Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting/Archive 4

Biden's AR Comment
Biden said that Hale used two ARs in his original report to the public. You have in the Uvalde shooting page that Greg Abbott messed up the gun in his report to the public. Why no mention of Biden's mess up here? 2600:1700:19E0:EE00:647B:6D93:C39A:C7DA (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That sounds like something that should be removed from the Uvalde shooting rather than added to this one. It's a trivial, trivial detail. Red   Slash  23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The inaccurate initial statements by Texas authorities in response to the Uvalde shooting is not at all comparable to Biden possibly being incorrect about a weapon. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just reread the Uvalde one and you're right, the situations aren't comparable at all. Red   Slash  16:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I'd note though that the situation of Robb Elementary School shooting is fairly different. It's well accepted that the law enforcement response to that shooting was terrible. This was then compounded by incorrect information being provided by law enforcement and associated officials both about the shooting and their response in the immediate aftermath. While Abbott is fairly disconnected from all that, he too has blamed officials for giving him incorrect information that he relayed. Probably the gun detail still doesn't belong but it's possible it does there while not here since the situations are different. 01:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2023 (2)
I realize that this edit request relates to the above debate, but I think this aspect would be noncontroversial, as it only pertains to which sources are used after a claim and not the article text. I'm specifically concerned about this line:
 * Police initially identified [Hale] as a woman using his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, but authorities later reported he was a transgender man.[27][28][29]

Request: I'm actually not sure if it's Wikipedia policy to order references by number as opposed to weight (or degree of substantiation provided): --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reference 29—from the Tennessean—fully supports that sentence: it provides Hale's full birth name and says "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns. The police initially identified him as a woman."
 * But references 27 and 28 provide, at best, partial support.
 * Reference 27—the NPR article—is, I think, is the weakest of the bunch—it mentions the name "Audrey Hale" (omitting Elizabeth), but does not mention Hale's status as trans.
 * Reference 28 also includes a reference to "Audrey Hale" (omitting Elizabeth) and reports that police chief John Drake identified Hale as "transgender" (not specifying man or woman).
 * If it is, I would suggest only citing reference 29. If another source is desired, this would also work:
 * If not, I would suggest listing Reference 29 before reference 28 (and omitting reference 27).
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Izno (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize a consensus was needed for objective failed verification fixes? I'd point out that no one has objected to this request despite it being a very contentious talk page, but I assume that if you're finding a lack of consensus, then you oppose it? Hey if you don't care, I won't : ) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I opposed it, I would have said so. :) The changes suggested are reasonable on their face, but having a couple people agreeing that they're desirable in this context, since you admit it pertains to above debate, is a good way to get changes instituted by someone working the edit request queue. Izno (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake—I misinterpreted! Hopefully someone else sees this section and double checks the sources—to be honest, I imagine the substantive text will end up being modified in some way after all the debate settles out, which will probably necessitate altering the citations slightly, so I'd guess the failed verification sources will only stay up for a bit no matter what.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2023 (3)
On reactions, mention Nashville Predators player Ryan McDonagh staying home to be with his daughters since her school was close to the shooting site and him rejoining later. 159.115.9.45 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is trivia and does not improve the article. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2023
Change  to   as this points to the RFC that should resolve the need for the NPOV template. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. NPOV tag should be removed and replaced with a inline discussion tag in the lede, as discussed at Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  12:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for that change. And your oppose here appears to be purely vindictive with no basis in WP:PAG, let alone dispute resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like, , myself, and now all agree that the NPOV banner is inappropriate and should be replaced with a inline tag. You're the only one claiming otherwise. Consensus is not a vote, but it's highly unlikely that one user is right and everyone else is wrong. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  14:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So your hot take on dispute resolution is to pretend the dispute doesn't exist? Fantastic. How are you still here with that attitude? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking of bad attitude, pot, meet kettle. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sticks and stones. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ashes to ashes, funk to funky? We all know Major Tom's a junkie. (I'm getting sidetracked here.) Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what's being said: As I understand, FormalDude is saying that the dispute can be sufficiently captured by an in-line tag, not that the dispute doesn't exist.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed to FormalDude's recommendation. The NPOV tag was placed inappropriately and does not belong to the article as it currently stands. It's currently there because it was added not long before Full Protection went into effect. Soni (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I assure you, it was placed appropriately. The litany of discussions above, and the RFC's that are running, are evidence of that. I oppose removing the tag while the issue is still being discussed, as one of the points of placing that template is to draw other editors attention to the topic. An inline tag is far easier to miss/ignore. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A content dispute does not an NPOV tag make.
 * Per Template:POV, Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. has not been met in my opinion. You dispute it, of course, but I suspect you'd dispute almost everything said by others.
 * This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. This talk page is a massive wall of text that drowns out every other conversation, but I have not seen clearly what you think breaks NPOV. And more importantly, what WP:RS support your purported POV. All I see is a straightforward content dispute that you're escalating using tags that do not apply.
 * Wanting greater scrutiny does not itself make it okay to put a tag that does not work. You won't go around putting a WP:CENT notice or a Watchlist notice just to draw other editors attention to the topic. Also, since any argument in this matter is a massive timesink, I shall not be making any further replies to you. Soni (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already discussed the rationale for including the NPOV further up. I won't be re-litigating this again when it's just the same flawed arguments. The template is on the page, I'm merely asking that it be pointed to what is the current relevant discussion, the RFC itself. If editors want to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to posture over the tag again, go for it, but it won't be with me. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. I found all your assertions in the section above lacking in policy and without merit. There were multiple (3? 4?) editors that disagreed with you there. You were practically the only one arguing against. The discussion got abandoned after 9 levels of reply-and-counterreply. Please do not attempt WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Soni (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I also agree with FormalDude and Soni. Correct discussion link, wrong template. I'm not sure though if under discussion inline is the correct template either though, the documentation for that says it's for the project space and not article space. disputed inline might be better. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made the narrow change requested in the original edit request. If a clear and obvious consensus can be shown for the other request, feel free to file a separate edit request. Izno (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are we supposed to do, have an RfC on changing a maintenance tag? I'd appreciate if you re-reviewed this, because I think it is apparent that Locke Cole has entered WP:IDHT territory. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  17:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the mess above beyond identifying that the change requested was a reasonable change. Stalling that small improvement with an overlapping but otherwise unrelated request is obnoxious and in general is the kind of thing that gets hands slapped. It may be valid to change the tag, it may not be, but there is no obvious consensus (like, plain as day here's what I think should be done, here's everyone who agrees/disagrees with that specific change, and what they say about the change of interest). If you have an obvious consensus, it should be easy to lay that information out in a separate edit request. Izno (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't be bothered to read, you should not be reviewing edit requests. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @FormalDude, you should have stuck with your prior formulation. We're all volunteers here. I bothered to leave a custom message; I could have slapped you with a please show consensus for your change template. Izno (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I unfairly redirected my discontent with this process at you, and for that I apologize. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  21:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Izno With all due respect, that makes no sense. You want the page to come to a consensus, that's perfectly fair. Except the way to said consensus is being actively blocked by one editor who is consistently WP:BADGERing and drawing out threads to 7-8 discussion depths.
 * On one topic, we had clear consensus, and we still had to end up getting an RFC on it, simply because said editor refused to accept "5 editors disagree with you alone" as consensus and claimed only an RFC would be enough.
 * I do not think you can judge consensus at all if your threshold for it is literally "Every discussion must be closed by an admin + have an RFC on every bit of it", which is frankly, where we're headed. Every single inch covered with RFCs.
 * As for this specific topic... User:Locke Cole was in favour of his proposal (change to one specific tag). User:FormalDude and User:Soni (me) and User:Sideswipe9th have already expressed removing the tag, with User:LilianaUwU expressing similar views in the last discussion we had above. Best I can tell, that is consensus, you just have to read the discussion (which is, as I explained, intentionally being littered). Soni (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On one topic, we had clear consensus, and we still had to end up getting an RFC on it, simply because said editor refused to accept "5 editors disagree with you alone" as consensus and claimed only an RFC would be enough. and Every single inch covered with RFCs.: That's one unfortunate nature of working in a controversial area of the wiki. I do not think it should be so.
 * Except the way to said consensus is being actively blocked by one editor who is consistently WP:BADGERing and drawing out threads to 7-8 discussion depths. If you believe another specific editor is disrupting the consensus-forming process, WP:ANI is available. On this page, so is WP:AE (at least the American politics and GENSEX contentious topics, possibly also gun control).
 * Every discussion must be closed by an admin + have an RFC on every bit of it Is this the general you? I did not ask for that. My initial response pretty reasonably indicated If a clear and obvious consensus can be shown for the other request, feel free to file a separate edit request. which I subsequently clarified to mean "lay out who wants what done".
 * On which note, thank you for your summary, which is what I asked for. I see you've started a separate section below. FWIW, I would have taken an edit request with that summary and the specific change requested, since that's what I asked for. I really appreciate edit requests that show a clear consensus for change, as asking for admins to edit through full-protection (instituted for reasons not unrelated to the edit request) on someone else's behalf needs either by-the-book treatment, or the change to be so trivial and obviously-improving as to be worth potentially catching flak (as I thought improving the link&mdash;where people can read and participate in the discussion on whether the article is in fact NPOV or not&mdash;would be). Izno (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you. This has been a bit frustrating article to work through, so apologies if I sounded snappy when replying. Now that the new section is up, hopefully this consensus (or lack of it) would be much clearer.
 * I think I'll start a WP:CR on the parts of the talk page that are going to get snow-ed, just so we don't wait on sections after sections of voting. Soni (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 April 2023
On March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School, ((a private Presbyterian school in Nashville, Tennessee.)) Local resident and former student of the school Aiden Hale[4][5][6], ((also referred to as Audrey Elizabeth Hale)), killed three ((students)) and three ((adult staff members)). Hale, 28, was killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officers responding to the incident. ((The shooter's social media presence later revealed that he may have identified as a transgender man)).

