Talk:Oxford High School shooting/Archive 2

Names of victims
The top-line outcome is that there is a consensus to include names of victims, but the specifics are much more complex than can be captured in a bolded sentence.

To start, the most recent project-wide discussion on naming victims in mass tragedies occured in 2018 with a prior discussion in 2017. The consensus of these discussions is that decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific needs of each article. These discussions are over three years old at this point, and editors have had multiple discussions on new and old articles resulting in many different local consensuses. Similarly, journalistic styles in coverage have not been static and the body of reliable sources with which we engage is not the same as it was in 2018.

The main argument against inclusion, here and in previous discussions, is that Wikipedia is not a memorial and so we should not include (lists of) names of victims without a compelling reason. Editors argue that (lists of) names do not improve a reader's comprehension of the article and so should be excluded. These arguments are supported by the previous requests for comment (which were about lists of victim names), personal intuition, and a general rejection of supporters' claims that they are informative for readers.

An important distinction participants made is that while previous policy discussions focused on lists of names of victims, inclusion is not limited to lists. Names can be included in an encyclopedic manner rather than as a memorial-like list. D.C. sniper attacks lists victims as part of a timeline of events. Azana Spa shooting describes the victims along with the actions they took to prevent or stop the perpetrator. The discussion was about whether the names should be included or omitted, not whether there should be a list. While editors in opposition are generally correct that our coverage should remain encyclopedic, comments which focus only on lists of names largely missed the point of this discussion.

Editors opposed to inclusion variously point to other ratinales such as not news and notability. These arguments are generally weak. Other editors point out that most of these citationsa re misapplications of policy. WP:NOTWHOSWHO for example says that Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Editors point out that journalistic sources on this event have largely included names of victims, and they point to scholarly and editorial resources documenting the justifications for this industry-wide change in editorial policy. Participants point out that this is a misapplication of our notability policy which itself states that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists.

Supporters of including the names argue that the names are helpful for readers, that reliable sources routinely report the names of victims, that having our article focus on (memorialize) the perpetrator only can have negative societal consequences, and that there is a de facto project-wide consensus to include victim names in some form. Participants generally foudn these arguments stronger than those in opposition, and this is reflected in the margin of comments with nearly 70% of comments supporting inclusion (16-7). To briefly summarize these arguments:

Wikipedia is a reference work, and if readers come to the encyclopedia looking for information on the victims (which is covered in other reliable sources), it helps them if we have victim names in some form. Reliable sources list the names of victims, NPR went so far as to do a profile on each of the victims. Scholarly sources have found that media which focuses on perpetrators rather than victims tends to inspire further acts of mass violence by memorializing violence (Lankford and MAdfis 2017; Meindl and Ivy 2017; c.f. WP:NOTMEMORIAL) leading to the Ethics Committee of the Radio Television Digital News Association recommending "Stories of the victims should be given much more weight than the story of the shooter. We recommend naming the shooter infrequently and only when only the name is critical to understanding the story." In our own articles, one participant went through and found that 87% of our articles listed the names of victims in some form with only 9 of 71 articles omitting them.

Given the margin and weight of arguments, there is a clear consensus that victim names should be included in some form. Importantly, it should not be as a bare list, and editors should take care to ensure that names are used in an encyclopedic way. There is a strong consensus to include Tate Myre and a description of his actions in a neutral and encyclopedic manner.

