been for careful inclusion (eg Kenosha unrest shooting); I initially made the same point in that case. Inclusion is likely fine here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , when the death of the person was only a couple weeks ago, why do you say BLPNAME doesn't apply, when BLP applies for an "indeterminate time" after death? I agree that it may be okay in this article, but until clear consensus is formed for inclusion and the method of inclusion, it should be removed per BLPNAME on the erring on the side of caution. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of BLPNAME is generally to omit the names of non-notable individuals who may be mentioned in RS as related to a notable event. It can range from mundane cases such as being the child of a BLP to more serious cases like being a relative of a criminal. For an example, the name of the wife of Derek Chauvin was omitted and revdelled when editors tried to include it last year; reliable sources had talked about it. It's generally an application of 'do no harm'.
 * It's not really pertinent in this case, as the suspect is obviously notable in their own right with significant involvement in this event. WP:BLPCRIME is more pertinent, as inclusion of the name in connection to a shooting generally suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. But traditionally the community has favoured inclusion of names when applied to certain high-profile shootings where there's also video evidence and next to no doubt the person did the action, instead choosing to be careful not to explicitly say that person actually committed a crime (these are two distinct things). From my view personally, I'm generally undecided on how good of an idea it is and (in principle) think it's a slippery slope for Wikipedians to start deciding when to include names and when not to, but what I describe previously tends to be the consensus on these matters. Accordingly, I think inclusion of the name is not a BLP violation, at least. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm more than willing to accept this on this article (and others), but it needs to be discussed prior. BLPNAME is a policy, and overriding said policy requires a clear wide consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would it have to be discussed at length beforehand? These breaking news events on major stories are constantly evolving. No one has the time to discuss the inclusion or non-inclusion of something as important and integral to the story as a perpetrator/suspect's name. Love of Corey (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we are an encyclopedia. You may wish to read WP:RECENTISM - because you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. We are not a news ticker. We are not a breaking news source. We are an encyclopedia. A name adds virtually nothing in most cases, thus why BLPNAME presumes privacy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is very WP:POINTy. I point out this article as an example of the contrary over at Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol attack, and now you go over after it. There's a vast plethora of sources covering this guy's name, and we can't ignore it. Love of Corey (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to all that this user has now removed all references to the suspect's name from the article several times, citing BLP concerns, as this discussion is ongoing. The suspect's name is well-cited; crying "BLP" when removing abundantly sourced information is unacceptable behavior. The debate is not over whether or not the information is true; it's over whether or not it should be included. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it most certainly should. There's no denying that. Love of Corey (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You may notice that BLPNAME says specifically that being sourced to news articles is not enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Or maybe not - please see WP:BLPNAME in its entirety - because it explicitly says that news mentions are not enough to override privacy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to be careful not to truncate the sentence. What it's saying is WP:SCHOLARSHIP is preferable to brief appearance of names in news stories. It's not saying that (substantial) news coverage is insufficient. Indeed, that interpretation would mean that we can't include any names in relation to events until the events get covered in a journal article, which would be a very confusing conclusion. FWIW I don't think this concern is WP:POINTY; indeed, raised BLP concerns of this sort should be taken seriously. But I also don't think you should reinstate your edit given there's disagreement on it. You could link to this discussion on the BLP noticeboard for more uninvolved eyes and input, if you wish? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is likely better - I accept that maybe my literal reading of BLPNAME is not in line with community consensus/precedent - but in that case, I think it needs to be resolved. I will consider the BLP noticeboard or the talkpage of WP:BLP if the ANI results in a failure to accept the literal reading as consensus. Thank you User:ProcrastinatingReader for being a voice of reason instead of reverting me instantly and calling me a vandal for attempting to apply policy as written. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An ANI discussion is supposed to result in a potential punishment for me, not any sort of consensus over a policy definition. :P Love of Corey (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If a person has been formally charged with murder, and the mainstream media has reported it widely, eg in the New York Times here, it isn't really achieving much by hiding the name. WP:BLP is primarily about removing poorly sourced material, or material lacking NPOV.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a lot of situations where it is just plain known who has done it, and in this case he admitted to his actions to police and has been arrested and charged. If he was arrested and denied doing it, it wouldn't be as straight forward. At the first spa he visited, the husband of one of the victims was found hiding in a room and was detained and held for four hours. Including his name as being potential involved with thie shooting before we knew who the real shooter was, would have been serious WP:BLP violation. I don't think his name was released until after the shooters was, so it wasn't an issue that we had to worry about. His name was in article along with his wife recently, but has since been removed as victims names is still under discussion. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Racial demographics of parlos
In the discussion of whether this was a hate crime or not, it is important to state the racial distribution of the employees working in these parlors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:13F0:8110:9C89:E415:DD14:7634 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What did Robert Long's parents say about why they kicked him out?