The Covenant School ((founded in 2001 as a ministry of Nashville's Covenant Presbyterian Church)), is a private Christian ((elementary)) school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville. ((It enrolls approximately 200 students from pre-kindergarten to sixth grade)). Macaroniandbutter (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not all of those edits are correct. For example, the comma in the second sentence (preceding Aiden Hale) is incorrect—it would be correct if the sentence read: "A local resident and former student of the school, Aiden Hale, ...." There's also suggestions that substantively relate to the above debates, and so this protected edit request would be premature.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, I didn't know that these edits went to the talk page, I thought it anonymously went to admins... I was trying to point out a few of the glaring grammatical issues because it's genuinely disturbing how badly this article is written from a grammar, clarity, and style standpoint. I was trying to provide some specific examples but definitely messed up with that one. My overall point is that someone needs to go over this with a basic grammar checker because it's not okay as is. Macaroniandbutter (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The line he may have identified as a transgender man is... ungood, to be polite. There's no maybe about this, he was a transgender man. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Remove the NPOV tag. This is not a major neutrality issue for the entire article, so that tag is inappropriate. Their birth name is already mentioned, the disagreement is on mentioning it more than once. Add to the perpetrator's name in the infobox since that is what is being disputed. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  12:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's also about mentioning the birth name in the lead. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then add an inline tag to the name in the lead. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Orrrr, we can get an RFC started and resolve this instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should start an RfC. We should also remove the NPOV maintenance tag as it should only be applied to articles that seriously lack a neutral point of view, and that is not the case here. This is primarily a MOS issue, and as such, all that is needed is an tag. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  15:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When our article deviates on the most basic topic of identifying someone from what our sources say, that is a neutrality concern. Did you have more chairs to move on the deck, or are you done? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does identify someone from what our sources say. How many times it should be mentioned is not a neutrality issue, it is a style issue. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  15:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV. Since you didn't know, apparently. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * An inline tag linking to the now active RfC is much more appropriate than a NPOV banner. Locke Cole's protesting of this minuscule change is ridiculous battleground behavior and part of the reason the article is fully protected. They changed this request to "answered" and claimed it was controversial and had no consensus–obviously not true when they're the only editor protesting it. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  03:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree an inline tag is definitely what's warranted here, I don't think the RfC that was just opened below is the correct discussion to link to. The just opened RfC has no semblance to the one that was being workshopped in, nor does it address the actual underlying issues that lead to this article being fully locked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. We can just have the inline tag directed to the talk page then, as it does by default. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's almost like you're not reading the instructions for the template you're insisting be placed: Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion this request was actionable, but... good luck. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because one user (you) making invalid arguments does not make this simple edit request to change a maintenance template to an inline tag "controversial" or "unsupported". –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weird. There were many editors reverting the page when it was fully protected. Maybe you missed that. Sad. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? You added the NPOV maintenance tag and the only reason it's still there is because the page was fully protected not even two hours later. And now you are the only one demanding that it stays. That's not controversy, that's stonewalling. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was added in response to the edit warring that got the page protected. I swear you're deliberately misunderstanding things. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding it was completely inappropriate per Template:POV. And I could say the same about your misunderstandings. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean besides editors revert warring to make the article unbalanced, which is explicitly what the "When to use" suggests as a valid reason to add it? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't slap a NPOV banner at the top of every article that has edit warring going on. The point is that the deadname issue is better addressed with an inline tag. I'm done here. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. We slap it on articles that become unbalanced (whether by edit warring or simply long term disruption). I see you also missed from the "When to use" instructions... the point is, your root claim  is incorrect. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it unbalanced to want to respect the chosen name of a dead trans person? Huh? Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How unbalanced is it to respect a mass murderer and child killer? WWGB (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...you got a point there, I can't deny that. Honestly, though, misgendering some people because they did a bad thing (such as Aiden Hale here) sets a dangerous precedent that we can choose which trans people get the proper pronouns and name and which ones get misgendered and deadnamed. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you use the wrong pronouns to describe other mass killers? Do you call Timothy McVeigh "she", in order to maximally show disrespect to him? Or does your policy of "you have to earn my recognition of your gender" only apply to trans people?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * even if not using someone's deadname was only a matter of respecting that individual, intentionally disrespecting someone by using their deadname would be less neutral than using the correct name to identify them.
 * this template does not belong on this page, and locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars, and now marking the whole page as not being neutral because they don't like that we aren't consistently deadnaming the shooter. why haven't we removed this template and why haven't we removed locke cole from this article? Tekrmn (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The shooter’s former name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, should be included in the lead alongside their preferred name, Aiden Hale, and should be referred to when relevant, such as when she was initially identified by the police by her former identity. A lot of reliable sources which have been listed here and cited throughout the main article also refer to the shooter’s former identity, which further strengthens this argument as Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view.
 * Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm interested how you know about RS and NPOV when you only joined Wikipedia today. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Prior to joining Wikipedia, I had read through talk pages of various articles as I was interested as to the discussions and various opinions that editors had on different subjects - naturally, that led me down to the shortcuts which some of these editors posted which pertain to Wikipedia’s policies, and I read through them, which includes the one on NPOV. This talk page was actually the reason why I created this account as I wanted to give my two cents on some of the discussions that were/are happening here. I presume you think that I’m a sockpuppet account and I can’t blame you - after all, most new Wikipedians don’t read through the policy extensively, like I have done, at least that’s the assumption you made of me that I’m going off of. Look at that, I just made an assumption! Oh dear… Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yasslaywikia Can I interest you into maybe giving your thoughts in Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting where the same discussion is being had, but in a more structured manner. I think this section is pretty redundant now, so to speak. Soni (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure - I’ve already expressed my views on the matter under the discussion tab there, but I’ve yet to cast a vote, which I’ll do so later. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah cool. I did not notice the comment in the discussion tab. Soni (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article"
What are those viewpoints this talk page are referring to? Trade (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it’s down to the disagreements about whether or not Hale’s former name should be mentioned alongside their preferred name, for instance, in the lead to distinguish their trans identity. There has been a particularly heated debate about this, with one side wanting to exclude the former name from most of the article - the lead being the only exception, with the other side wanting to include it elsewhere when relevant - some also say that Hale’s preferred name should be excluded almost entirely as well except for the lead and believe that their trans identity should not be taken into account in the article, although this seems to be quite fringe. Both sides have differing opinions on how neutral this is - the ones advocating for the exclusion of the deadname say that it’s in line with Wikipedia’s policies about gender identification, whereas the other side says that is not neutral because of the nuances regarding the gender policies on Wikipedia, as they only apply to living persons, not dead ones, at least that I’m aware of. Some, including myself, think that this is also because people done want to respect Hale as they’re a school shooter - although, reflecting back on this belief, this really pushes the boundaries of the definition of neutrality on Wikipedia. Personally, I think Hale’s former name should be included to some extent and I’m not sure why it’s gotten this far, with some personal attacks being dashed out to users from both sides. I’ll end this by saying sticks and stones may break my bones, but words never will. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the recruitment part? Trade (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I have no clue. This is starting to delve into the realm of conspiracy, but if there are editors from both sides recruiting users to participate in this discussion to support a specific claim one side has made, then not only is that incredibly disingenuous, but also a severe case of gaming the system, especially if this is being done on a relatively large scale. I doubt that these claims are genuine - yes, there is a debate, but to say that people are recruiting others to push a narrative seems incredibly far fetched. If you or another user genuinely think that this is the case, then please contact an administrator, as really, this starts to go beyond the scope that regular Wikipedia users can alleviate. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * added the template in with this edit. Maybe they can state what kind of recruiting they were referring to and where they saw it on or off wiki.  might be better if their hasn't been any canvassing witnessed and it's only suspected. WikiVirusC (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IIRC, early on in this article's history, there were a mysterious and sudden dump of politically-motivated IP editors that spent most of their time cliquishly operating on this talk page, berating their opponents, calling for them to be banned, and vitriolically voting on hot-button discussions with poor, similar rationales, which led me to suspect that there was some sort of off-wiki canvassing occurring. IIRC, there was one comment in particular that really alarmed be, but atlas since this was several weeks ago, I'm not entirely sure. -  Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 22:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you added the template on March 28 after a series of IP edits, and the page was eventually semiprotected on April 4. Do you feel that may have resolved the issue? We're nearing a critical mass of templates on this page, it'd be nice to remove one if it was no longer required. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The page has been semi-protected and I've seen less IPs over all on the talk page (and virtually no disruptive ones). I'm not exactly sure that is one of those templates that is to be removed (it always came off to me as saying "hey, people have meatpuppeted on this article in the past, that's not allowed). If templates are getting excessive on this talk page, we could just use  to compress them down. -  Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The template can be removed, but it's really up to you all. It'd be nice to reduce the header-spam, and I think banner shells sometimes encourage people to miss notices they should be aware of. But this is your page and your decision, I'm just the janitor. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Somewhat boldly, and somewhat per the discussion here, I've now removed the recruiting tag from the talk page header. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, I do think Not a ballot might make sense as mentioned, but the recruiting thing doesn't seem relevant (at least not anymore). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if we were going to stick Not a ballot anywhere it would probably be on the two RfCs, and maybe the ballotish discussion. But I also don't think we're at the point where we need it, for the most part folks contributing at the moment seem to understand how consensus is determined. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe reduce the number of Wikiprojects listed? Do we really need both Wikiproject Death, Law Enforcement, Crime and Serial Killer taskforce? There seems to be a high amount of overlap Trade (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from who added the template, the only editor I can recall  on the talk page was one who was later blocked for being a sockpuppet, but the comments from that editor on recruiting all came after the template had been added.
 * Honestly I think we're safe to remove it at this stage. If Knights can't recall the exact reason for why it was added, and there doesn't seem to be any ongoing disruption with regards to it, then it seems like it's served its purpose. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was rather alarmed at first as there were implications of this still being an ongoing issue, but I’m glad to see that this isn’t the case. The tag should be removed and if the issue were to arise again, I suppose we could contact an administrator. Yasslaywikia (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we at least protect the talk page again IP's so we don't have to deal with this meatpuppeting again? Trade (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is already semi-protected. This talkpage has never been protected against IP edits, and there's no evidence that IPs are currently disrupting it. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"Media ... reported" / "media sources reported"
I've removed the "After the shooting, the media reported" line from the lede. Formerly, we used that kind of phrasing twice in the article—once in the lede and once in the perpetrator section, and both times to discuss Hale's trans identity. But, in addition to being a bit weasel-y, that strikes me as an npov issue. Every statement in the article comes from media sources, and the vast majority come from after the shooting. Yet we don't include "Media sources reported" before every sentence. (Can you imagine if we did? "The media reported that, on March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School ...." "Media sources reported that the Covenant School is a private Christian school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville." Or what about "After the shooting, the media reported that Hale drove a Honda Fit to the school."?). I've replaced the fact of Hale's "local residen[cy]" in the lede with his gender identity, since its his gender identity that's gotten far more attention (and obviously the fact that he was a local resident is still mentioned in the perpetrator section). --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If Hale's birth name is restored to the lead after the RfC, then reporting that he was transgender would be relevant there. As it stands now, we seem to be attributing a characteristic to Hale that has no direct relevance to the shooting. For the same reason, we would not add that Hale was White as it had no relevance to the shooting. I'm not suggesting that transgender be removed for now as it may ultimately be more "relevant" to the surrounding content. If, however, the RfC determines not to mention his birth name in the lead, then I see no reason to report his gender status there. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @WWGB, yeah I definitely see that as a potentially valid point, but I'm not sure it's necessarily implied. We also don't have anything to support the theory that his status as a local residence or his former attendance in the school was tied to the shooting (law enforcement officials initially said they were exploring the possibility that he held some resentment towards the school, but they've yet to follow up on that). And surely it's possible to just describe someone in a sentence without suggesting that there's a connection between that description and the remainder of the sentence.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Replacing full protection with consensus-required on name/gender issues
Hi all. Seems like there's a lot of progress towards consensus on naming and gender issues. Also seems like the full protection is obstructing a fair few unrelated edits. A couple of editors have asked if full protection can be removed, and one suggested using one of the contentious topic measures instead. So let's give that a try by: What that means is people are free to edit any other part of the article but edits regarding gender issues - including but not limited to the use and frequency of use of perpetrators name/deadname and gender identification - that are reverted in good faith should not be restored unless there is a consensus for them on this page. We're a fair way through an RfC on this topic, which should be a good start. We may need further discussion if there are other gender-related issues that arise, but let's see how it goes.
 * Removing the full protection;
 * Restoring the 3-month semi-protection that was originally applied in April; and
 * Adding a consensus-required provision for gender-related edits to this page as follows (quoting WP:CTOP): On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. This restriction to expire after a trial period of (say) 3 weeks, by which time the RfC may have closed.