Our policies are not written in stone, but evolve over time through an iterative process of editing and discussion. Sometimes we formalize them in documents. Participants made arguments more broadly about changing editorial practices, consistency across our own articles, and what our own best practices should be. It was publicized on the village pump, the talk page of the Biographies of living people policy, the administrator's noticeboard, and briefly by RfC-bot notifications. On the one hand, there was not sufficient participation to change written policy, but on the other it was widely publicized and broad in scope. While this discussion is not sufficient to change wider editorial policy alone, it should be taken as strong evidence that consensus has changed. Editors should consider further discussions on the wider issues, and absent that consider the arguments made here when making decisions on future articles on mass tragedies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been publicized at WP:Village pump (policy) and WT:Requests for comment --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been publicized at WT:BLP --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the names of the four victims be mentioned in this article? I understand that it's easy to research their names even if they aren't on this article (names are well-known by now), and I do feel that in a shooting with numerous fatalities, names should be mentioned (I looked at articles here and almost all of them describing shootings with multiple fatalities give the names of victims). Nonetheless, I do understand that this event is "ongoing"; the death toll could potentially rise and it may be too "early" to list the victims. Bowser498 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a long-standing convention that the inclusion of victim names is determined by talk page consensus on a case by case basis. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They should be named. Tate Myre especially, he is a hero. HumanHistory1 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dunutubble (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * During the past couple of years, we've excluded the names unless there's a consensus to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case Myre played an important role in preventing more shootings from occuring. I think that the consensus here is that they should be named.
 * In addition to that, we had no trouble mentioning Crumbley in this article, so I don't see why we shouldn't name the victims as well. Dunutubble (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We routinely name people who've been charged with major crimes when backed by RS. Jim Michael (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Over 90% of mass shooting articles include victim names. They are relevant, notable and an integral part of the incident being described. Omitting them is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Source on Tate Myre being a hero? I don't understand the context. Love of Corey (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A college footballer has been hailed a “hero” by teammates and members of the community in Oxford Township, Michigan, after his death trying to disarm a school shooter. Source: The Independent - Does that help explain the context? -Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is another RS that describes Myre as a hero. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey
below: I meant "every school shooting". Bowser498 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It would help further the article to include the names. I can give you dozens of news articles mentioning their names. Of course, I will not name them if their families dissent to naming them. Dunutubble (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. The mentioning of the Victim's names would improve article quality for sure. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The dead were not notable in life; their names would be meaningless to almost all readers. Wikipedia does not memorialize the dead. It is unclear how the inclusion of names would "improve article quality for sure". What may or may not exist in other articles is not relevant here. It needs to be established how this article would be improved by the inclusion of victim names. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how the name of the shooter helps our readers? Or the shooter-porn details on the attacker like the exact name, make and model of the firearm used? What do our readers gain with those details that the victim names don't also provide? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looking at the link I originally posted, almost every shooting in the last few years with multiple fatalities has included the names. One of them (Myre) reportedly tried to disarm the gunman; the school's field may become renamed in his name and this would be an important asset to mention in the article (Aftermath section). If this were to happen, it would make sense to mention all four victims (even if briefly). Bowser498 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Your premise that "almost every shooting in the last few years with multiple fatalities has included the names" is completely wrong. Here is just a subset of such shootings, none of which include victim names: 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, Collierville Kroger shooting, 2021 Colorado Springs shooting, 2021 Hialeah shooting, Indianapolis FedEx shooting, 2021 Orange, California office shooting, 2021 San Jose shooting, Haynie family shooting, Milwaukee brewery shooting, Rochester shooting, Aurora, Illinois shooting, 2019 Dayton shooting, 2019 El Paso shooting, 2019 Fresno shooting, Midland–Odessa shooting, Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, Orinda shooting, 2019 Río Piedras shooting and 2019 Virginia Beach shooting. WWGB (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of some that do: Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, Virginia Tech Shooting, Columbine High School Massacre, Ecole Polytechnique massacre, Ross_Sheppard_High_School shooting, Brampton Centennial Secondary School shooting, Bremen school shooting, Dawson College shooting, Kerch Polytechnic College massacre, Ma'alot massacre, Bacha Khan University attack (partially), Winnenden school shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Jokela school shooting, Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) (partially), Cologne school massacre, Azerbaijan State Oil Academy shooting, Port Arthur massacre (Australia), Kauhajoki school shooting, etc. Only one of them is not a school shooting (in contrast, most examples you gave were not). Dunutubble (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They were written before the consensus was established a couple of years ago that we exclude victims' names. Jim Michael (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just clicked on the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article and the names of the victims are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:3A98:9136:4F3F:5291 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:3A98:9136:4F3F:5291-I just did too. Not only were you right, but I also noticed that most of these articles were low-quality stubs. If we contrast pages that name their victims between those that don't, we can see that the longer and higher-quality the article is, the more likely it is to include the victims' names. Dunutubble (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You got a link for that "consensus"? Because as far as I know, the only attempt to do that was rejected... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Only one of them is not a school shooting (in contrast, most examples you gave were not)" – Is there an actual reason for that, or is it just coincidence? We need more than just observations. What makes the victims of school shootings more relevant than the victims of non-school shootings? And if you don't believe there is a difference, then why bring up the observation? Jim is probably right that many of those victim list inclusions occurred at a time when that was more acceptable; recent RfC's tend to go the other direction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Articles should provide comprehensive coverage of their topic as reported by reliable sources. Here, the shooting is notable because innocent people were targeted by a killer; the victims were plainly an important part of the article topic and their identities have been heavily covered by reliable sources. As such, their names should be included. Further, WP:NOTMEMORIAL merely states that article topics must be notable; it does not prohibit verifiable content within articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The names (which mean nothing to over 99% of people) don't help readers to understand what happened. They were 4 non-notable minors who are known only for being killed in a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They may not have made major changes to the world, but in this particular case at least one student tried to disarm Crumbley before getting shot, and prevented other students from getting murdered. It hinders the article's quality if we can't add relevant information. It's like trying to describe an Elephant without mentioning the fact that it's alive. Dunutubble (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That info can be included just as well without stating the victims' names. Omitting their names doesn't force the omission of anything else. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose in general. Individuals who were simply random victims should not be named. However, if one particular victim was explicitly named by the killer that particular victim could be named here. Examples would be things like the killer screaming "I'm coming for you, Richie Rich!" as they enter the building, a manifesto written beforehand saying that "I'm gonna kill Mrs. Grundy for failing me in English.", or a confession to police afterwards that "I was going after Charlie Brown and didn't care who got in the way". Note that yelling a person's name after they have been encountered would not count. Nor would the killer saying that they were after the cheerleading squad in particular allow mentioning that Buffy, Muffy, and DeeDee from that squad were among the victims. People who played significant roles in attempts to stop the assault may also be named. --Khajidha (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like something that should be made into an Essay! :) Dunutubble (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Considering the case by case consensus for this. We have a few victims here and they can be incorporated with their names into a timeline of events where using names is a more sensible approach than using generic, uninformative terms. As for the ostensibly heroic student, it's a crucial piece of information and omitting that would be preposterous. Naming him is always more informative than dancing around it. It has been a fairly standard practice for many major cases like this to include names even before any consensus was deliberated. Columbine has a detailed chronology of events for example but more often, it's little more than a memorial plaque. For this particular case, I believe a workable inclusion can be met. In general, this is more of an optional feature and especially if the names can't be inserted beyond mere mention. The Orlando gay club shooting list feels like a simple memorial plaque for example. --Killuminator (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you pretty much put it best. Dunutubble (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Naming the shooter and his parents but not the victims is wrong. Brad (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The suspected shooter & his parents are named only because they've been charged with serious crimes. Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that was the case, the article is unbalanced. In the article as it is now, Ethan Crumbley is named around 30 times, the Crumbley parents (one or both) are named around 15 times, and the victims are named 0 times. JJMM (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? There is no Wikipedia "rule" that says every involved person must be named. The Crumbleys are notable because they have been accused of a significant crime. They allegedly did some things that made them notable. The victims just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They did nothing notable. WWGB (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great explanation from WWGB. An encyclopedia is not the appropriate venue to memorialize the fallen, even if doing so would be an honorable thing to do. An exception to this is when the fallen were specifically targeted for a specific reason, implying some kind of involvement or relationship with the shooter. If the only motivation behind listing random victim names is to offset the shooter's recognition, then that is a political and/or cultural motive, not an encyclopedic one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I understand Wikipedia adds mass shooting victim's names by consensus on a case by case basis. However, I would like to share that current journalistic efforts focus more on the mass shooting victims, and encyclopedias should follow this standard. For example, "NPR's current practice on covering mass shootings can be summed up in this statement: Use the name of the killer sparingly and focus on the victims." The Don't Name Them campaign (coordinated by Texas State University, I Love U Guys Foundation, and the FBI), is working to "shift the media focus from the suspects who commit these acts to the victims, survivors, and heroes who stop them." In the case of the Oxford HS shooting, it is an egregious mistake to focus on naming the shooter and his parents multiple times throughout the article without naming any of the victims, especially when multiple reliable sources name the victims. One of the victims (star running back Tate Mrye) acted heroically, as has already been stated above. At the very least, the victims' names should be mentioned somewhere in the article. For example, according to CBS Sports and ESPN, the Michigan Wolverines paid tribute today to Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, Madisyn Baldwin, and Justin Shilling during a Big Ten Football Championship Game; and the Detroit Lions will do so in the NFL game tomorrow. And 125,000 people have already signed a petition to have Oxford High School's Wildcats Stadium renamed in Tate Myre’s honor. JJMM (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per JJMM, and traditionally we include victim names in these types of articles (see User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per discussion and closing comments at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting and Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. Claims that the names are "important" or "informative" do not adequately explain why. Listing the names does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of what happened. If we described a particular incident listing John Smith's name and later corrected it to John Hancock, it will have zero impact on the reader (unless they personally know either individual). And for all the arguments about the perp's name getting recognition and falling into the same logical trap, realize that the perp is the reason the incident occurred. They are the reason this article exists. Random victims, on the other hand, play an involuntary role. The two are not equivalent.We should be of the mindset that all information included is significant to the subject's understanding. When it is not, then we are acting politically in some way and crossing into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. Newspapers and other forms of "breaking news" publish insignificant details all the time. Fortunately, we are not a breaking news publication. For minor details like these, we really need secondary, academic sources to support inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Research has shown that the amount of attention given to mass shooters correlates with increased imitation shootings. Wikipedia is not news but it is a type of online media. There is both scholarly and media research showing it is best to avoid naming mass shooters frequently, and only when critical to understanding the event. Therefore, the issue is not just that it helps to focus on victims/survivors (their names, stories), but also that it helps to name mass shooters less frequently and to give them less attention…despite the notability of the event. Review the following:
 * -"Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders" in American Behavioral Scientist
 * -"Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?" from National Center for Health Research
 * -"Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation" in American Journal of Public Health
 * -"A Call to the Media to Change Reporting Practices for the Coverage of Mass Shootings" in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy
 * -"RTDNA Guidelines: Mass Shootings" from Radio Television Digital News Association Ethics Committee
 * JJMM (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this research doesn't hold any weight, though I can appreciate the significance of it being performed. The correct path for change on Wikipedia is to embed that doctrine into some element of the site's P&G, before editors would expect it to have any effect on open discussion, especially in an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, according to many reasons above. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tate Myre specifically. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Adding the names of the victims does not improve the article, nor does it help or change the readers understanding of the event. As unfortunate and cold as it may sound, most of the victims simply were not notable. Tate Myre is a different story, but including the victims is not an "all or nothing" game. We can include those who have notability, while excluding those who do not. Other editors have pointed out that other articles have included the victims names and therefore this one should too, but that isn't a fair assumption. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean it should; this is a case-by-case basis. I have not looked into if the said-articles should include the victims, but I don't need to; another article is not relevant. If it turns out that other victims were significantly notable, then we can add to it later. But as of now, that just isn't there. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor are we a database. Arguments for including the names of the victims is not grounded in any policy or guideline. There is no WP:SADEVENT policy. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article would not exist were it not for the victims being... the victims. They are as relevant, if not more so, than the assailant in this event (and certainly more relevant than the make and model of the firearm used). They were not notable, you are correct. Now they are notable. Notability is not temporary. If the sole argument in favor of inclusion was OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you would have a point in invoking that, as multiple editors have provided reasons in addition to traditionally including them, your point is moot. On the other hand, excluding victims puts this article in severe violation of WP:NPOV by only presenting the assailants point of view and omitting the victims and the effects there. A complete encyclopedia article without discussing the victims is simply not possible. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the closing comments at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting: "The inclusion or exclusion of facts from an article can be done selectively to promote or undermine a POV (opinion). Not listing the victims names neither promotes nor undermines any particular opinion. The arguement made is fallacious, in that it misconstrues the definition of a premise." Claiming a violation of NPOV, as you've done multiple times in this discussion, is an invalid argument. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The closing comments there were written by a regular editor, walk me through why you think that editor is a better or more authoritative arbiter of the situation than I am? I'll wait. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In content disputes, even admins are "regular editors" when they participate, so I don't see the relevance of your comment. This is about an opinion I shared that I happen to agree with. I think it speaks for itself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You quoted the closing comment as an appeal to authority. Someone else saying something doesn't magically make it true, more valuable, or even factually relevant/accurate. It might be true to them, but the logic behind their statement is completely false. Just as your appeal to authority is completely false. These events have victims. If the assailant had marched into a school with a firearm and shot four holes in the wall, we wouldn't even have an article on the subject. But four people died, and that is what our sources say, so we shouldn't try to decide on our own what is "cruft" (i.e. original research), we should name them and where relevant provide small details on who they were as our sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of "This is about an opinion" implies that I'm making a declaration of fact? Stop reading too much between the lines and take a breather. You disagree with an opinion, and that's all this is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support including the names of the victims per most media coverage. Especially strong support of including the name of Tate Myre -- there is not a good reason to exclude his name there. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While we can definitely include Myre, what media have coverage of the victims; aside from simply listing them? If they just list them, that isn't really media coverage. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The media simply lists them, so we should too. We're not writing articles on the victims, we're just including their names -- it's like what, fifty characters? I don't see how our readers benefit from not including their names. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how they benefit from including their names. Why should we list them? The cited sources already list them, if the reader wants to know their names, they can follow their nose. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If our readers would want to know the names, surely there is a benefit to including them. And if they wouldn't -- why do most sources include the names? I think that some readers would like to know the names, whereas for a reader who does not care about the names, there is no harm to including them. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Media sources also publish winning lottery numbers, and daily temperatures in cities. Wikipedia does not. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But how are their names relevant to the article itself? Myre's actions directly influenced the event, but these are simply victims. They aren't relevant, nor are they needed for a summary of the event. Sources have the most information about the subject, so they would include the names. Wikipedia, not so much. On the topic of what readers want, what about the parents of one? What if they do not want their name mentioned? I'm in no way declaring this situation as true or factual, but if we base what we include on what readers want, that means balancing the wants of everyone who reads it. I don't want to know the names. I don't think there's a benefit to including them. Both opinions on name-knowing have no basis alone. Every argument for inclusion boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is explicitly an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and does not apply here. This is a matter of editorial judgement, though. If you'd like to do something more objective, how about we look to reliable sources that cover this event -- which generally tend to include the names. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "it's like what, fifty characters?" – And venturing down that path always leads to the follow-up question: If including them is beneficial, then why bring size or space into the equation? Why would you ever say, "No, that's too many to list?" Where's the threshold cutoff? Would that be some arbitrary number? Should September 11 attacks be treated differently? Is 60 too many (2017 Las Vegas shooting)? What about 23 (2019 El Paso shooting)? Size and space seem like the weakest arguments, IMO, because significance for inclusion (if that actually exists) should easily trump it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support We need to avoid falling into the media trap of over-focusing on accused murderers and downplaying the victims. There have been efforts, described by other editors above, to correct this trap. Some have observed that most media outlets are just listing the four names. Most, perhaps, but not all. Here is an example of an excellent media outlet, National Public Radio, describing each of the students who were killed. A neutral Wikipedia article about a mass shooting ought to name those who were killed if the number is manageable. Four names is a reasonable number. Let me also add that I am concerned about some cynical and callous remarks by a few editors. Please be aware that friends and families of the dead may be reading this discussion, and conduct yourselves accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to point to WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which states: Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (emphasis mine). In this case, the victims are definitely "limited to the article about the event" (in the sense that they can be included). Perhaps the new question now is: What is their importance? How can we demonstrate that these individuals are important to the topic? How does Wikipedia measure importance? If we use WP:IMPORTANCE, bullet 2: How we determine if a topic has sufficient Wikipedia:Notability to merit its own article., that doesn't really apply since this not about a separate article.
 * TL;DR: What is the importance of the victims? How important are they? How do we know this? WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs5 ) 06:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The five most important people to this event are the accused murderer and the four fellow students that he apparently shot to death. After that come his parents who have also been arrested. The article mentions many people by name: the sheriff, an undersheriff, a prosecutor, a philanthropist and an assortment of politicians. I do not see why all those peripheral people should be named but not the students who were shot to death. Devoting lots of attention to accused murderers and zero attention to the victims is a pernicious trend. We can do better than that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sheriff's and prosecutor's names are appropriate as both individuals are significantly involved and notable gubernatorial figures in relation to the event (evidenced by each of their own separately standing articles). I don't see any mention of a philanthropist, but if they are a relatively "random" person, then I agree that their name should not be mentioned. I also do agree that the undersheriff does not appear particularly notable and if there wasn't so much controversy on this page, I would remove the mentions of his name right now. I will wait for some consensus on this thread before I make that move. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Discussion cont'd below at --