It does not seem like parents would kick out their kid just because of a sex addiction. What did his parents say that he did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.27.159 (talk • contribs)
 * His parents were Christian; his father was a pastor. What more reason would they need? WWGB (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding what this talk page does. If you have a source answering your own question, by all means drop it here and someone will try to add in that material to the article. But we don't know any more than what's represented on the page itself. This sounds more like a question for the reference desk. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:murder
Should this article be categorised as murder? WWGB (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another editor persists in adding Category:Murder to this article. This is not appropriate, as there has been no judicial finding of murder against the accused. Calling it murder is a breach of WP:BLPCRIME. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see it either way. I'm fine with it being left out, but article is about the shooting not the suspect, so is saying a murder occurred by categorizing it that way the same as saying the suspect did it? I'm not sure the scope of the category, it seems to include crime articles, biographies of those murdered and bios of murders. Using it to categorize the crime is one thing, but the accused is where it becomes iffy, hence thinking to just leave it out. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 00:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We should err on the side of caution. As WWGB notes, it is not a murder until a gavel pounds. If the category were "homicides" or something less rigid, I wouldn't really have an issue with it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPCRIME is about the person and not the event. Categorizing this as a murder is not only appropriate and accurate as there is no reasonable indicator or point of contention that was anything other than a murder. Eight people were killed in different locations with a firearm.  Also there is precedent for something that is obviously a murder to be categorized as a murder, identified as a murder in the article, or the title states it is a murder while one or all of the suspects are alive; some examples from 2020 Pop Smoke, 2020 boogaloo killings, Thomas Jefferson Byrd, Junseok Chae, Roy Den Hollander, Death of Maria Fuertes, Killing of Vanessa Guillén, Murder of Ee Lee.  Additionally Nicole Brown Simpson cause of death in the article is "Murder by stabbing and slashing".  If the suspect was labeled a murderer then BLP would apply, if there is serious debate about whether or not there is legal justification for a death then not labeling something a murder makes sense.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To be considered murder, a slaying requires malice aforethought. If, for example, Long is found not guilty be reason of insanity, then the deaths remain homicides, just as they are now. The fact that some other articles are (incorrectly) categorised as murder while a trial is pending is just an WP:OSE argument and has no bearing here. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There does not a need the malice aforethought, that is a specific type of a legally defined murder. This isn't law journal, it is an encyclopedia.  Long himself is not a factor, it hasn't been proven in court that he did this therefor labeling him a murderer would be incorrect as per BLP.  Eight people were shot and killed.  That's murder and there no serious debate about it not being murder.  If no one is ever convicted of this murder, it is still a murder.Yousef Raz (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Murder is legally defined; murder is an unlawful killing. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree this is far too pedantic. Clearly a murder occurred Gumsaint (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As I've said for previous articles, murder should not be used in the absence of a court conviction.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If a court rules this a justifiable homicide (unlikely, but justice is blind), then we'd have egg on our face. Judgments like "murder" are for, well, a judge. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In certain incidents, including this incident, the is no reasonable expectation that this incident will be justifiable. There is no one disputing whether or not these people were murdered.  If there was a contentious debate about whether or not someone was murdered then I would agree that categorizing that incident as murder would be incorrect.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with the editors who are attempting to explain to Yousef Raz that Wikipedia isn't the place to be the first to redefine things. There's a reason that medical examiners, even if it's well known that one person killed another, will not list "murder" as the cause of death - at most it'll be listed as homicide, but even that requires very strict criteria involving the legal process to be met. Wikipedia is not the place to redefine murder to be "anything you don't like". I'm also not convinced at all that that would be the best category to add on this page even if/when someone is convicted of murder, because there's already a more specific category applied - Category:Mass shootings in Georgia (U.S. state) - and that category tree (which is non-diffusing) should be added upwards as appropriate. "Murder" (or any category of it) is less specific than "mass shooting". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Without a doubt, we should refrain from calling this a "murder" in any way possible until a murder conviction has been secured, per WP:BLPCRIME. Love of Corey (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Victims list