If the above becomes messy and unworkable we can apply the full protection for a bit longer. Happy to discuss, particularly if anyone feels that edit-warring or other disruption is likely to resume. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that the best course of action is to be cautious. Looking at the talk page alone, it’s clear that there’s still a lot of debate regarding how Wikipedia should address the shooter’s identity, and I think removing the protection may reignite the edit wars if consensus cannot be reached, not to say that it will happen, but it’s a definite possibility given the strong opinions on the topic by both sides of the ongoing debate regarding the shooter’s identity. Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * - what is the prior consensus in this article regarding the deadname? What if the deadname RFC results in no consensus, what do we do? It would seem to me that we would use the birth name because that is what reliable sources used from the start.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting/Archive 2 and . The way that the RfC is set up though, the only consensus that's really going to be difficult to determine is C versus D, and for D which number of mentions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would second what @Sideswipe9th just said, and reiterate what I said above.
 * Supporting the likelihood that the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID does apply to deadnames, this subsequent sentence is not restricted to living subjects: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc.
 * Even a significant portion of the B, D editors say that Aiden Hale should be the name that we use to principally use. While Wikipedia is obviously not a democracy, I thought it would be helpful to lay out the votes so far (showing my work in the discussion section above in case you want to double check). When those editors are combined with the editors supporting "C", it's pretty clear there's a consensus concerning what name we should principally use.
 * --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , the mandatory edit notice about the restriction seems to be missing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, as a dinosaur (and yet still a college student, work that out) I'm used to the simpler days of DS templates. Have I now added the correct template, on top of the one listing the consensus-required restriction? If not please correct and I will use your expertise as my example for the future. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, but the edit notice requirement isn't new; it was always necessary to add an edit notice (instead of just a talk page notice) to make users aware of such restrictions.&#91;old&#93;, &#91;new&#93; Implemented in Special:Diff/1149958398. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually express any opinion about which forename or which pronouns should be used - partly because I wasn't asked. My opinion is that forenames and pronouns should be avoided AFA possible, in part because it isn't clear to me that there was any clearly expressed opinion by Hale, nor any one name that Hale used, or was referred to by those who were in immediate contact, family, acquantances, colleagues etc. I will thus strike out my name. Pincrete (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * —noted! sorry about that, since you had said "per Inedible Hulk" I figured you were leaning towards principally relying on Audrey rather than Aiden, and since my point was that there was essentially a consensus for principally relying on Aiden, I didn't want to be accused of ignoring editors who seemed to favor Audrey. I've updated the table accordingly!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, I agreed with much of Hulk's logic and 'evidence', though not necessarily, all his conclusions. Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