 * Oppose This issue comes up whenever there is one of these gut-wrenching incidents. I have to say that I have always taken the attitude that naming victims, almost certainly random souls, fulfils no encyclopaedic purpose that I can see and is ordinarily done to memorialise, which, however understandable and admirable as a wish, is not our purpose. I don't need a name to know that a young person's death is ghastly and probably has an unspeakably destructive impact on family, friends and community, but from the point of view of the vast majority of WP readers, particularly those that are geographically distant, like myself, the individual name and identity is largely irrelevant to understanding the incident. There are times when naming individual actions might aid the narrative of what actually occurred, but that does not seem to be the case here, though it might later do so. Unfortunately naming perpetrators and 'accused's is necessary, Adolf Eichmann and other leading Nazis are better known names than the many millions who perished as a result of their actions, ditto Mohamed Atta. But naming victims achieves nothing for them, I'm sure everyone would infinitely prefer them to be alive and anonymous. The logic may seem cruel, but I believe it apt in this as in similar circumstances. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per  —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am absolutely sympathetic to the sentiment behind including the names, but I, sadly, cannot see a policy support for including the names of the victims besides Tate Myre at this time. Not all information in covered in news sources is fit for WP (WP:NOTNEWS), and not all individuals involved in a notable event are necessarily notable (WP:NOTWHOSWHO). Myre has been described as a hero in multiple RS [1] [2] [3], so he is considered particularly notable for this event. The other victims, other than being innocent victims, did not actively play a notable role in this situation. In juxtaposition, Crumbley's parents played an active (and reprehensible, in my opinion) role in this situation, so I understand the policy basis for including their names.
 * I would support a broader discussion on a policy change proposal here: maybe there should be a more clear policy on when victims' names should be included. I understand that journalistic standards on this are changing, and perhaps WP wants to change its policies, too. If people are interested in such a proposal, let's create a discussion for that separately in Village Pump; this could help clear up the back-and-forth on this topic for the future. My heart pulls me towards mentioning the victims' names, but I cannot find the policy rationale for it at this time. If there was a policy I could lean on, I would want to support the inclusion of the victims' names. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support four victims is few enough that they could all be named in the course of the article without turning the article into a memorial. I get that for larger events - 9/11, Oklahoma City etc there are just too many dead for an article to list them all without having large sections become a list of names. But that isn't the case here. As for notability, that's our test for whether we want a whole article on an individual. Lots of non notable people, myself included, are named in Wikipedia articles. Neutral Point of View is not inconsistent with an approach that includes humanising the victims.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – There are multiple articles from major outlets specifically focusing on the victims; see these articles from AP, CNN, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. Given this, there is a clear indication of notability for the victims, so their names merit a mention. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- reliable sources name the victims, so we should as well. I'm not sure how this might affect situations where the government refuses to release victim's names, but that's not the case here. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A story about dead people, per reliable sources, omission for personal dislike (or mere unappreciation) of such public info would seemingly violate NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Same reason stated above ParallaxVision222 (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. While I think in general there's nothing wrong with including names of victims in articles about the event in which they died as long as they are given by reliable sources with some consistency. This particular case is even easier to justify including names. Thankfully, there are a low number of fatalities (4), and one of them, Tate Myre got an elevated amount of coverage for his actions and should be named in absence of other victims being named. So that only leaves three victims, which is nowhere close to being a large enough number that including all of them would unwieldly to the extent of being unencyclopedic. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about subjects of standalone encyclopedic articles, which not the issue here. WP:NOTWHOSWHO is about restricting coverage of individuals notable for one event to articles about that event in proportion to their importance. These victims are only mentioned at this page, and including the names is definitely in proportion, and likely disproportionately small compared to coverage in reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS is about not making articles about non-notable, but nonetheless newsworthy events and treating information in current events articles like any other information on the encyclopedia. The shooting is clearly notable, so that's not an issue. And as for treating information the same, articles on historical events routinely include the names of non-notable individuals whose names are not strictly necessary to understanding the event (e.g. recently promoted FAs: Operation Sportpalast, Capture of Sedalia, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster). There's no principled reason why victims of shooting articles, especially in cases such as this one where there is not an particularly large amount of victims should be treated differently. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
The victims have been covered by name extensively in the media. In time, there will be better sources to validate use of their names on this page. Until then, a continued censorship of their names on here, because it is considered irrelevant, only decentralizes detailed information that can otherwise all adequately be sourced in one place on this page if allowed. If the information were not made widely available because of public interest, an argument for the relevance of naming the victims may have more ground. All four were also notable in the community and at the school for athletics, leadership roles, etc. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Were any of them named by the media prior to the shooting? You say they were notable in the community & school; if true, they'll be named in pre-shooting local media articles. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to point us to the policy or guideline that says individuals mentioned in a mass shooting event must have received prior coverage? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that the list is offensive, so claiming WP:NOTCENSORED is a straw man argument. Others have unsuccessfully tried that in the past. See the closing comments at the Dayton shooting link I posted above. Also local notability, such as a passing mention in a local newspaper, isn't enough to change things. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Their notability is established by being victims of this event. Full stop. Anything else? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor above was arguing that they were notable before the event, hence my response. Notability only covers article creation anyway, but for argument's sake, each victim would likely fail WP:1E if you tried to create an individual article for them. Being recognized for a single event is not enough by WP's standards in most cases. It's all a moot point, but interesting you chose to defend it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As you correctly note, 1E applies to articles on said subjects, but this article is about an event in which those 1E subjects were involved. When Victims of Oxford High School shooting turns blue, 1E would be reasonable to invoke. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Locke, I think you missed my point, and I'm pretty sure the editor didn't realize WP:N only applies to articles, not article content. Hopefully they know now. We can move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing anything is obviously going to prove difficult given the information their names are currently associated with. This also establishes a point as to why using their names is relevant in this article, or at least, has no legitimate grounds for removal if posited. If an argument against withholding names stands, than any redeeming content of character that may be inserted here to establish these people individually, is lost. I’m curious to hear an argument that presents the suppression of this information as valid from a logical perspective. As it has been argued for the victims, it now seems possible to remove the accused’s name without changing the context of the information on the page. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The victims shouldn't be established individually. They were ordinary people who are known only for being unlucky to have been killed in a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, you are correct. While the reasons to include the perp's name are somewhat stronger than including the victims' (see my comment above), they are also weak overall. Were the discussion about including the perp's name, I wouldn't stand in the way of excluding it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then what justifies the use of names for similar recorded events, specifically Columbine. Given the structure of similar pages, there seems no clarity here. If no one adds the content, so be it. But I’m not seeing a clear article for removal after it has been added, which has occurred here multiple times. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONUS. Attempts to add content are always permitted, but there's nothing stopping a reversion, in which case if that happens, you are then expected to discuss (as we are now) on the talk page. Also keep in mind that editnotices like this one can be levied when editors attempt to bypass discussion on such heated topics. It has been a big problem in the past. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Victims' names should be removed from older mass shooting articles. They're included in many because the articles were written before we stopped including them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They should be included. The information is present in mass. They are now victims and subjects of a legal case that is now significant in American history. This is not a localized event. Their deaths alone should validate their significance for the use of their names on this page. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlucky is also a poor term is explain their demise. You have decided personally that this event is no more important than a local car crash based on that logic. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a localized event. No one is arguing that. If you take a look at past discussions that resulted in omitting the names, the same argument about mass reporting of the names didn't hold up as a sufficient reason. Newspapers and other "breaking news" publications rank lower than scholarly, academic sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Unlucky" seems to me to be the perfect word to describe their deaths. They were not specifically targeted and any number of other people could have been killed instead of them and it would not really affect the event. --Khajidha (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * * sigh* ... and where is "luck" (or lack thereof) listed as a reason to exclude subjects of an incident/event in a policy or guideline? Keeping in mind that 90+% of articles of mass shootings list the victims by name, where is the justification for going against the long standing (and correct) tradition? The onus is on those wishing to exclude them to provide a valid reason for doing so, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Locke, since you have participated in many of these discussions, I know you're fully aware that WP:ONUS covers inclusion, not exclusion. While we can make the same arguments used in other RfC's, their consensus do not have any direct bearing on the consensus in other articles, which is why we must go through this every time. You know all this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The burdens for inclusion have already been met: their involvement is easily verifiable, there is no dispute that they are the victims of this event, and neutrality dictates that we provide complete context of this event and not just a cherry picked description that severely favors the perpetrator and his family over the actual victims. With the aforementioned tradition firmly entrenched, again, the onus is on those seeking to exclude this information to come up with a convincing reason to do so. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Let's break down WP:ONUS...
 * "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" – This means that being verifiable is not enough on its own to satisfy inclusion.
 * "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." – The significance of the names is being disputed, not who the victims are. Those who want to include them must gain consensus per the policy. It says nothing about those seeking to exclude, because if no action is taken, or there is no consensus, the result is exclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already indicated, the burden has been met as far as policies are concerned: the victims are verifiable, they are relevant to the topic at hand (as this article simply would not be possible without them), there is no doubt as to their notability within this article, and omitting them puts this article in severe violation of NPOV. Meanwhile, the arguments to exclude boil down to IDONTLIKEIT. Closers of these discussions tend to ignore !votes that amount to IDONTLIKEIT. Now do you have a more compelling argument than simply not liking them being named? Or is that where you're going to leave it? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They are already in the article, under Victims. I agree that the article's existence is pivotal on the victims, but what about their individuality? Yes, the victims as a group are important, but are the persons who were victims important? WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 06:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see vague references to ages and some other dry facts. I see very detailed personal information about the assailant, including the exact make/model of the firearm used. Walk me through the logic of promoting mass shooting porn here? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since our side discussion has now consumed way too much space, I'll just say I think you and I both know if "ILIKEIT"/"IDONTLIKEIT" was the only argument for either side, past editing disputes would not have resulted in discretionary sanction protection of the status quo. And if ONUS only applied to those seeking to exclude, then the names would be allowed in while we discussed removing them. That's never how these discussions go. I will leave it at that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just it, there is no "ILIKEIT" for inclusion. For me it was always about balance and NPOV. We should also follow the sources, which absolutely do cover the victims in some exhaustive detail. Our article is the outlier, relegating the victims to a sidenode/footnote with dry statistics that appear deliberately crafted to take away any potential for personalizing it for the reader. You also seem to keep operating under the assumption that I said ONUS applies to exclusionists: I never capitalized it or wikilinked it. The burden is on those wishing to exclude to justify their position better than IDONTLIKEIT. Which is all we seem to have right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I responded above about why NPOV doesn't apply, so you may want to refer to that. There are also claims of INDISCRIMINATE and the desire to avoid cruft mentioned from those who oppose. Clearly this is not just a case of IDONTLIKEIT as you say. If this discussion were to end in a draw or no consensus, then the result is exclusion. So if the ONUS (or burden) of consensus truly fell on the shoulders of those opposing, then no consensus would result in inclusion. That is not the case, which is why you are misinterpreting how ONUS applies. You might continue to believe ONUS doesn't work that way, and well fine, that's your prerogative. I'm trying to gracefully bow out here, and these will hopefully be my final comments. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You linked to a closing by a 3rd opinion who just basically name-called why they were ignoring NPOV concerns, a 3O by a non-admin/arbiter I might add. Hardly some damning indictment of NPOV concerns. The names of victims is not "cruft", any more than the name of the assailant and the make/model of the firearm used in the killings is "cruft". Stop trying to ignore our sources, NPOV and historical precedent to introduce bias into this article. ONUS applies to those of us wishing to include, yes, however, logically, the onus is on YOU to provide a rationale for ignoring our sources, ignoring bias/NPOV concerns, and ignoring historical precedent. There needs to be a damn good reason for that, certainly something more substantive than "cruft"... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the comment was made by an admin is irrelevant, and I disagree that the make/model of a firearm is a good analogy here. There are many benefits to a reader in knowing that information, but since I have consumed a lot of space already with my comments, I'm not going to delve any deeper into that. Please don't make unfounded claims that I'm ignoring sources. I am very much taking them into account. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless the killer was specifically hunting these particular people, then their names are cruft. We name the killer because he actually did something. We shouldn't name the victims because they were just unlucky enough to get in the way of a bullet. --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The provision to consider victim names on a case-by-case basis was implemented in November 2017. Any reference about inclusion or exclusion of names prior to that date does not take account of the current scheme. Also, case-by-case means just that. What is it about THIS incident that does or does not warrant the inclusion of victim names? Forget about WP:OTHERCONTENT and focus on this shooting. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And the consensus reading of that discussion by you and the closer is flawed: the discussion was about adding a line to exclude ALL lists of victims, and the oppose !votes clearly won out in that argument. Sadly, some !voters said it should be "case by case" (which I read as saying to maintain the status quo, not that we need to debate each and every article as a matter of policy). There is no consensus (nor has there ever been) for omitting victim names from articles describing the mass event they were involved in. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the absence of policy/guidelines that cover the content in question, then it always falls back on WP:ONUS, which is why we're having this discussion. Go ahead and try to bypass this discussion if you truly believe it is irrelevant. Enough of those attempts will lead to an editnotice like this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't even edited this article, knock it off with the veiled threats. Do better. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was not meant to be a threat, especially to you, and I apologize if it came off that way. You were saying that debate is not needed in every article about victim names. I was saying that is true UNTIL reversion happens. The comment "Enough of those attempts" refers to editors in general and not you specifically. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As information and resources are continuously made available about this event, resolutions for the display of this information will hopefully become more agreeable. That information has not been made clear yet. I assume the facts will necessitate themselves at the correct time. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless they did something more than be in the wrong place so that they were in the path of a bullet, I can't see any reason for them to be named. --Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is easy:  because our sources name them . WP:NPOV and WP:NOR dictate that we stick to what our sources say and not try to introduce bias into the subject just because some editors personally don't feel their names are valuable (which honestly says a lot more about the people objecting to their inclusion, but I digress). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to be included, 2) you don't want to know what the inability to let the dead rest in peace and constant need to remind the families of the worst days of their lives says to me about some editors. --Khajidha (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna leave the introductory paragraph of WP:NPOV here, as it's all relevant to your misunderstanding of this dispute:


 * As to #2, if it says anything other than being respectful to their sacrifice and their loss, then your perspective is skewed and you truly are hopeless. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments like "...some editors personally don't feel their names are valuable (which honestly says a lot more about the people objecting to their inclusion...)" is a disingenuous attack meant to disparage reputation. That is uncalled for. Keep it civil. A disagreement over the inclusion of names has nothing to do with caring about the victims. I also have no doubt that if you ask any family member or friend how they'd like their loved ones to be remembered, it wouldn't be about their involvement in this attack. It would be for their impact on others, how they lived, and their life's accomplishments, not about the moment in time that all came to a tragic end. Other than for awareness to prevent future tragedies, it would be insulting to them to place more focus on that aspect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is hard to include "their impact on others, how they lived, and their life's accomplishments," because there are editors who do not even want to include the names of victims. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you can go to the sources to see how the families have dealt with this, and how the public is memorializing them. Meanwhile, we're here debating whether or not we can even say their names aloud while glorifying the assailant and his choice of firearm. You enjoy that imaginary moral high-ground, I'm quite comfortable with my perspective down here. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely accept that there are multiple viewpoints with good intentions. Editors' stance on inclusion, whether for or against, does not encapsulate how those editors feel about the victims. This is simply a procedural debate that will continue long after this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the accused glorified? Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? Assailant is listed in the lead, the infobox, repeatedly in the article prose (along with the accused family), and the weapon of choice is not only listed in detail, someone decided it was wise to include the image from the gun's page so we wouldn't forget which weapon was used. Meanwhile, we deviate from the sources and minimize the victims to just age ranges and severity of wounds. Oh, I forgot to mention that we helpfully rank the severity of the shooting so anyone keeping score at home can know we're really serious about making sure we rank killing sprees. Way to go guys, quality work here by all editors involved! —Locke Cole • t • c 01:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not glorifying; it's neutrally describing. None of the info in the article or sources promotes him. Jim Michael (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is so far from neutral it's literally HILARIOUS to see you claim that it's neutral. Just... wow. Like I've said before, stuff like this seriously makes me question opposers' motivations. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you view it as non-neutral, you should say how. Simply declaring it as POV and then saying it's "HILARIOUS" when people ask you why is doing nothing and can be viewed as condescending and uncivil. Of course, the assailant is going to be mentioned multiple times, because that's who he is, as bad and terrible as he is. He shot. He is charged. So, yes, his name is going to be put more times than one. About the gun image, perhaps it is better to start another topic here about that, since talking it here would be deviating from the victim discussion. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can read all my other replies here, where I've gone over this numerous times. I'm not going to repeat myself for your convenience. As to the gun image, thank you for helping make my point about POV being hilarious. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe we are promoting the shooters 'point of view'. A lot of content is going to stem from his actions because of what he did. But that doesn't mean we're promoting only his point of view. What do you think a neutral POV might look like, and what's wrong the current one? Perhaps with an example, we can adapt something.
 * As for your comment about the gun image, that's not imparting any real information to anyone, nor is it telling anyone how to improve it. If you would rather, I can start the topic later myself if you do not want to. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no consistency being established here. There has also been little logical argument to legitimize censoring their identities -outside of emotional or moral appeal, and indifference - despite it being made public information and easily sourced. Without any bias being presented, this has become clear.