I created a victim's list for the shootings, but WWGB deleted it with the following comment, "The inclusion of non-notable victim names requires consensus on the talk page" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are not in the business of categorizing victims as "notable" and "non-notable" and deleting those who are deemed "non-notable." Almost every wiki article on mass shootings includes the names of victims, even if they are not famous. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting page includes the names of elementary school children. Please state a good reason why an encyclopedia article should not list the names of victims of an important mass shooting. 146.151.116.40 (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a reason why not to revert the deletion: WP:BRD. Let's wait for more people to chime in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant decision is at Village pump (policy)/Archive 138, in particular, "consensus that these scenarios [inclusion of victim names] should be handled on a case-by-case basis". There is,as yet, no consensus here to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I created a list of victims without names (names are commented out). Are there any problems with this?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC) <li style="display: inline-table;"> </li>

<li style="display: inline-table;"> </li>

Voting
I'm a longstanding opponent of victim lists per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL; they rarely add anything of value. Some articles have them, but others do not. This is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. In particular, the table above looks clunky and a bit tasteless. Plain text saying that six of the victims were Asian American women is enough.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As sources available, Age will be added and four "Asian" will be replaced with "Korean".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is dehumanizing to reduce victims to numbers, gender, and race. I also think it is dehumanizing to simply refer to them as "Asian women" or "white women" in the article, especially when other wiki articles on mass shootings include the names of victims. The four names I included in the original list are well-covered by the mainstream media and include biographies: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56433181, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/these-are-the-victims-of-the-atlanta-spa-shootings.html. The other four names have not been released, possibly due to privacy or legal reasons. In sum, my position is to include the names of people who are openly covered by the media/police if there are no objections to including that individual name, and to not include names that are being withheld or if there is a dispute (a family member wanting privacy, an unreliable source, etc.). I believe that this is more in line with the village pump policy, where members opposed a blanket ban on all names and preferred a case-by-case situation.146.151.116.40 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The gender, ethnicity and place of death of the deceased is already reported in prose at 2021 Atlanta spa shootings. The table really adds nothing. WWGB (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This debate occurs after every mass shooting, and long-standing consensus requires us to determine whether to include or exclude a victim list on the talk page. I personally prefer including the victims names on the grounds that the victims are an essential part of any shooting and that news media will always cover them in the context of the shooting. I also don't think NOTMEMORIAL applies, as the policy merely requires that articles on deceased people meet notability requirements; it does not prohibit adding verifiable content to existing articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Knowing the victims' names doesn't help readers to understand the article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean we include a lot of information that is not absolutely essential to understanding the article. Case in point, for most biographies we could probably exclude the early life section and still cover everything significant about the individual. We include this stuff not because it is necessary to understand, but because it is necessary to get a complete article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A bio is about the subject's life, not only their career - so of course it should include their early years. This article is about a shooting spree; the victims didn;t play an active role. Jim Michael (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire reason this article exists is because the victims were murdered. I don't understand how the victims did not play an active role. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being shot isn't actively doing something. The reason for the article's existence is the actions of the killer being notable. Jim Michael (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Support names, ages and hometowns, Oppose ugly table. This goes for every similar case, case-by-case, eternally. I'm not here to argue or clarify it, just count me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This is crass. These are people who lived full, vibrant lives, only for those to be crossed out by a hateful, deranged person, and we reward that behavior with, what, a video game high score chart? Get as many boxes as you can? This is a pathetic thing to fight for, and surely feels incredibly insensitive to our readers, who we should put first and foremost. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Support names and ages of victims that are widely publicized. It is common practice to list the names of victims from tragedies to recognize them, such as the 9/11 and Vietnam War memorials. It's very rare to not list names of victims in major tragedies on wiki, and the problem of not doing so is that it makes the shooter the face of the article, along with Jeremy Lin, Joe Biden, and other people who are named. It is not fair that white people are named when they are victims, but Asian people are just "Asian people." 