“Authorities later reported that he was a transgender man”
Can anyone provide reliable sources for this? The previous sources cited did not explicitly state that. It seemed to be the media organisations reporting that he was transgender, not authorities. Providing sources (with quotes) clears up the issue.  starship .paint  (exalt) 04:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * PBS: "the police chief said that Hale was transgender". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times stated that Nashville Police Chief Drake said the shooter was transgender. KWTX-10 stated that Drake said this in a "late afternoon press conference". Drake later repeated this in an interview with Lester Holt on NBC News Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. These are good enough. Though, there are additional pieces of information. Then at a late afternoon press conference, the police chief said that Hale was transgender. After the news conference, police spokesperson Don Aaron declined to elaborate on how Hale identified. / Officials “feel that she identifies as trans, but we’re still in the initial investigation into all of that and if it actually played a role into this incident,” Drake said. I’ve quoted Drake in our article.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I separated the combination of media/police sources here, as the "but" / "while" statement didn't make sense. Plus, it made the most sense to group police comments on Hale's gender / gender identity with the police chief's comment. I'm a little skeptical of the current wording, which, by my reading, uses "Media sources reported" in order to cast some doubt on whether Hale was trans—(1) there's a weasel word issue with that phrasing, (2) every statement in the article comes from media sources, yet we don't include "Media sources reported" before every sentence.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted your most recent edit (which to be clear I acknowledge was in good faith), as it didn't address the weasel words issue (saying "including" and then listing the only sources cited doesn't change the fact that "media sources" is still weasel-y) and one of your wikilinks was to a paper that hasn't existed since 1970. For the reasons stated in my last comment, I'm also still a little concerned on the neutrality of using "media sources" there and "the media", but I realize using Template:pov statement would be the appropriate way to address that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Caution. Reinstatement of the "who?" tag may be a breach of "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". WWGB (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to be technical about it, you didn't revert my addition of the who tag—you deleted the tag when you attempted to address the weasel words issue. I did, however, revert your deletion of it. But all this is a bit too close to wikilawyering for my tastes. Seriously, I'm happy to have a substantive conversation on the weasel-words issue if that's what you're looking for.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jerome Frank Disciple Hi, sorry I'm genuinly confused about why the 'who?' tag is present next to 'media sources' when the sentence has media sources cited Telltergist (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! I selected the tag rather than the  tag precisely because there were sources cited! Although the sources are examples of specific media sources reporting that the shooter was transgender rather than sources for the claim that the media, generally, reported that fact. While I think the problem isn't as notable given the below section, I'm still somewhat concerned about WP:WEASEL. Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jerome Frank Disciple thank you for clarifying. Telltergist (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * - your view on uses "Media sources reported" in order to cast some doubt on whether Hale was trans is wrong. “Media sources reported” was used because the police/media comments were combined before you separated them. This was simply attributing a view to a different group…  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starship.paint Fair enough in isolation, but, until my last edit, we also used similar language in the lede ("After the shooting, the media reported"—see below), and those were the only two times that language was used in the article. To be clear: so long as that kind of language is only used one of the times, I, at least, don't think there's a pov issue. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - that was also due to me. Simply put, at the time of me inserting that, the article claimed that the authorities confirmed that the subject was trans, but the references cited at the time did not verify this, and the above references in this section which I asked for had not been provided yet. As such, I re-attributed the view to the media since that was what the references at the time backed up. It was just providing verified information and not meant to be weasel-ly.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starship.paint That's completely understandable! Sorry—I should have been more clear—I don't doubt that any of the language or portions of the article were added in good faith. What I meant to say was that the fact that only those two sentences used the "media ... reported" language gave an impression that the claim should be treated skeptically, not that an editor added that language specifically to make people skeptical of the claim.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Red Flag Law
I wonder that this can mentioned in the article. At the time of the shooting, Tennessee didn't have red flag law s. I hope I'm being persuasive. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tennessee-nashville-gun-access-red-flag-laws-mass-shootings/#:~:text=Tennessee%20has%20almost%20none%20of,year%2Dolds%2C%20were%20killed. In Tennessee, no restrictions like "red flag" laws stand in the way of gun access - CBS News] Cwater1 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

overemphasis on trans identity
I removed the mention of Hale being trans in the lead, per MOS:GENDERID "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis." I think the perpetrator section overemphasizes his transness as well, I moved the sentence "His former art teacher and a former classmate recalled him coming out as transgender on Facebook in 2022." up to the paragraph where his being trans is already being discussed, but I think this sentence is unnecessary and overemphasizes the fact that he was trans. Tekrmn (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You may wish to read over “Authorities later reported that he was a transgender man”, above, where the wording was discussed briefly. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that this was discussed there. Tekrmn (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was the section below, I copied the wrong link: "Media ... reported" / "media sources reported", specifically, @WWGB says . —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

my edit to remove the mention of the perpetrator being trans in the lead, citing MOS:GENDERID "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis." was reverted, I was told to seek consensus. it is my understanding that my edit was in line with WP:EDITCON. @Locke Cole is there a reason you reverted this edit aside from my not seeking consensus through discussion? Tekrmn (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This RfC is underway to determine how often and where the perp's birth name should appear. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * my edit had nothing to do with his birth name. Tekrmn (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed "a transgender man" from the lead, that was it. Tekrmn (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd second WWGB and say we should probably wait until the RFC is over to make that kind of edit. A lot of the RFC votes support mentioning Hale's birth name in both the lede and the perpetrator section, and if we call him "Audrey" in the lede, I think explaining that he was a trans man would go hand-in-hand with that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that if we add his birthname to the lead we can add back the fact that he was trans. as it currently stands there's no reason to mention it. Tekrmn (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See the now-merged discussion just above your ping of me. An edit like this was already discussed, and there was no consensus for it. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal name
This article is quite confusing for the reader. Can you simply use the legal name of the perpetrator at the time of their death? This name should be a hard fact which can be determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.222.97 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read over the numerous discussions on this talk page on that subject if you haven't already. Funcrunch (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

These discussions all seem very academic. Can someone help and check what the perpetrator's legal name was? That seems the most fair and logical approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.222.97 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be original research and something we don't do on Wikipedia. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be original research, however, it would be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which we tend to prefer secondary sources (published works, news reports, etc). See the footnote, specifically: (underlines added) We can use primary sources, but given the number of secondary sources we have, we shouldn't need to. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We could find a reliable source that said his legal name at the time of death, but Wikipedia editors have collectively decided not to make a legal name change the deciding factor in choosing whether or not to respect a trans person's chosen identity. See MOS:GENDERID. If you'd like to suggest changing Wikipedia policy in that regard, the appropriate place to have that conversation would probably be there.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as names are concerned MOS:GENDERID only applies to people. That being said, we already have a solution in policy here without adding more instruction creep, it's called WP:DUE. In this instance, I'd support giving more weight to recent sources as an interpretation of WP:DUE. I've been meaning to go through all our sources and make a table of how they identify the perpetrator so we can make an informed, logical decision, but between tax season and work obligations I haven't done that yet. I'd just make a table with these columns: URL, date of publishing, names used, gender used. For each row, list the number of times a name is used. I know from looking over some of the sources they seem to use both names or the birth name more consistently, but such a table would provide a more concrete idea of how the sources are really addressing this. The only issue becomes then, are people cherry picking sources (I feel as long as they're WP:RS, that should be enough to dispel that notion). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's weird I don't see "living transgender" in this sentence: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. And, as other have discussed, it seems very likely that "gendered words" in the first paragraph of MOS:IDENTITY includes names. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but no one is denying that "Audrey" is the more commonly reported name. The IP's proposal seems to be that Wikipedia use the legal name of every person; your proposal seems to be that we predominantly use the most commonly reported name. In terms of determining how current Wikipedia policy should apply to this page, it appears there's a pretty clear consensus rejecting those approaches. I think the place for both them to be made is probably a policy page, but, hey, if you want to make a table in your free time, enjoy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have two possibilities to your quoted portion: They likely didn't want to be repetitive with the "living transgender" call-out (which seems reasonable to me as the first two call-outs immediately precede the portion you quoted). The other, is that even if we suppose it applies to dead transgender as well, the restriction still comes into play: this article is effectively the  for the subject, as they aren't notable enough for their own article.  does not include names, or the following paragraphs (which go into painstaking detail on names) would be pointless.  Are you just trying to ignore the RFC above? Because that's the only way that claim makes any sense. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "This article is effectively the main biographical article"—I disagree that a nonbiography is supposed to be considered a biography if no true biography exists; that strikes me as a fanciful stretching of the text that also isn't consistent with other portions of the MOS ("A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article." ... is your logic that "since there is not article where Hale is the true subject, he's the subject of this article"?) And what are you talking about w/r/t the RFC above? If there's one consensus in the RFC above, it's that the perpetrator should principally be referred to as Aiden—I thought you'd acknowledged that on this page, but even if not you can refer to survey—only a small percentage of "D" votes have said "Audrey" should be the principal way by which we identify the shooter.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's typically how these articles end up for non-notable perpetrators, see for example: 2023 Monterey Park shooting. For your reference, here's the breakdown at the top of the RFC: . At present, B/D (to me anyways) clearly has more support. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use the table I made above documenting the votes so far, if you'd find it helpful :) And I'm not sure what you mean "typically how these articles end up"—can you cite any portion of guideline or policy that supports your interpretation? You also didn't address the "subject" line, which also applies.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You've already had this debate mostly point for point with @Starship.paint above. I gave you an example for "typically how these articles end up". Did you not understand the section there? I'm surprised I need to link a WP:PAG for this, but WP:SUMMARYSTYLE may be helpful to you. As to the "subject" line, they are the subject of this article. That's why they're listed in the Perpetrator section, after all, and discussed there. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't mention MOS:CHANGEDNAME above, so I'm not sure who you're confusing me for. "They are the subject"—again, this is stretching things. The shooting is the subject, and this is an article about the shooting. It is not a biography of the perpetrator nor the victims nor the cops nor anyone else. (Would you say that all of them count as the subjects? So many subjects! Or wait maybe only those who get sections are subjects—in which case I guess it's the perpetrator, the victims, and ... the reactors. Awesome.). From my perspective, it truly feels like you're purposefully giving these strained interpretations to achieve the result you want, so I suppose that just means you and I don't need to discuss it any further. Best of luck with your table--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is still there. Our sources all discuss the victims, the perpetrator, and some go into details on each. It's weird, after challenging the exclusion of victims for so long and finally making progress on that front to see someone actively suggesting we shouldn't cover the perpetrator. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the good-faith interpretation of my point: I'm actually saying that we shouldn't cover the perpetrator. I guess why stop at strained readings of Wikipedia guidelines when you can make strained readings of talk-page comments? If we weren't done before, we're clearly done now.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, when you say and clearly that runs counter to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the example I provided you of an incident from a few months ago, that is what it appears you are saying. To say you have a novel interpretation of the issue though is an understatement. Words have meaning, and they don't mean what you seem to think they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It plainly doesn't, but once again, I'm not interested in discussing this with an editor who's stuck on assuming bad faith. I actually think I've made more substantive edits to the article, including adding information to the perpetrator section, than you have, but good luck with your table.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sections
I have some concerns about the sections—particularly the "Aftermath" vs. "Reactions" section. I'm not sure the distinction is really tenable as it's used. For example, this line: On March 30, thousands of protestors gathered at the Tennessee State Capitol to call for stricter gun control laws. That's currently in the aftermath section. But isn't it just as true that it's a reaction? In regards to the chant led by Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson ... does that belong more with Biden's call for gun control, or the discussion of the reunification center that was set up so that parents could find their kids?