Their names being listed have nothing to do with memorials or personal opinions. Removing legitimate information, which has been added to an article, and is accurately sourced (multiple times), is counterproductive to the purpose of these articles. If no one adds it, fine. That has been the case for many similar pages. But, there are also pages where content such as this has been added, and it is considered legitimate. Here, attempts have been made to add this information, and it has been removed time and again. Currently, the page misrepresents the number of fatalities in the victim section as well. Any argument establishing a purpose for using the accused personal information, while the article is currently unable to present basic accuracies, is largely an embarrassment to the work being done here. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The victims were unknown to over 99% of people prior to being shot. How do their names help readers understand what happened? Jim Michael (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The victims were named in the vast majority of sources for this event, how does excluding them not violate NPOV? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have different standards & criteria to the media, who are businesses that chase (potential) customers. Excluding the victims' names doesn't introduce a bias. The article doesn't promote anyone. Jim Michael (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment the article only presents the POV of the assailant, in often unnecessary detail, while relegating the victims (without which this event would not be notable) to dry statistics and ranking the number of them dead compared to other mass shootings (further objectifying them for the reader). This isn't complicated: it is 100% a NPOV violation as the balance of the article is almost entirely shifted to the assailant. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This mass shooting is notable, but not because of the identities of the victims. It'd be equally notable if different students had been killed & injured instead. Those killed were unlucky, and those injured also unlucky but to a lesser extent. The shooting - not the victims - is what's notable. Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This mass shooting is notable, but not because of the identity of the assailant. It'd be equally notable if a different student had shot up the school. This student was just the one who happened to take a gun in and shoot the school up. The shooting - not the assailant - is what's notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's also true. However, the shooter is central to this. Therefore the accused should be named but the victims shouldn't. The accused's parents usually aren't named, but in this case they are because they've also been charged in relation to the shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More central to this than the people who died to make the event notable in the first place? I think not. And our sources don't either. Stop trying to impose your point of view over that of our sources. Just because you think they are irrelevant doesn't somehow give you veto power over what our sources state. If anything, WP:NPOV says neutrality is non-negotiable and this entire exchange is just tilting at windmills for you and those like-minded editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "More central to this than the people who died to make the event notable in the first place?" The shooter and his parents would be facing charges even if no one were killed. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If nobody had died, then we likely wouldn't even have an article on the incident. As to the parents and the shooter, they would be facing different (and lesser) charges if no one was killed. The event, as presently described, is not possible without the victims. And then there's the little matter of still needing to follow the sources instead of editorializing this and violating NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Replies to !vote by Cullen328