146.151.116.40 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most WP articles about incidents in which people were killed do not include the victims' names. Jim Michael (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Victim names do not enhance the understanding of our readers. The victims were not notable in life, and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The significant information on the victims is their gender, workplace and ethnicity, as these may have been factors in their targeting. That information is already well-covered in the prose of the Victims section. Victim names (and tables) serve to clutter the article without benefit to the reader. WWGB (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. We should summarize, not compile primary data. Terjen (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Support. I agree with everything that User:Spirit of Eagle stated above. The victims are, indeed, an integral "part of the story". And, as User:Spirit of Eagle also stated, there is no requirement that information is included only if "it is absolutely essential to allow readers to understand the article". I don't necessarily think we need a table ... but I don't oppose one. I think the victim info should be included in some specificity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, note that there is a difference between "victims" and "deaths". I believe that this incident had nine victims, and eight deaths.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Support. I agree that victims are an important part of the story. The oppose arguments are making general statements that are not specific to this article. If we were to ban victim names from this article on the basis that they do not enhance understanding of the event, then we would have to delete them from other mass shootings: Orlando nightclub shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia Tech shooting. Also, how do we define "essential to understanding the story"? The article includes very detailed coverage of the event - the name of the spas, the shooter's vehicle type, the type of maneuver police used to stop the shooter's vehicle, the type of weapon used (9mm), etc. Randdavit (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Support The names and victims (especially their sex and race) are what make this event very notable. It should be laid out in a clear table format, not obfuscated. Albertaont (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion. No WP policy prevents us from adding the information, and it is all verifiable and sourcable. I don't think anything about this specific incident warrants exclusion. Despite the usual arguments saying it is the case, I do not believe a list of names of people killed in an article about their shooting can be seen as a "memorial" or as a "scoreboard". Their names are information just like the rest of the content in the article. Putting the names in article as prose or table both are fine with me, not a fan of the sidebar lists. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 13:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support provided the information is verifiable - per Albertaont. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Plenty of RSes covering the victims named so far (e.g., , ) so a brief summary on Wikipedia would be warranted similar to Quebec_City_mosque_shooting or Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting. Table is ugly and probably shouldn't be used. Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Question
The table above has been evolving and changing, as this discussion has progressed. Just to be clear, are we proposing that the table appear as it does now (with no victim names) ... or individual names would be included? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * seeing that consensus seems to be developing around displaying the names, but not as in the table above, i've looked through how they are generally displayed in other mass shootings, and decided to try using a box to the side, as seen in sandy hook, columbine, and san ysidro, amongst (sadly) many others.
 * the proposal here is largely based on the sandy hook example, with the use of plainlist within quote box, but uses bullets instead of underlining to avoid appearing to give extra weight to the location of death. i did not use the sidebar template, as seen in virginia tech, as it does not display in mobile view.  the victims are ordered first by shooting location and second as in the nytimes source, with the injured placed at the end.  ideally, i would have ordered them chronologically by the time of first injury, but i do not believe that information is currently publicly available.
 * note that virginia tech did not include a list of 23 injured in its sidebox, while sandy hook did list the 2 injured. also, texas tower did not use a sidebox but instead used a large table that included additional details about how the victims were attacked, while san ysidro does use a sidebox while also going into extensive detail about the attack in the main body of the article.
 * in the event this sidebox (or something similar) is approved by consensus, i don't mind if another editor adds it to the article; in fact, i'd prefer that, in order to avoid the appearance of a supervote. dying (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [name of injured removed. dying (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)]
 * I said I wasn't here to clarify, but to clarify, what I said earlier always only applies to the dead; living people might or might not want the extra publicity to deal with so soon after narrowly avoiding death. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * i wasn't sure whether the injured should have been included in the box, but my proposal included it since articles in the past seemed to have done so if the list of injured was not significantly long, and i figured that posting a mockup of the more complicated version would be more useful. i was admittedly more focused on presentation of content rather than the content itself, since the former appeared to be more in contention than the latter.  however,  makes a good point, so i have removed the name of the injured above.  i've also provided an alternative box that omits listing the injured party.