I've tried to make the aftermath section into an "immediate aftermath" update: school-response section (without changing the section name—instead, I think making it a subsection would do the trick), and to fit the policy discussion into the reaction section. This was the best I could do for now, and I realize it's not perfect, but I hope most people see it as slightly better (and can improve it more than I could!). --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (Updated--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC))


 * I think it’d be best to remove the reactions section entirely and group it together with the aftermath section per what you said. I don’t think subsections for what happened in the aftermath are necessary unless it’s to describe a particularly important event, i.e. the controversy surrounding the dismissal of two black senators over their opinions on gun control whereas a white senator wasn’t, which, in my view, meets the notability guidelines for having its own subsection. Yasslaywikia (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I'll be honest—the reunification center portion strikes me as something that legitimately belongs in the article and, I think, should be separate from the reactions—I currently grouped it in "Aftermath" under shooting since it was a same-day occurrence that really involved the event in a way that the "reactions" did not. Is there anything you think doesn't currently meet the notability guidelines? I'm also not sure I'd agree on the dismissal of senators, since that was in direct response to this event—to be clear, I'm not any expert on the "notability guidelines for having ... [a] subsection"—but I would point out that the dismissal doesn't currently get its own subsection.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, strike everything I said. I realized that the reunification center was a police response, not a school response, so it didn't make sense to put it in a school-response section. Instead, I've added the reunification center detail to the end of the shooting section, and I put the school statement and vigils in the reaction section.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Blank links
How do we fix links that are blank? 97.124.236.235 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you give a couple of example links that are blank in the article? If it's a citation, could you give the citation number? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have gone through all of the sources in Chrome and they are fine. My only suggestion at the moment outside of browser compatibility is that they were clicking on the archive links which doesn't work for some sources like The Tennessean.  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should the perpetrator be subject to WP:BLP extension per WP:BDP?
The perpetrator of this mass shooting is confirmed dead. However, that death is. Should WP:BLP be extended for the perpetrator as allowed by WP:BDP (Support extension, Oppose extension)? And if so, for how long ? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there is very little reason to afford the perpetrator BLP protection as their death and the events immediately leading up to it are the only notable things about them. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with whether BDP would apply? Being notable for one event doesn't then create an exemption from BLP and subsequent BDP protections for contentious information. Silver  seren C 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Including the living friends and relatives of the other six victims named here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for perpetrator as well as all other dead in this event. BDP is a subset of BLP, and so I dislike the framing of the RFC as done in a rather confusing manner. At least, it wasn't clear to me at first glance whether we were asking for consensus (which we're doing) or judging between potentially conflicting policies.
 * As for BLP, this feels like a very clear cut application of "Why BLP should apply to the recently deceased". This is an extremely charged event and understandably high profile. However, our BLP standards are what our standards are, and there's a clear requirement for BLP extension as well (To quote WP:BDP, Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.). There is already enough contentious material (including the gender identity), and there's every expectation there might be more. Apply BLP, and continue on with rest of article.
 * Soni (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Soni (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose:There are no privacy concerns here or facts in contention that have not been made quite publicly known. The only reason this persons name is controversial is identity politics, and they're dead, so there is no controversy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But was it a suicide attack, a suicide mission or a mass murder-suicide? That's a yes/no question and multiple choice. It's highly questionable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and they're dead, so there is no controversy. I wholly disagree with that sentiment. Soni (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support WP:BDP very clearly applies here and would apply to anyone who died recently when it involves something contentious like that. This really shouldn't even be an RfC question, because BDP would always inherently apply regardless, as the contentiality is directly shown by the article needing to be full protected after a dozen reverts in 24 hours regarding that material. Silver  seren C 04:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is very much the wrong RfC question to be asking. It bares no resemblance at all to what is being workshopped in the section above, which when we come to a final phrasing will actually result in a resolution to the reasons for why this article was fully protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what is contentious? Our sources are nearly unanimous in using both names. I don't see that extending BLP for contentious behavior among editors was the goal of WP:BDP... and what is there around the name of the perpetrator? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a very recent death of a person who committed atrocious crimes and there is much contention and questionable content going around. BDP is met.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure I can support this RFC as worded. My preferred outcome is for the subject's birth name to be mentioned once and once only in this article, indefinitely. As transmasculine person myself I have found visiting this talk page and the related MOS thread increasingly stressful. Based on these discussions thus far, I recognize and am saddened that many contributors do not seem to think that the emotional well-being of Wikipedia's trans and non-binary editors is worthy of serious consideration when it comes to making decisions like this. Funcrunch (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - IMO BDP should be the default, not something opted in to. This case has lots of factors and living people directly affected by it, so erring on the side of privacy could only help. Unlike when celebrities Queen Elizabeth II or Betty White died of old age, we have an otherwise unknown person whose manner of death (suicide by school shooting) is part of what makes him notable. Other BLP protections should apply as well (e.g., WP:NPF).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @EvergreenFir Do we have a consensus on if BDP is default or opted in, currently? It was very unclear for me from the current reading of the policy, and I'm not well versed on previous community rulings on this matter. We might want to get that sorted out in WP:BLP one way or another Soni (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not too sure but it seems that it's opted into.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While I get that some of us might want to consider this a suicide by school shooting, suicide by cop or suicide due to intolerance and misunderstanding, the official manner of death is virtually certainly homicide. These things are determined by facts, not feelings nor final wishes. The fact here is that two police officers (whom we should name eventually) intentionally killed Hale with up to eight bullets. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not sure for exactly how long but, especially because there's a related discussion going on at the talk page of MOS:GENDERID, their birth name definitely should not be mentioned in the article for now. Loki (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - WP:BDP should be default. I see no reason to deviate from it. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Reading the relevant policies, this shouldn't be up for debate. However I echo the concerns of several other editors on this essentially being WP:LAWYERING in order to sidestep the issue of whether or not the deadname gets mentioned in the article. Theheezy (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. What's the context? What part of BLP is the oppose camp interested in not having to follow? I think this RFC could have been worded more narrowly and with more context. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion above suggests that MOS:GENDERID is applicable, even though it explicitly says "living transgender" in various places, because it references WP:BLP. WP:BDP states that WP:BLP can be extended to dead subjects with . This is to ascertain whether such an editorial consensus exists. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I should be doubleclear that I Oppose locally modified GENDERID application. In this case, where we're not aware that any living friends or relatives give a shit, it's not a comment on any other cases. Only apply to material about suicide and particularities of gruesome crime here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not aware we applied Wikipedia policies dependent on whether or not we are aware of living relatives and their specific stances on the subject. That is such a patently ridiculous assertion. Either WP:BLP and MOS:GENDERID apply, or they do not. The claim that WP:BDP's implications on friends applies only if we're aware of them is a terrible take. Soni (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to stay aware of whether anything exists before we can base a decision upon it. That's not even a Wikipedia rule. That's waking life, Soni. Do you have any reason to believe even the mere potential for implications is there? If so, can you describe them somehow? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And before you dodge that question and throw it back at me, let me be tripleclear: The thing about suicide that hurts the longest for survivors who sincerely buy into some form of Christianity is the implication that their loved one's soul well might be barred from Heaven indeterminately on this one controversial allegation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That linked piece also illustrates the problem with those some think "committed" suicide. We wouldn't want a possibly transgender person to be remembered as some unholy criminal for choosing to "take" their own double lives. I hate to say it, but we might possibly want to think of the children, in this regard. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the whole point of WP:BDP is that we are making an assumption to protect the people who knew the person in question. we do not need evidence that every person who ever met the subject has specifically stated that they don't find something offensive.
 * what is the relevance of the religion of the people who knew the shooter? even if they were all Christian, Christianity (any religious group) is widely varied, and it is impossible to say that every Christian would be most hurt by one aspect of a situation, especially one that is extremely loaded and not directly related to Christianity in any way (and it's a situation I assume you do not speak to from a place of experience).
 * if you're referring to WP:BDP it actually says "such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." I think we can all agree that this was a gruesome crime.
 * I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make with your last comment, but we're talking about what name to use for someone. how would that in any way impact "the children," unless we're talking about trans children who will read this and find that wikipedia doesn't think their identities are valid? Tekrmn (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? More of this appeal to emotion? As I'm sure you're aware, since you've alluded to me from this article because I have the audacity to disagree with you, InedibleHulk is currently blocked and unable to respond to you. To your points:  BLP is about being careful about publishing details that aren't correctly sourced; BLP is emphatically not about avoiding publishing things just to avoid offending people. Nobody is suggesting we include details of exactly how the perpetrator died, the route the final bullets took to bring them to death, or any other gory detail. Their name is not such a "gruesome" detail. As to InedibleHulk, you can knock it off with the WP:GRAVEDANCING anytime. You weren't even involved in this subthread, but appear to have gone out of your way to respond nearly a week later. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, since this clearly falls under both a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. This is almost a textbook case of why we have BDP; someone dies in an incredibly controversial way that leads to rapidly-developing coverage where any errors, even about comparatively minor details, could have drastic implications for surviving relatives and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't have much background on this subject, but we should be following the relevant policies. I can't see why we shouldn't. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support — per Silverseren, and I agree with others that BDP should be the default. DFlhb (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - BDP applies to all recently deceased people, not just those some people determine to be the subject of it. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 05:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Recently deceased people are almost always afforded BLP protection, and this case, being a particularly gruesome crime, specifically meets BDP. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per Aquillion and FormalDude. XAM2175  (T) 18:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this proposal is too vague and general. Of course the dead should AFA possible be accorded respect, but in this instance what specific issues does this impact? There appears to be a need in this incident to discuss more than we would ordinarily do, the 'trans' status of the perpetrator. This proposal shouldn't by-pass that need. Pincrete (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, however I think this question is being posed so that you either have precedent now or at some specific point in the future to begin using the deadname of the shooter wherever you want. Tekrmn (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The entire justification for BLP protections is "privacy" interests....Even in the best of cases, it's debatable to what extent (if any) one has such interests after death....In this particular case though, the shooter only ever became notable due to multiple acts of murder they committed, so I see no reason why Wikipedia should be rewarding this. IMO the compelling public interest in gaining as good of an understanding as possible of what motivated this horrible crime, and what potentially might help prevent such future crimes, clearly outweighs any "privacy" interest of a dead murderer. -2003:CA:8708:3F10:A06:7FE8:46B0:8C69 (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Police references to Hale
@Starship.paint—with some hesitation, I removed the claim you added as to how the police refer to Hale.

