Talk:Highland Park parade shooting/Archive 2

Victims' names
Do we want to include the victim names in article? There are sources out there now for their names. This is usually always contested when added in, so I am starting the discussion now. WikiVirusC (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey
Support including a victims list. Oppose including a victims list.
 * Support Include - as no policy reason to exclude, is information a reader may want to know. WP:NOTMEMORIAL which is often cited, does not apply, as that applied to subjects of articles. WikiVirusC (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support including names and very brief descriptions - they are at least as relevant as their killer, whose name will be included. Yitz711 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Include per WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTCENSORED and the same reasons given at these previous debates: Oxford High School shooting and 2022 Buffalo shooting. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The bodies aren't even cold yet. Revisit in 6 months. There's no race to be won here. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I assure you, they are, not that that matters in the slightest. WP:NOTCENSORED, see also Streisand effect. Do you even have a policy-based reason for this arbitrary six month period, by the way?  Apply that reasoning to having this article at all then. Once you've worked your way back from the precipice, rationalize how we can have so much detail on the suspect but so little on the victims (without which this event would not be notable in the first place) without violating WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. FYI: They are, as I write this, featured on the front page of CNN: . As InedibleHulk notes below, they're also featured by the New York Times. We should follow our reliable sources and name them. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like you plan to argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Your bizarrely abrasive response further encourages me to stand firm in my opposition to listing names of victims at this point. It's like a sick obsession with some here... EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying you just don't like it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be fatuous. A statement that "there's no reason to exclude it" isn't an argument for inclusion. The reason you want to include it is clearly because reasons. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because there are Five Ws. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For most events that cause multiple deaths, the media don't include their names. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In those cases, we're fucked. In this case, mainstream media from several continents prominently include them, so we're ready to teach. After almost a week, are you ready to let us yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Including them on articles about US mass shootings, but not on the vast majority of other articles which about events which had multiple fatalities, is one of many examples of Americentrism on WP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Waiting six months is about seeing if the victims names are reported outside of Breaking news sources, which aren't given a lot of weight against the sources which follow. When we have to exercise caution, as with BLP (or BLPO) concerns, we should wait for sources beyond BNS. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've provided numerous policy-based reasons for including them. I'm sorry you missed those. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's an invasion of the victims' families' privacy. The names mean nothing to over 99% of readers, who hadn't heard of them before. Knowing their names doesn't help readers understand what happened. Also, we now know that some of the people who want the names included want to greatly extend that to mini-biographies of the victims. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an invasion of privacy when it's what our sources provide. Excluding them is, as you well know, a violation of WP:UNDUE. Simply having an event that only documents one of the participants is lopsided and not encyclopedic. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't copy everything the media does. It's not undue weight, because the victims were strangers who played no active role in the attack. They were unlucky, which is very different to being (suspected of being) the central participant in causing it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but we must follow the same balance they do or risk introducing bias (whether intentional or not). Our sources are now providing exhaustive coverage of the victims as a component of this event. Your other distasteful and disrespectful comments notwithstanding, you have no policy reason to exclude them beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that, as at deletion discussions, is not a reason to exclude information. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The media often include things that are sensationalist & unencyclopedic; we shouldn't.