 * by the way, i give explicit permission for other editors to edit the proposals, so doing so will not violate wp:tpo. dying (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that "consensus seems to be developing around displaying the names". A quick count of !votes (I know, that's not the methodology) suggests 9 support and 7 oppose. That looks more like "no consensus" to me. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 138, a consensus is required to prohibit a victims list on the basis of NOTMEMORIAL. The general consensus on that discussion page was to oppose a universal ban on victims list (provided that the names are supported by reliable sources) and to only enact a ban when there is consensus for such a move. Consequently, you violated terms when you deleted my original list with the names without gaining a consensus.146.151.116.40 (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice try IP. When you have been here longer, you will realise that Wikipedia operates on consensus to include, not consensus to remove. Sorry if you feel violated. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to respect policies and guidelines. Wikipedia makes an exception in this case to protect users (on the basis of wp:NOTCENSORED and WP:CREEP). The consensus statement at Village pump (policy)/Archive 138 specifically states, "There is a consensus against enacting this proposal, and consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis."  Therefore, consensus is against enacting a universal ban on victims list, and that any ban should be done case-by-case.  You had to first secure consensus on a ban for this individual case before deleting my original list.146.151.116.40 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We may need to restart this whole process because you misrepresented the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 138 when you stated above, "'consensus that these scenarios [inclusion of victim names] should be handled on a case-by-case basis'. There is,as yet, no consensus here to include victim names." The scenario is not "inclusion of victim names" but "ban of victim lists." You also failed to state the sentence before that, which was that consensus statement is against enacting universal bans.  Most of the arguments opposing the list for this article are repeating universal arguments (e.g. that these lists are like kill counts, victims are not active participants) which were rejected by consensus to protect users.  We need to restart process so that voters are not influenced by your misrepresentation, understand that victims list are protected by wikipedia in general, and that any case for its ban has to specifically address this case (what makes Atlanta shootings extraordinary compared to other mass shootings to warrant such a ban?).146.151.116.40 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, we do need to respect policies and guidelines. The policy at WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (my emphasis added. So, we await consensus to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's where you miscalculate, my friend. Your motley crews pushed too far and turned the tables in a wrong way, as the honourable Jumpin' Jeff Farmer put it. Layman's terms, we're the "new normal" now, ban our consensus if you can. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What consensus would that be? If there's a community-wide consensus that supersedes Village pump (policy)/Archive 138, which concluded that consensus is that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, please link to that more recent community-wide consensus. Otherwise, that still applies and we follow WP:VNOTSUFF (While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.). In other words, has it right. For an example of such a discussion that resulted in the names not being included, see Talk:2019 Dayton shooting/Archive 1. If, on the other hand, you mean that there is a consensus in this discussion (i.e. Talk:2021 Atlanta spa shootings) that the names should be included, you may of course list this discussion at WP:RFCC for an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus and close the discussion. Per WP:ONUS, we need consensus to include disputed content—omitting it is the default. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't explain any more clearly than 146.151.116.40 already did. You can try reading it again. Or you can continue interpreting whatever you want, however you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I second the gentleperson from Numberton's motion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is right, including victim names and brief details of their life and how they unfortunately became connected to the shooting is SOP for similar shooting articles on Wikipedia. Given the relatively low number of fatalities, there's no reason why a succinct prose section can't capture that without impeding the readability of the article as a whole (e.g. Quebec_City_mosque_shooting, Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting, Waddell_Buddhist_temple_shooting). Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If "including victim names ... is SOP for similar shooting articles" then where are the victim names in 2021 Muskogee shooting, Don Carter Lanes shooting, Rochester shooting, Milwaukee brewery shooting, Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, Aurora, Illinois shooting, 2019 Virginia Beach shooting, 2019 El Paso shooting, 2019 Dayton shooting, 2019 Río Piedras shooting etc? Perhaps inclusion is determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than relying on WP:OTHERSTUFF. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't similar shooting articles though. Except for the 2019 El Paso shooting and Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, those shootings don't involve the ideological targeting of a certain group. El Paso, involved 23 dead and 23 injured, for a total victim count of 46 versus 9 here. Obviously the considerations for including victim names are different when there are so many victims that including all of with biographical context would take up an excessive amount of space for an encyclopedia article and including just the names would be akin to an actual memorial. The Pensacola article doesn't have names, but does have ages. The best comparisons are between other ideological attacks with similar casualty counts. Casualty counts do not include perpetrator and in all cases, if there were multiple crime scenes, the location of the victims was specified: Based on I would definitely include ages and names of the dead, but wouldn't name the injured person (unless they later die). I think the prose that's in the section right now, with some slight expansion once more sources are available is fine. I think the box/table are way too tacky and not necessary given the relatively low number of victims. In this case, naming the victims has also taken on an increased significance in the news coverage because of how the shootings have been perceived in the Asian-American community, which isn't the case for most of the articles you listed. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Charleston church shooting (9 dead, 1 wounded, 10 casualties) => bulleted list of dead with name, age, medium-length bios; injured not named