Aside from the initial identification—which was covered and noted (including by the New York Times), I'm just not sure there's any relevance to how law enforcement refers to the shooter in various media statements. Implicitly, you might argue, as some on here have, that the fact that the cops continue to refer to Hale as "Audrey" suggests that they determined he was not trans, but, on the other hand, you might just argue that the cops are choosing to refer to Hale as "Audrey" because they've elected not to respect Hale's trans identity—certainly wouldn't be the first time! And it'd be one thing if the articles you cited were specifically on how police continue to refer to the shooter as "Audrey", but they're not not—they're just examples of police statements that happen to refer to Hale as Audrey.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You're reading too much into it. I'm not arguing anything of the sort you suggested.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to suggest you were arguing anything at all! I was only saying that I didn't see the relevance, and suggesting (though ultimately discounting) possible ways it might be relevant (to show I had thought about the issue and wasn't reverting lightly)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Or it could be that they're respecting the wishes of the family. However, would it even matter? Let's suppose a source interviews the family of Hale and shares that's how they'd prefer their daughter/son to be named, does BDP not apply here? contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Perhaps I'm just misreading this, but could continuing to refer to Aiden as a male not have serious impact to the health and well being to the remaining family members? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See above response to starship. : ) . In terms of your BDP argument, that strikes me as beyond the scope of this section. If you're arguing that Hale's pre-death choice of pronouns, given prominence by MOS:GENDERID, should be, on the basis of WP:BDP, subverted to her family's decision as to whether to recognize he was trans, I think that's been considered and rejected many times in other articles. (Why? Well, I'd imagine it'd be like a devoutly Christian family saying that a recently deceased family member was really a Christian and not a Muslim, even though that family member had, prior to his death, publicly converted.) But, here, I'm just talking about the relevance of how police refer to Hale in various media statements (when (1) reliable sources aren't noting the significance of those statements referring to Hale as "Audrey" or (2) those statements aren't themselves making clear why that practice is continuing) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I might argue the situation here is quite unique compared to the other articles, but I believe you're right. This isn't the right place for that argument. I agree with you on the rationale behind removing the prose, unless sources explicitly cover why the police keep referring to Hale the way they do it would seem UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I appreciate that!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm going to re-remove the prose. No one has objected to the removal, except for one user who said I should get consensus first, and then, if I asked whether he/she was objecting to the removal ... never responded. It's been a few days since then.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The "manifesto"
This will be a difficult subject, far more easy to go into in a few days, but I just want to note that we will eventually probably want to include information on the the documents (which some, though notably not the police, are calling a "manifesto"; the police are calling the documents "writings"). I don't really mean the documents themselves—which I'm sure secondary sources will adequately cover and I'm not worried about ... but there are rumblings across secondary sources about a public demand for these documents to be released (note: not all of those are reliable sources, but many are—only linking them to illustrate the coverage). At least some of those rumblings tend towards conspiracy theories, which may make encapsulation here difficult. Still, we should probably also cover that. (In theory we could cover that now, but it's hard to know where—the reaction section? Seems like it could really easily slide into undue weight territory.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen in subsequent media coverage of the subject, it looks like the police have been trying to actively walk back their initial claims of a "manifesto", because there isn't one. There's just some random notes that don't have anything close to being a manifesto. Silver  seren C 22:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree—sorry if I didn't make that clear enough above. But the police efforts to walk back the claim haven't been enough to dissuade some commentators and politicians—particularly on the right—to suggest a coverup/clamor for the release of the documents (see links above). And given that most secondary sources appear to be covering this as the police effectively yielding to the pressure of these demands, I think the fact that there was such pressure will have to be covered. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter", and the rarity/absence of "Aiden Hale" in top mainstream sources
Our article body says Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. There is no source cited for that. The police identified Hale as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" on March 27 and "Audrey Hale" on April 3.