 * Can the victims be put back into the article now? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we know the victims are important? What makes them important? I'm not asking this as a fire-starter, a simple "Because they got shot." can be considered importance. But, what makes something important? How do we, as a community, judge if the victims of a terrible crime are important? If we can decide that, then I have no problem including their names.
 * Regarding your comment about trends, maybe we can stop that. Do we have a policy regarding crimes and detailing them? Perhaps a guideline? Would an essay suffice?
 * TL;DR 1. How are the victims important? How do we know?
 * TL;DR 2. How can we combat a poor balance of perpetrator-victim effectively? WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

, you should not expect other editors to do basic and simple research for you. I posted a link to an NPR article covering the victims above. Try going to Google News and search for various relevant strings like "what we know about the victims of the oxford high school shooting" and variants thereof, and you will find articles like this one. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and I can't speak for Cullen328, but we should follow what our reliable sources state. This keeps us from violating NPOV or engaging in OR (which is what we're doing here with this very poll/!vote; we don't get to decide if the victims names are relevant, if our sources do then we do as well). This also neatly clears up any issue for mass casualty events, for example, the sources for the 9/11 attacks typically don't list every victim, but they may call out specific victims. Follow the reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And they would call out those specific victims because they are notable. But, does being victim of a crime make someone notable? If they are innocent bystanders, what is their notability as a person? If we go by WP:VICTIM, a guideline, it states: "The victim [...] consistent with Biographies of living persons, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Right now, do we have that? How large of a role is being the victim of a shooting? Do we have persistent significant coverage of the victims?
 * If the answers to those are all yes, then we should include them. I believe we should gain consensus regarding a) role importance and size for victims of this crime, and b) persistent significant coverage of the victims. Unfortunately, I predict that (a) might be a challenge, and we may end up back at square one to this exact discussion.
 * How should we approach this? WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 05:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability standards apply to articles for subjects, not to their inclusion within a broader article (unless it's a standalone list, which this article is also not). With that simple fact in mind, I'll be ignoring the part regarding WP:VICTIM. When Victims of Oxford High School shooting turns blue then WP:VICTIM would be relevant. I defer to my prior recommendation as to "how should we approach this": follow the sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except now we're back to my previous comment about NOTWHOSWHO. [...] not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. and in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. How do we measure a victims importance? What makes the victim of a crime important, if they themselves did not do anything to become a victim? WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 06:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being repetitive: follow the sources. If our sources are naming them, then so should we. If our sources are going into detail about them, then we should carefully integrate a proportionate amount of detail in our article. This satisfies NPOV and keeps us from giving UNDUE weight to the assailant(s) in this events. The criteria is not whether you or I think they're relevant, notable, or "important" (or that they "[did] anything"), it's what our sources say. This also helps avoid situations of intentional or unintentional bias being used to editorialize events. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Can you provide a list of the sources that have coverage of the victims (i.e. names, details) for future reference? Thank you. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 06:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think this is why the rule has always bugged me. If someone is injured in an accident, they are usually named in the relevant article, even if they are not notable enough for a standalone article. But if someone dies in an attack, then they are usually not named in the article, even if it hurts comprehension as to the order of events. Sorry if this is too much of a tangent, but you made it click for me why policies like Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is contradictory to what happens when someone is involved in an accident. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, to be clear, WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to articles on the dead, it takes no position on mentioning or even memorializing the dead within a notable events article. Quoth NOTMEMORIAL: —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As much as I want to agree with you, it does get used as an argument just by itself against mentioning those who died "within a notable events article". That likely contributes to why I have a negative opinion of the policy. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair, it does get misused with some frequency by people who really ought to know better. There has (to my knowledge) never been a consensus for omitting victim names from event/incident articles. AFAIK any attempt to shoehorn such language into NOTMEMORIAL has been rejected. I did drop a reply at the talk page, though I have not looked at the sources to see how the victims were handled there. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Cullen328 does have an excellent point, but I did decied to look into your request for personal reasons. So, here is a list of the 46 references in the article that fits what Locke Cole mentioned. I also threw in a few additional sources from websites that are not listed as a reference.