 * I haven't written anything distasteful or disrespectful. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy-based reason for this? : and  I'll say it again, do you have a rationale for excluding them, or is it just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No policy says to include victims' names, let alone mini-bios. The rationale for excluding is that the names aren't important enough to include & that doing so is an invasion of the families' privacy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV (which is policy ) does. I'll say it again, do you have a policy-based reason for this? As it stands, we're still at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those policies says to include victims' names. Would you like the victims' names to be included on Celaya massacre & Owo church attack? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like suspect names there, too, but Google can't or won't tell me any. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about the names of victims, not suspects. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * *sigh* from WP:UNDUE: I will not be answering any unrelated gotcha questions today. Stick to the topic. Do you have a policy-based reason for excluding the names of the victims? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no policy that says the names cannot be included and there's none that say they should be. Therefore, it's purely an editorial content discussion down to WP:CONSENSUS. Framing this as a policy discussion is disruptive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's amusing that you're replying to a comment where a policy is listed that explains why we would need to do this, and yet you choose to ignore it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See also WP:NOTVOTE. I am, as always, forever grateful to you for making it clear your only reason for exclusion is that you just don't like it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reporting the names is not a viewpoint. It is an editorial decision. There are many things which breaking news sources publish which Wikipedia does not. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You don't get to make "editorial decisions" about neutrality in our articles. This event would not be notable were it not for these people dying, and our sources list them significantly as reliable secondary sources, we do not have a reasonable justification to deviate from that beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Jim Michael 2. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons noted by Locke Cole. No policy reason to exclude. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 21:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Featured in the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times and a slew of other independent reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is relevant information that people search after. It's ridiculous that we list the names of murderers, not of victims. Fair disclosure: I was in the parade, but this has been my position forever and I'm a Wikipedian since 2003. These massacres can happen anywhere in the US. gidonb (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the main reason for this push to include more info about the victims - to take the focus away from the killer/suspect, onto the victims. I can see why many people want to do that, but we shouldn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not distort anyone's opinion. My main reason to include this information was that it is important information people are looking for. We provide a service and summarize the main data of events EXCEPT for the names of the victims. Now to your point: WE draw away attention from victims of violence to butchers. That can't be right. The media have this as part of their coverage. We should not introduce bias into our articles in favor of mass murderers, versus the sources we use. gidonb (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On what basis are the names of the victims, or their mini-bios, important to understanding what happened? The killer/accused/suspect usually receives a lot more coverage, which makes sense because they're the centre of the event. That isn't being biased in their favour, nor is it being biased against the victims. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I firmly disagree that victims of violence are marginal to mass murder events. If there were no victims, the coverage was not as intense. Victims are the center of these events and we at Wikipedia knowingly distort that. My opinion btw applies to mass murder around the globe. I do not think that if the victims are British, French, Israeli, Norwegian, or Palestinian, other rules should apply. gidonb (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The victims overall are relevant, but their names, families, occupations, hobbies, favourite foods etc. (yes, WP editors have added such info to other articles about mass shootings) aren't. Most of the people who want the names etc. added to articles about MCI in the US don't even edit articles about MCIs in other countries, let alone want such details on them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal is a list, not mini-biographies. Your need to exaggerate reveals the weakness of your argument. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was advocated for on Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting. I'm pre-empting it being advocated for on here as well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bringing it up repeatedly in replies to other comments will have the opposite effect. It will just lead to someone making a separate survey to keep the trivial discussion about minibio out of this one. WikiVirusC <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 13:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Jim Michael 2, your red herring bludgeoning is disruptive. I supported the proposal, as stated, like many other people. You had been told off about this before. Then what ticked you off to disrupt my argument, of all others who support the same position, anyway? Does the fact that my comment to the closing editor humanizes victims of mass shootings, just like the proposed list of names, trigger your barrage of irrelevant messages? These are humans who die. Also those who get injured, disabled, run for the lives, have nightmares, fear for their loved ones. I do not think that the suggestion to include a factual list of just the people who died (should NOT include more than name, age, and place of residence) is too much to ask for. It serves the reader. And if it takes away a bit from the "fame" of the murderer, so be it. Not my concern. gidonb (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a red herring. Including mini-bios was explicitly argued for only a few weeks ago on Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting. Info about its victims, including their hobbies & favourite foods was repeatedly added to that article. Excluding names doesn't de-humanise - it protects the privacy of the grieving families. Adding them doesn't reduce anyone's infamy. No-one is arguing for survivors to be named, so I don't know why you're mentioning them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's yet ANOTHER red herring. I only support what I support and I only said what I said. Any attempts to judge my statements by things that other people might have said is disruptive. Please stop disrupting the discussion by adding irrelevant texts under various opinions. How many times does this need to be said? gidonb (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to frame this as a policy debate is a red herring. There's no policy that says the names cannot be included and there's none that say they should be. Therefore, it's purely an editorial content discussion down to WP:CONSENSUS. Repeatedly accusing others of red herrings while framing this as a policy discussion is disruptive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV, WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:BALASP. You're welcome. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you're ok. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 03:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jim Michael 2 - violation of privacy. I don't think the names are heavily searched, unless it is a public person. These are all low profile individuals. We can just list descriptions of who was killed. Perhaps this should be an RFC, as there does seem to be a debate about this in other mass shooting articles. Natg 19 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The dead have no privacy rights and most of the highly public information on these dead was freely given to CNN and the rest by their family members. But, despite Jim's suspicions of creeping "mini-biographies", we're not even talking about anything private here. Just a name and age, like cops, coroners and tombstones very often publicize as a civic matter of course in America, with negligible reprisal (maybe a little job description). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not mere suspicion. It was openly advocated for on Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody said "mere". I will say the information you fear is also boldly discussed by Britain's most popular news amplifier. Resistance seems futile. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm clarifying that it's not only a suspicion of mine - it's been proven to be the intention of a small but significant minority of editors of this type of article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I support inclusion. This is a perennial argument, in Wikipedia (mass) crime articles. Some articles end up with victim names, some not. It's all rather random and arbitrary. I believe that these sorts of articles -- including this one -- should list the victim names. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Most articles about mass-casualty incidents in the US have the names added, because many American editors argue for that in discussions such as this one. Most articles about MCI outside the US don't even have such a discussion. This is one of the many examples of Americentrism on WP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Israel articles are even more likely to include victim names. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to including names of victims of MCIs, regardless of type or location. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Generalizations are made without quoting any sources. And, as could have been expected under this topic, we see the classic argument that for Israel lenient standards apply. Quite the opposite. By now, we have chased almost everyone away who would add quality materials to that domain. gidonb (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The victims were random targets. They were not selected because of their identity. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy-based reason for excluding them? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have one for including them? Then answer is no, because it's a content debate and attempt to reach WP:CONSENSUS. You seem especially emotionally invested in this for some reason and I'm not sure it's necessarily what's best for Wikipedia. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, as I've explained repeatedly. It's a shame you haven't read any of my other replies. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, WP:UNDUE. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way does WP:UNDUE apply here? Seems a list of victims would be appropriate and a balanced in providing context for the event. (UNDUE would be if we had a paragraph profile of each of them). -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way do the names of the victims provide "context for the event"? Please be specific. The average reader will not be looking for the names of victims nor will he wonder why they are not present. So why add them? 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, as there are many great reasons above. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This article exists because seven people were murdered. A comprehensive article should provide basic information about these individuals including their names. Regarding WP:NOTMEMORIAL, that policy states Wikipedia article subjects must meet notability requirements; it says nothing about information cited to reliable sources within an article. Regarding privacy, the victims’ identities have been reported on by numerous national news sources; we’re not violating anyone’s privacy by including what is already highly public information in this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A list of dead victims doesn't improve the article and no policy-based rationale for including them has been offered. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and arguments over victim names only occur in response to violent crimes. There's never the same ferocious debate over the inclusion of victim names in incidents such as the 2022 Bronx apartment fire or the 2021 Palmer, Alaska helicopter crash. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * True, and rarely in regard to MCI of any type outside the US. None of those who advocate for their inclusion try to explain their narrow focus in that regard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:NOTMEMORIAL If they are not being memorialized, then why have a list of them? How are they in any manner notable? WP:NOTDATABASE Wikipedia is not a database of victim lists. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Right now, the article gives all sorts of descriptions of these victims. Their ages, home countries, occupations, etc., etc., etc. It gives everything but their names. It seems quite odd to read an account written in such a way. It's like the author is telling us everything about the person, but deliberately excluding the name. (Which indeed is the case.) It seems to make for rather odd "reading". It's pretty discordant.