 * Quebec City mosque shooting (6 dead, 5 wounded, 11 casualties) => dead are in prose with name, age, occupations, and anonymized nationalities; injured not named or mentioned
 * Wisconsin Sikh_temple shooting (8 dead, 3 wounded, 11 casualties) => dead are in prose with name, age, and some roles in the gurdwara; injured only lists a responding officer who saved lives
 * 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers (5 dead, 11 wounded, 16 casualties) => dead are in bulleted list with name, age, short bio; injured not named but employers given in prose
 * Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (11 dead, 6 wounded, 17 casualties) => dead are in bulleted list with names, ages; injured police officers mentioned but not named
 * 2014 Isla Vista killings (6 dead, 14 wounded, 20 casualties) => dead are given in prose form with names, age, and relationship to killer; injured mentioned by not named
 * École Polytechnique massacre (15 dead, 14 wounded, 29 casualties) => bulleted list of dead with name, age, short bio; injured not named
 * Also, in this case, age is pretty important, since based on the facts of the case and the suspect's self-professed motivation, the stereotypical expected age of the victims would be quite young, when that's plainly not the case. We should at least provide that detail to readers. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Voting continued

 * Oppose names and oppose table/list. The names of people none of us had heard of before the shootings do not add anything to the readers' understanding of the topic, which would be the shootings themselves. These are all WP:LOWPROFILE individuals for whom privacy concerns are strong, even in death. Lists of victims further impede the readability of the article and detract from the visual appeal by taking up a large amount of visual space. I also agree with that it comes off as a scoreboard, which is a pretty bad look for Wikipedia. Prose is a way better way to summarize the necessary information. In summary, I agree with  and . TompaDompa (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per and . Love of Corey (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: I prefer the small "infoboxes" listed on the right, as opposed to the table/chart llsted at the top of this question's section.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting this is the second support !vote in this section by the same editor. WWGB (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A few extra support votes is in no way evidence of any widespread problem with the fairness of our great system. Every vote counts. Deal with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Mine wasn't so much a "vote" as it was an additional comment. Since these types of "votes" do not simply "add up" the supports and the opposes ... I assumed that the closing admin would read my comment for its substance.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: There is no tragedy without victims. It is within the public interest that they be documented. I refuse to set an email (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: As I've said in prior community-wide discussions, when there is a small number of differently situated victims (killed at different places, in a sequences of attacks) and when their identities (here as employees of the targeted businesses, as people of Asian descent, as women) are relevant to understanding the killing, its sequence, its motives, and its impact, naming names is appropriate and allows readers to make informed evaluations of commentary on the event. For these reasons, short lists of victims in anything other than completely random shootings are informative and encyclopedic. It's also oddly dehumanizing to refer to a small set of victims only by characteristics while a perpetrator of violence is described by name.


 * Separate and apart from this discussion, editors should immediately feel free to name individuals in the text rather than anonymizing them throughout.--Carwil (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be doing the same thing that's the subject of this dispute - naming the victims. Most of the editors (including me) who've stated that the article shouldn't have a list of names of the victims also don't want any of the victims named anywhere in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose these lists of victims that crop up add little value and are tacky. WP:NOTMEMORIAL I think applies here. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder what you are insinuating by "these lists". It is mind-bogglingly callous that one would consider a list of the dead, on a page about the shooting in which they were killed, to be "tacky". Radio Adept (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Lists of victims, especially fatalities, are common for Wikipedia pages on shootings (see above lists) and add encyclopedic value for readers. Radio Adept (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe victims are actors and should be included if they are verifiable. ParallaxVision222 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:Consistency with similar mass shootings as well as below regarding Onus. At this point, Support outnumber Oppose anyways. Albertaont (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * support. i was originally neutral on the matter, and my sidebox suggestion above was only offered as an alternative if there was consensus for inclusion, since it seemed that the table originally suggested had not been ideal.  (thank you for the proposal in any case, .)  however, after looking through the history and talk pages of the articles linked in WWGB's comment above regarding wp:otherstuff, i've changed my mind regarding this specific shooting.  i wrote a massive wall of text regarding my reasoning, but have decided against posting it.  if further input is necessary, it may be better to start an rfc than to subject everyone to my ramblings.