Furthermore, our most popular mainstream sources have zero mentions of "Aiden Hale" in relation to this incident. Here is a combined search of sources that as of this post does not produce false positives and here is a combined search of sources that turns up false positives. . Splitting it individually:


 * 1) Reuters -  (no results)
 * 2) Associated Press -  (one false positive referring to someone else)
 * 3) France 24, which commonly runs news agency Agence France-Presse -  (no results)
 * 4) The New York Times -  (no results)
 * 5) The Washington Post -  (no results)
 * 6) The Wall Street Journal -  (no results)
 * 7) Los Angeles Times -  (no results)
 * 8) USA Today -  (six false positives referring to someone else)
 * 9) The Tennessean -   (six false positives referring to someone else)
 * 10) CNN -  (no results)
 * 11) ABC News -  (no results)
 * 12) CNBC -  (no results)
 * 13) NBC News -  (one false positive, "Aiden" is the end of one sentence and "Hale" is the start of the next sentence.)
 * 14) MSNBC -  (no results)
 * 15) Fox News -  (no results)
 * 16) Univision, significant Spanish broadcaster in the U.S. -  (no results)
 * 17) Telemundo, significant Spanish broadcaster in the U.S. -  (no results)
 * 18) United Press International -  (no results)
 * 19) Bloomberg News -  (no results)
 * 20) Time (magazine) -  (no results)
 * 21) Forbes (magazine) -  (no results)
 * 22) National Public Radio -  (no results)
 * 23) PBS -  (no results)
 * 24) BBC News -  (no results)
 * 25) Al Jazeera -  (no results)

With such extensive non-sourcing, I hope there will be no accusations of cherry-picking. These include the top news agencies of the world, the websites of the top U.S. television news, the websites of the top newspapers in the U.S. It's been nearly a month since the shooting. To have no mentions of "Aiden Hale" is really suspect. How can we say that Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter when the police did not do so, and the top news sources do not do so either?