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That stuff snuck under the radar. It has no place in the article. It has been removed. WWGB (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was the one that added that info in there. It wasn't intentionally meant to sneak anything in under the radar. It is not clear what is allowed and what isn't, especially when multiple reliable sources give details about the victims. There is a note in the article for editors that says, "Do NOT add names of victims, without reliable citations, per WP:BLP & Discuss on talk page first." So I added a few details without adding names, to balance out the details about the shooter. I think either the victim's names and/or details about them should be included. JJMM (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically if you want to describe the victims as anything more than meat mannequins you need consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty nice straw man. OrgoneBox (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support including names/ages and/or brief details about victims. JJMM (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- we ALWAYS decide on including the names of victims after a mass shooting. So YES, we should include them here, too. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is just not true. There are many recent shooting articles without victim names. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, including the large majority of those which happened outside the US. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is false. There are many articles on mass shootings in which victims are not named (for a variety of reasons). For just one example, see 2017 Las Vegas shooting. There is no default policy regarding the naming of victims. 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support! There are reliable sources available. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally irrelevant. Sources confer notability and help verify information. They don't dictate that we must include all of the details they cover. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe sources are irrelevant at all. Sources are needed when the names of victims are being added to a Wikipedia article. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument is whether or not to add them, not whether they need cited. By the way, quit editing the posts of others. OrgoneBox (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The names of random incidental victims of mass-casualty events adds nothing of encyclopedia value to understanding the event. It serves no purpose, other than the prohibited WP:NOTMEMORIAL purpose. Including all of the 9/11 victim names in that article, or all of the Titanic names in that article, or all of the Pearl Harbor names in that article, would be BLATANTLY DISRUPTIVE. Including purely random names in smaller mass-casualty incidents may be less disruptive, but that doesn't make it any better. These individuals did absolutely nothing historically notable, other than pure-random dying, to justify any further privacy burden on their families, they did nothing to justify any claim of educational encyclopedic inclusion. The names are no more useful than any other random selections of names from the phonebook. Note, we may have reason to include the names for specific individuals who took significant actions or who otherwise become essential to the event narrative. For example we need to discuss the captain of the Titanic in that article. However that is the exception, and it is not an excuse to shoehorn in random names. As for other articles, I support cleaning up all articles suffering from these kinds of frivolous and disruptive memorials and junk-listings. Alsee (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL is that way. Then see WP:BALASP, specifically: The victims are integral to documenting this event, an event that would not be notable were it not for the deaths of these people. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Locke Cole, WP:BALASP does not remotely support indiscriminate inclusion of victim names. Firstly, the majority of the text of WP:BALASP is spent warning against trying to use recent-event news this way, explaining that that recent news can fail to reflect the proper balance and actual significance of things in relation to an article topic. Second, I went through the top Google News hits. Only ONE of those hits included an indiscriminate list of names, listing most of the dead. (I did find articles telling the story of a named paralyzed victim or telling the story of a now-orphaned child and naming the dead parents, however that is exactly the opposite of indiscriminate names.)
 * The victims are integral to documenting this event, an event that would not be notable were it not for the deaths of these people. 9/11 and Hiroshima would have had little or no notability if there had been zero victims. An indiscriminate list of thousands of random names or an indiscriminate list of a handful of random names, is neither "integral" nor helpful. Replacing an indiscriminate list of random names with a different list of random names would not alter a reader's understanding of the event.
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Indiscriminate name lists are worse-than-worthless bloat. Alsee (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% Agree with Alsee. OrgoneBox (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can quote it again for you, since you missed it:  A majority of our reliable sources name the victims, how do you justify excluding them from our article and violating article neutrality (which WP:BALASP is part of)?  We're talking about mass shootings here, stop trying to strawman these discussions.  We're in luck then, as the victims' names are not indiscriminate information, they are clearly connected to this event (as they're the ones that died) and our article already provides the context for our readers to understand their significance. Naming them in our article is the minimum we should be doing, considering our body of reliable sources have often presented biographical details that go far beyond just their names. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can keep saying BALASP until you're blue in the face, there is no issue in this article with balance! It's a clear content dispute. Repeatedly claiming BALASP means this article must display a list of victims is a novel interpretation of that guideline at best, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to abuse it to force your content in without reaching CONSENSUS (a policy, I might add). OrgoneBox (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV (of which WP:BALASP is a part of), which is a policy, clearly states So for me, this whole debate is kind of pointless as we don't get to omit information that makes some editors uncomfortable. We're WP:NOTCENSORED (another policy) here. I'm sorry you don't understand how article neutrality works or how BALASP applies here. You may wish to seek out mentorship from an experienced editor willing to educate you on this. It's not me. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You've now resorted to another personal attack, in addition to trolling me below. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:ASPERSIONS. And if you're capable of understanding that, clearly notate the "personal attack" you claim I made, or strike through your aspersion. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * False accusations are a form of personal attack, as are your comments on my "capabilities". Maybe if you knew how to explain yourself properly, we would understand you. Though you're very good at the underhand passive-aggressive personal attacks so I think there's another problem with your argument. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTCENSORED also addresses an argument I have not made. When you manage to find a guideline that supports your argument let me know. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You've said that I've not provided any policy based reasons for including them. As you're replying to me in multiple places, I'm attempting to consolidate the actual arguments where they make sense rather than in the meta discussion below where you derailed it... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTCENSORED says nothing about adding lists of victims to article about shootings. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTCENSORED is the antithesis to your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It's a shame you don't like naming the victims. We don't censor Wikipedia just because you don't like something. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support would be my choice. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alsee and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Anon0098 (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLPNAME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and the essay WP:Victim lists. The core of BLP policy is to do no harm and caution is to be exercised here.  I would only consider mentioning names of victims who are otherwise notable, or if a majority of non-breaking news sources report the names. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Note
Ive opened a discussion on the wider topic of including lists of victims here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And it might be as well to treat that discussion as the missing WP:RFCBEFORE here. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Update July 15, 2022
So, what became of the above discussion? What was the result? The conversations seems to have just abruptly stopped? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, needs to read the comments and make a call. A raw count of !votes is 12 include, 8 exclude, which may be close to no consensus. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just from a pure vote count, it's 12 support to 8 oppose. I think that ought to be enough, especially if you dive into some of the reasons for opposing that are given. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You would say that because you want it included. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the names of victims will be included in the article. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say it because so far other than 9 people not liking something without a valid policy-based reason to back it up, we've learned that reading policies is apparently a lost art, and it's better to just look at the shortcut names and think that you know what the policy says on that basis alone. Hint: NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable to this discussion whatsoever. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is such nonsense. Like EnPassant said, you keep accusing people of IDONTLIKEIT but none of the guidelines you keep mentioning support inclusion of this information in this article. OrgoneBox (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial argument. This argument happens for every article, for every incident ... whether or not to include the victim names.  The result is usually random and arbitrary, depending on who specifically participates in the discussion.  This results in inconsistency, in the encyclopedia, across articles.  I think we should have a "standard" policy -- yes or no, include or exclude the names of victims.  I believe (not sure?) this was attempted in some other forum.  And, I believe, the result was: let's decide this on a case-by-case basis at each individual article.  Is not there some way to make this uniform / consistent?  Wikipedia has a million other policies ... arrived at through consensus, I imagine.  Can't we create one for this?   Where would that occur, on what page?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See the section directly above this one, there's a discussion at the talk page for NOTMEMORIAL currently going over a potential RFC on that specific issue. As to the broader idea you're presenting, you may wish to look at the Village Pump, likely WP:VPI or WP:VPR (you may also want to look over WP:VPP). There is a bit of back history given at the NOTMEMORIAL discussion as well that may be worth a read. Good luck. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's a perennial argument (I have no real background in this area and don't usually get involved in the social media aspect of this site) I agree that modifying a pertinent guideline (or creating a new one) to cover it and resolve the headache is a good idea. Where that would happen, I have no idea, but I'd join in wherever if someone wants to begin the discussion. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about developing the essay WP:Victim lists into a guideline? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As per NPOV, a consensus of editors cannot override our requirements of neutrality. So, by all means, find some editors to make that a guideline. It'll still be irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You truly have a dizzying intellect... and a list of victims has zero to do with neutrality. Your apparent interpretations of these policies and guidelines are highly novel. Also, maybe if you weren't obsessively arguing with so many people here you wouldn't have to respond in so many different places. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be jealous, it doesn't become you. I suppose to someone trying to deviate so heavily from our reliable sources, actually following them would seem "novel". —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'd vote for it. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR is starting to apply to people who abuse NOTMEMORIAL, IMO. You're actively damaging the project while professing to be here to be constructive. Please stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say a thing about NOTMEMORIAL. Why are you attributing statements to me I have not made? False accusations are a form of personal attack. You're the one abusing guidelines. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And now we see CIR is applying to you as well. I clearly said, which I referenced because the IDONTLIKEIT crowd (for the most part) keep referencing it as if it has any significance to this discussion. It does not. Maybe you need to calm down if you can't read something without feeling attacked? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're lying and now you're trolling me. Stop it. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More aspersions. What, can you point it out to us? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to relax. In regards to NOTMEMORIAL, there is currently a discussion on the talk page about bringing up an RFC since so many people disagree about its wording. Throwing accusations of CIR is not helpful Anon0098 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone reading this thread can decide for themselves. You know perfectly well what you did, playing stupid and gaslighting me won't change that. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More aspersions. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)