 * also, with respect to the 2021 Boulder shooting resulted in strong consensus for inclusion, with the given reasons for inclusion also applicable to this shooting.  for those of you still undecided but interested in reviewing similar cases, this list may be helpful.  dying (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: As been mentioned by others, including a list of victims is done regularly and so long as the list only reports what has been made public, then it should be included in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It should be included if the list is authenticated. Sea Ane (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar about onus
I'd like everybody to take the time to read through Village pump (policy)/Archive 138. There is some misinformation circulating that the inclusion of victims' names requires consensus, but the guidelines actually state that a blanket prohibition of a victims' list is not acceptable, and that any such ban on a specific article requires consensus. Therefore, we are debating whether the 2021 Atlanta spa shooting is an exceptional case that renders such a ban necessary. Other articles on shootings may not include lists, but the guidelines protect them from a ban if one were to include a list now unless a consensus to enact a ban on that specific article is formed beforehand. Seeing that we have not reached a consensus on placing a special ban on this article, and that such a consensus may have never existed in the first place, we should restore the list very soon. Next time somebody wants to delete the list, they should follow the guidelines and form a consensus first. 146.151.116.40 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you not understand the Wikipedia policy WP:ONUS, in particular, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."? That means an editor seeking to ADD disputed content (in this case, victim names) requires consensus to include it. There is no such thing as "consensus to delete". Your statements about alleged "misinformation" are not helping your position. WWGB (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not helping you appreciate our colleague's position. Most of us see how it is more clearly now. Keep it up, new kid! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * On what ground are you disputing the content? WP:ONUS is so open-ended and should not be abused like this. You brought up Village pump (policy)/Archive 138 and several of us discussed this point at length with you, and most people question your dispute. WP:Consensus states, "Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." Rather than brush my concerns about your actions away, you should engage it and explain why you are still disputing the content even though I pointed out that Village pump (policy)/Archive 138 actually protects lists and requires a consensus to ban it within a specific article.146.151.116.40 (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, by shifting the basis of your dispute from Village pump (policy)/Archive 138 to WP:ONUS, you are now justifying your dispute because you have the right to dispute.146.151.116.40 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You continue to misunderstand or misrepresent the decision at the Village Pump. The proposal was to "prohibit listing individual victims of tragedies". That proposal was lost. What that means is that there is no blanket ban on victim names. It does NOT mean that Wikipedia "requires a consensus to ban". As the closing admin pointed out, "scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis." If you don't believe me, go and ask him yourself. The Village Pump decision did not change anything, it was a lost proposal and reiterated the need for case-by-case consensus. As always, the policy WP:ONUS applies. I will write it again: "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That means, irrefutably, if an editor wants to include content, and it is disputed, that editor must gain consensus for inclusion. If you don't believe that either, go and ask an admin to explain it. WWGB (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When you've been here as long as we combined have, you'll get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I even need help talking down to you, December's child. But still. Together, we're stronger, sorry if you feel violated. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * by shifting the basis of your dispute ... to WP:ONUS, you are now justifying your dispute because you have the right to dispute: Anyone can raise a dispute. However, the presumption is that an idea only makes sense if it gains consensus. One (or a few) opposes does not necessarily derail consensus. Still, the onus is on you to establish consensus for your changes.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Requested closure for this here as it has been over a month. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 23:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: This discussion has migrated from a much-repeated content debate over lists of victims, into a practice not independently justified of anonymizing all victims of a crime. This would be a a dubious leap in any case, since it's an expansion of an instruction that has failed to generate consensus on repeated attempts, but it is even more problematic in this particular case. I reiterate the reasons I cited above for including names in a list as reason to include them in the narrative itself, if there is no list: "when there is a small number of differently situated victims (killed at different places, in a sequences of attacks) and when their identities (here as employees of the targeted businesses, as people of Asian descent, as women) are relevant to understanding the killing, its sequence, its motives, and its impact, naming names is appropriate and allows readers to make informed evaluations of commentary on the event."--Carwil (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Husband of one of the Victims