I’m pretty sure the same sources did actually report “Aiden” (not “Aiden Hale”). I would suggest that we report “Aiden” similarly.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems like two different issues.
 * An ambiguous use of "identified"—was "X, the person, identified" or was "the person identified as X". Frankly, I thought this was already handled in the article text, as in the next paragraph it's explicitly said that "Police referred to the 28-year-old as a woman and used his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale." But, since the "was identified" line wasn't actually needed (we had already said Hale was the shooter several times, and there was basically no delay in "X, the person" being identified), I took it out in response to your concerns.
 * A discussion of how Hale should be referred, which I think is covered by the RFC above. I take it that you're arguing that "Aiden" could have been a mononym. Without any explicit source for that claim, I'd say we probably shouldn't act on that information right now. To some degree, that's made out of practical consideration: To the extent they've revealed any preference, I'd say the contributors to the above discussion commentators have generally supported using the gender-neutral "Hale" when possible. If we decide to treat Aiden as a mononym, that will mean that we will replace every bare reference to "Hale" with "Aiden".
 * --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I take it that you're arguing that "Aiden" could have been a mononym. - I don’t think I’m arguing that? I’m just saying, follow the top sources. They say “Hale”, which is fine, so we can use that. I’m pretty sure they say “Aiden”, so that’s also fine. What I’m saying is, they’re not using “Aiden Hale”, and we are. I’m pretty sure it’s a conscious choice on the top sources part to mention “Aiden” without using “Aiden Hale”, as to why I don’t know.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If "Aiden" was the chosen name, and you're saying it's significant that we don't have sources saying "Aiden Hale", then how do you suggest the shooter should be referenced on first reference? "Aiden (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale)"? If so, how would it be justified to switch to Hale on subsequent references, in light of the fact that, as documented above, there's a pretty strong consensus we should principally rely on his chosen name?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If “Aiden” is the price for removing “Aiden Hale” then I’m fine with it. As for how to word it, I’d have to check the sources above. From what I’ve seen the wording may be “The shooter was identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who later adopted the first name Aiden”.  starship .paint  (exalt) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except he took the name Aiden before this incident. Months before. So "later adopted" doesn't really work. The police identifying the person by the wrong name isn't really relevant to anything else in the article. Silver  seren C 06:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd second this issue: If the "identified" language is problematic, so is language that suggests that the shooter somehow adopted his name after police identified him.
 * I really think we can just take out the "identified as" line. It's passive voice and it doesn't add anything to the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: has reverted my effort to address what I saw as the first concern you raised (that "identified" was ambiguous and potentially misleading). That user only indicated lack of consensus as a basis for reversal, so I'm not quite sure why it was done yet, but perhaps Ficaia can elaborate here.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been no evidence provided that the shooter changed their last name at all in any of the past discussions that have mentioned or suggested this. There is only evidence that the shooter changed his first name.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m surprised that there’s still an extensive debate on the issue. Given that we primarily refer to people by their surname per MOS:SURNAME, this should be a non-issue. I admit my fault in contributing to the fire previously, but come on now. Hale should be referred to by both names when appropriate, but when it comes to introducing Hale in the lead, Audrey should be mentioned first as it is the name Hale was initially identified as, and Aiden should then be mentioned as Hale was identified by the police as Aiden at a later date. I hope consensus on the matter is reached soon. Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort to reach a compromise ... but this logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me: Audrey should be mentioned first as it is the name Hale was initially identified as. If the police straight up made a mistake—say, accidentally calling someone "Jeff" when their name was "James"—and "Jeff" was widely reported ... would we be obliged to subsequently identify that person as "Jeff" first?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. You could argue that, if James is a legal name, then it makes sense, whereas Hale hadn’t had an official name change, at least as far as I’m aware. Another thread was posted on this topic above. I think the fact that Hale identified as trans is being blown out of proportion for sure though, I’ve never seen such a divisive topic before in comparison to how much of an impact it has. If consensus is reached on Aiden being the first name of Hale’s to be mentioned in the lead, then that’s fine - it’d be what I said, just the other way around. Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretend for a moment this isn't a trans individual, but instead someone who just legally changed their name for... any reason. Yes, we'd identify the name originally reported, especially if it was reported widely. Especially if our sources continued to use that name long after the "mistake" was revealed. We don't pick and choose what our sources report, we simply summarize what they report. In this case, they still report Audrey Elizabeth Hale and Audrey Hale. Beyond appeals to emotion, little has been provided to explain why we'd deviate from our reliable sources so significantly over this. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd generally disagree with the argument that our content—or, certainly, our style guide—is determined by what's used in a majority of reliable sources. For example, as you've previously acknowledged, per MOS:GENDERID, we don't follow what pronouns are used in a majority of reliable sources. That said, as I've pointed out many times—we do currently identify Hale's birth name in the article. It is bolded in the perpetrator section and included as a note to the template. In other words, to put the debate in perspective, we currently use "Aiden" three times, and we currently use "Audrey" twice.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I haven't done an exhaustive analysis of that. But I accept that MOS:GENDERID dictates what we should do in that scenario. I also accept that a number of editors claim that our sources use either gender neutral pronouns or use masculine pronouns. If the 2nd is true, then it would be WP:DUE to use the pronouns used by our sources regardless of GENDERID. But WP:NPOV literally tells us to give conflicting views proportional coverage to their coverage in reliable sources, so yes, . —Locke Cole • t • c 03:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you've gone in a circle here. You first say you accept MOS:GENDERID controls ... but then you discuss who WP:DUE might get the same result assuming a majority of sources use masculine pronouns. But the point is that—even if the sources used feminine pronouns—so long as the reliable sources indicated that Hale preferred masculine pronouns, MOS:GENDERID would control. So, no, our style guide (which does dictate some of our content) is not determined by what's used in a majority of reliable sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To give another example of where our style guide dictates how we write content, consider the BLP for David Bedella. Bedella is an American actor, who has spent the last twenty plus years living and working in the UK. Because of his nationality and background, it would be entirely reasonable to write that article using MDY dates and American English spelling. However because of where he has lived and worked, the vast majority of current sources about him are typically written using DMY dates and British English. A WP:NPOV approach to this might have us mixing dates and spelling, using American dates and spelling for older content, and British dates and spelling for newer content. However MOS:CONSISTENT tells us that within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently, and to follow that would mean that we would not be following NPOV by using American dates and spelling for all content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm simply pointing out that GENDERID is instruction creep for the pronoun issue in this instance, as WP:DUE and the sources would have came to the same result. As for the naming situation, this is where we have a couple of outstanding issues: GENDERID repeatedly limits concerns over names to "living" individuals, and WP:DUE would seem to run counter to some folks reading of GENDERID. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But again, the point is that it doesn't matter that WP:DUE would come to the same result in this instance, because MOS:GENDERID controls. You're suggesting that we always have to follow a majority of reliable sources while simultaneously avoiding the fact that our rules clearly don't say that we always have to follow a majority of reliable sources—rules both I and Sideswipe9th have pointed out.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's in WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not responsive. Why is it "neutral" to use one set of dates, or use the pronouns that a person most recently identified as? For some reason you're going on about how in some instances, those rules do reach the same results as MOS:GENDERID ... even though the very point that, in cases where they conflict, MOS:GENDERID controls. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GENDERID is a guideline (a style guideline, even). NPOV is a policy (a non-negotiable one, at that). As an aside, you're the first one to use the word majority, that's not a word I ever used (I used ; NPOV uses in many places, which is likely what I'd suggest controls here). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen this policy/guideline debate many times, on many different pages, and, if my memory serves (and it might not!), I think you've been a part of at least a few of those discussions. In short: with the exception of BLP, policies are not some sort of super-law that take precedence over guidelines. We don't mix between American and British English in order to be neutral as to the spellings within an article. I do think it's fair to say that only a distinct minority of editors believe that there's a conflict between MOS:GENDERID (or the article's current treatment of Hale's birth name) and NPOV, so I'm not sure it's worth it to rehash those discussions here. As I said, "to put the debate in perspective, we currently use 'Aiden' three times, and we currently use 'Audrey' twice." --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This and @Sideswipe9th’s point make sense, but doesn’t WP:DUE still apply per what @Locke Cole says? I still don’t think this should be an issue whatsoever - going back to my previous point about MOS:SURNAME, shouldn’t we be referring to Hale by their surname rather than Aiden or Audrey? We can refer to either when necessary. If a majority of RS point to using she/her pronouns (which a lot do), then we’ll use them, but if they use he/him pronouns to address Hale, then we’ll use he/him pronouns. Simple as, really. Seeing that the debate on what pronouns to use for Hale has gotten so intense, with previous points being reiterated time and time again, I’m starting to feel that there’s a dash of WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT involved. Something needs to be done to reach consensus, and I don’t think that’s coming anytime soon at this rate. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If a majority of RS point to using she/her pronouns (which a lot do), then we’ll use them, but if they use he/him pronouns to address Hale, then we’ll use he/him pronouns. —That's not what MOS:GENDERID says. In fact, it says that the "majority" doesn't matter: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." Also, if you want to substantiate the NOTHERE allegation, I invite you to check my edit history—I've substantively edited both this article and many others—or bring me up at ANI, but that type of casual speculation doesn't serve anyone.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * DUE would not apply to pronouns or gendered terms. The first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID applies to all trans or non-binary persons, regardless of whether they are alive or dead, and regardless of whether or not it is what is most commonly used by reliable sources referring to that person.
 * On MOS:SURNAME, you're reading it the same way that I would. Outside of the first mention of Hale's name, we should be using his surname or pronouns in our prose. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think MOS:SURNAME doesn't fully resolve the issue, though it's an intriguing point. It's hard to know how much work "generally" is doing in that guideline. For example, given that the perpetrator section functions, effectively, as a mini-biography, does a full name warrant mention? (I'd lean towards no, but I could really go either way.) What about in the infobox? I've never seen an infobox that just uses surnames. And, currently, we only use Hale's full name 3 times ... the lede, the infobox, and the perpetrator section.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misreading MOS:SURNAME. It applies only after the first mention of a person's name in an article, hence why it's in a section titled subsequent use. In my experience across many biographies of trans and non-binary individuals, only the person's current name is mentioned in the infobox. Their deadname is only mentioned once, typically in the first sentence of the article lead.
 * The generally qualifier is mostly to cover the edge cases where individuals have no surname, are commonly referred to by a pseudonym, where an article contains content on two or more individuals with the same surname, or royalty and nobility. I don't think I've seen an article that uses an individual's forename throughout except for the listed exceptions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There might be some confusion here—I'm definitely not suggesting that the full name should be used "throughout"! But let's take it once thing at a time.
 * Are you suggesting that infobox should just say "Hale"? Or, if you consider the infobox to come before the lede, are you suggesting the lede should just say "Hale"? (I assume no, since I've never seen any article conform to that standard ... but, if not, then how doesn't that conflict with your reading of MOS:SURNAME? That's the full name being used twice—presumably falling in the "generally" exception.)
 * As to whether MOS:SURNAME would allow the full name on the first reference in the perpetrator section ... I think that's a harder issue. I don't think your interpretation of "generally" is an unreasonable one! But I also don't think it's the only reasonable one.
 * --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. The infobox would say Aiden Hale only. See Killing of Brianna Ghey, Elliot Page, or Chelsea Manning for examples of this in practice.
 * 2. Dependent on the RfC above on inclusion of Hale's deadname, the lead would say something like {{tq|Aiden Hale (formerly Audrey Elizabeth Hale), a transgender man..." or the perpetrator section would say something like {{tq|Aiden Hale (formerly Audrey Elizabeth Hale) was identified as the shooter.}} If the lead contains Hale's deadname, then the perpetrator section would not. And if the perpetrator section contains Hale's deadname, then the lead would not. Any other reference to Hale in the article body either his surname, pronouns, or some other relevant term (eg "the shooter") as contextually appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that—it's what I prefer!—but my point is it's not determined by MOS:SURNAME.
 * Really same response—to be clear, I agree it should only be mentioned once, but that's because I trace the fact that it should be mentioned at all to the possibility of reader confusion, and I don't think more than one mention is necessary to resolve that confusion.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is because we are an encyclopedia whose goal it is to not to harm to the people that are covered in it. Sure, Hale is deceased and cannot be harmed by what we write, but there will be people who read these articles.  Some of them will be people who have changed their birth name and/or their gender identity.  For those readers, seeing us misgender or deadname a person because of their appalling actions or because they have passed away would still be harmful.  It is important to avoid misgendering and deadnaming.  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * {{tqq|goal it is to not to harm to the people that are covered in it}} Give WP:RNPOV a read sometime (also from NPOV), specifically {{tqq|Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs}}. There are many topics on Wikipedia where we may "harm" people, this does not mean we don't cover those topics or deviate from our sources to reduce the "harm". If a topic as divisive as religion can be handled neutrally, this shouldn't be nearly as complicated. Editors trying to follow our sources emphatically aren't out to "harm" other editors or readers: they're here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not sure why you mentioned misgendering, as I've never done that throughout this entire ordeal (despite being called a vandal and seeing editors of a similar opinion also called a vandal, or accused of wanting to inflict emotional harm on others). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might have misread my reply a bit, so let me first apologize for making you think I was accusing you for misgendering and deadnaming. That is on me for not explaining myself that well in my reply and is my fault.
 * I do still think that we try not to harm as otherwise I don't believe we would have WP:BLP, but I do see your point on religion and your follow-up point regarding other topics as well, along with your overall point regarding NPOV. Regarding misgendering, It should be noted that there have been a number of discussions on this talk page about the gender of the shooter to the point that it is mentioned in the FAQ, which is why I included it in my comment.  I would have updated it with regards to the name, but I have not done so because of the RfCs.  Regardless, neither of them are towards you, but was intended as a general statement, so I again apologize for my wording.  Sorry for the trouble, Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * {{re|Super Goku V}} - while this is not accusing you of bad faith, I think you are veering into WP:RGW territory. Granted, there may be readers, editors, family and friends harmed from seeing the old name. But also, similarly, there may be readers, editors, family, and friends also harmed from seeing the new name. In my view, such harm balances out (or, we can’t predict how it balances), once the subject is dead. Now, this doesn’t mean we must use the old name. It just means I don’t think feelings of editors/readers/friends/family should be a factor here. It should be sources.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I am in RGW territory. I am trying to understand and follow both MOS:DEADNAME and the discussions listed at MOS:GIDINFO, along with how things were handled with a similar event prior to this one.  I will admit that I haven't been thinking though about family and friends reading this article, so I guess that either way could cause harm too.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sections (redux)
I saw 's edit here, and since there'd previously been a discussion on the sections on this talk page, I just wanted to see if anyone else had thoughts.

I'm not terribly opposed to the change (Leaky.Solar essentially took the vigils and fundraisers out of the reaction section and put them in their own "Aftermath" section) ... but I would lean towards reverting, as I'm not sure how tenable the distinction is. Is a fundraiser in response to an event not a ... "reaction" to that event?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, it was more of a readability change for me to break those aspects apart from reactions. In previous mass shooting/disaster articles that I have seen and edited those aspects are majorly broken out of the reaction section and included in an aftermath section. If need be then perhaps the change can be made to make a subsection as was done for the protests. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)