The name of a victim and her husband was included in the article for a brief period of time. It has been removed as victim name is still under discussion, and even if we decide to include the deceased victims' names, we would need to discuss whether to include the husbands name or not. I personally don't think it is needed. He was detained for a few hours and the mention of that is barely needed, but his name itself is definitely not needed. I wanted to have a separate discussion from the above one, as hopefully that can get closed separate from this. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs discussed at all. Even if the victims names are included (which seems likely), they are only being included because 1) they're presumably dead now which means BLP1E doesn't apply (BIO1E doesn't apply to dead people and would prevent naming), and 2) they're independently verifiable and the names/information about them adds something to this article. Wikipedia isn't a family tree, and thus unless the family members are independently useful to the understanding of the events here, they shouldn't be included no matter how verifiable they are. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see zero rebuttal to the policies that the opposing editors cite, and quite a few !votes from people supporting because they think it should be included. In fact, I count at least 5 oppose !votes that blatantly admit their vote is contrary to What Wikipedia is Not - and should thus be discounted fully. There's also a very good argument given for why the names, even if verifiable, do not enhance reader understanding of the event, whereas the closest !vote by a supporter to actually explaining why it would be encyclopedic is that of User:Carwil, but they then undermine that very argument because this was, at its core, a "completely random shooting" - the shooter was going to shoot anyone at the places at the time, and he was not targeting a specific person whose name is necessary to understand. As such, were I to close this discussion now, I'd do so as no consensus given that while the supports outweigh the opposes, the opposes have a clear policy basis for exclusion (not being an indiscriminate collection of non-encyclopedic information) that was well articulated, and that was not countered by more than a couple support !votes - many of which can also be discounted completely as clearly in violation of policy. Keep in mind that in these cases, other stuff existing doesn't mean it's right to make more "shit" - the correct response to indiscriminate and potentially unencyclopedic lists of names that are not clearly adding any value to the article is to remove those lists - not to make more work for later on. We are seeing this same sort of thing happen with police who lay in state after their deaths at the Capitol - there have been articles on them for years now, and it's just now, after the attention brought to them because of the recent occurrence, that they are being rightfully nominated for AfD and deleted as not notable individuals (WP:BIO1E). That's a tangent, but I include it to illustrate to the person who eventually closes this that it is completely valid to discount all !votes based on "well other articles do it" which don't also clearly state for what reason the information is encyclopedic and specific names are necessary. Just my thoughts since I hadn't seen this whole discussion until now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 link
I saw that you restored the link to COVID-19, the disease, in the later "Government" section. I had previously removed it per MOS:REPEATLINK, as links to COVID-19 pandemic were already in the lead and body. As this is a mass shooting article and not a scientific page, my feeling is that the distinction between the pandemic and the disease is moot to most readers. For reference, the link in question is at ... which would allow the U.S. Justice Department to review hate crimes related to COVID-19 and establish an online database What is your perspective?—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Atlanta spa mass shooting
May i suggest that u put as motive claimed sex addiction. Thanx Monkeylady999 (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a motive, it's something that Long said to investigators. It would be up to the investigators to determine the motive.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"a label used by some for those that cannot control their sexual urges as expected by purity culture"
This is an odd gloss on "sex addiction", considering the article on the subject. The link and the gloss do not belong side by side. Something needs to be re-worded. 98.143.69.226 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Then can we change the motive from under investigation 2 sex addiction since according 2 the news hate crime against Asian-Americans was ruled out? Monkeylady999 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time, and more the opposite. BD2412 T 07:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 Atlanta spa shootings → Atlanta spa shootings – per WP:NOYEAR. This is the only notable spa shooting in Atlanta history. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There was also a spa shooting in Atlanta in 2012 . Although it does not have a WP article, we should disambiguate the 2021 shooting in the title for clarity. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Same as WWGB.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Same as WWGB. Eccekevin (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1997 Otherside Lounge bombing
In 1997, a lesbian bar adjacent to the Gold Massage Spa was attacked in the Otherside Lounge bombing. The article for the Otherside Lounge bombing mentions the Gold Massage Spa, however this article does not mention the bombing. Is it necessary for this article to mention the bombing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirInfinity0000 (talk • contribs)
 * No, unrelated. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)