1: Detroit Free Press - 2: BBC - 3: NPR - 4: WDIV - 5: CBC/Radio-Canada - 6: CBC/Radio-Canada (2) - 7: Detroit Free Press (2) - 8: CNN - 9: CNN (2) - 10: Detroit Free Press (3) - 11: NBC News - 12: CNN (3) - 13: Global News - 14: USA Today - 15: The Detroit News - 16: NBC News (2) - 17: WJBK - 18: Insider - 19: USA Today (2) - 20: Detroit Metro Times - 21: CNN (4) - 22: The Detroit News (2) - 23: Detroit Free Press (4) - 24: The Detroit News (3) - 25: WICU - 26: WJBK (2) - 27: CNN (5) - 28: The Independent - 29: Detroit Free Press (5) - 30: WJBK (3) - 31: The Detroit News (4) - 32: The Detroit News (5) - 33: USA Today (3) - 34: BBC (2) - 35: CNN (6) - 36: NBC News (3) - 37: CNN (7) - 38: WXYZ - 39: CNN (7) - 40: Newsweek - 41: MLive/Advance Publications - 42: Bleacher Report - 43: MLive/Advance Publications (2) - 44: Detroit Free Press (6)] - 45: Detroit Free Press (7)] - 46: Detroit Free Press (8) - 47: CNN (8) - #48: WOOD - #49: Vice - #50: The Manila Times - #51: CBS Sports

I hope that helps clear up the issue. If you have questions, a comment, or you notice an error, please feel free to reply after this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what point you are making. Are you saying multiple sources print the victim names, so Wikipedia should too? Well, the temperature today in Washington DC is in hundreds of newspapers, but you won't find that in Wikipedia either. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WWGB, but it is going to be 43°F today. :P For a sincere response, this partially goes back to the comments between Locke Cole and . As you can see, an understanding was reached, but  made a request that they should have done themselves given the work involved. Additionally, there is a comment Locke Cole made in a separate section that was hyperbole, but got me curious for certain reasons. So, I decided to sate my curiosity. This had a number of positive results: There were a few references that were from the same source that needed fixing and there were some sources that were used when they not have been. But, the main thing is that it should satisfy part of 's request and it goes along with part of Locke Cole's point. (Only part as while it might not be too clear here, there was a decrease in coverage about those who died as coverage shifted more to those who are charged with having committed crimes.) Regardless, there was more than one reason for my reply. I hope that clears things up a bit.  --Super Goku V (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you really just compare murder victims to the daily temperature in a major metropolitan area? False equivalency, in case you don't know that you just used a logical fallacy.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I question why people are so set on naming victims in these shootings. You don't see people clamoring to get names of victims in to every earthquake, hurricane, or fire article. What is the difference here? Random deaths are random deaths. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I question why people are so set on ignoring our sources on these events. You don't see people clamoring to get the names of every single other minor person included because they just add them and nobody cares. But for some reason the victims are this huge issue even though the article would not be possible without them. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that everyone has their own reason, so I cannot really answer your first question. I will point out that there are those who are confused and baffled why only those who were shot were excluded from being named in the article.  I will point out that it is hard to call it random deaths as it wasn't an Act of God event.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think at this point, some of us are trying to understand why the information is being prohibited when there is clear evidence for its use in the article. The counter argument seems based largely on the fact that none of these people were significant prior to their deaths. If these deaths are random and insignificant, then why are they all over the national news? National laws and amendment rights are created or changed by events such as this. Again, this is not a localized event, and comparing names of victims of mass murder to the weather on the news is quite a stretch. Natural disasters also target indiscriminately. No one is putting a hurricane on trial for murder. And arguing the killer targeted indiscriminately is pure speculation at this point because further information justifying that position has not been made available yet. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What about sources in general? On Google News, searching the event (with a limited date range of just before the event occurred):
 * 300+ mention the shooting
 * 300+ mention Crumbley
 * 300+ mention "Ethan" and "Crumbley" (quoted separately)
 * 290 mention Myre
 * 100-120 mention at least one of the other victims
 * So first it can be seen that not even a majority mention the victims (with the exception of Myre). Perhaps other searching methodologies will produce different results (feel free to add them below), but this is a good start. Aside from this objective observation, there is an inherent problem with relying on primary sources published close to an event's occurrence. Secondary sources, particularly academic in nature, are preferred to show how much detail from primary sources is retained over time. Those that are retained then qualify as having sustained significance. That is very difficult to judge early on when those sources have yet to be written. So naturally, we move to the question of how names benefit the article: Does their inclusion have any impact on the reader's understanding of the event? This is a reasonable question to pose in the absence of secondary source analysis. Some supporters attempt to answer, while others deflect saying the question is invalid to begin with. They cite the number of sources and NPOV as all the justification needed. But obviously not all sources are reporting the names, and the claim of having a majority even seems unfounded if the observation above represents a reasonable assessment.In addition, we are told to: "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." This may very well be an appropriate "some case", but I think it leans more problematic in the sense that we keep having this reoccurring debate in mass shooting articles with only primary sources to keep falling back on. A newspaper article and encyclopedia article are two very different things. In a Venn diagram, there would be very little overlap.And finally, while it's not a policy or guideline, it's worth reading WP:VL for some helpful insight as to how the inclusion of names seems to be more predominantly associated with articles written on US mass shootings. It appears be much less so in other English-speaking countries. That, of course, presents another interesting angle if accurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you've linked one essay that does not have any consensus, while an essay to the contrary point exists (Casualty lists). That you can easily find hundreds of sources including the names is not an argument against including them at all, many articles would be written about entirely different aspects of the shooting (for example, an article about police investigation or the parents being arrested would not have a great reason to mention them). We're trying to write a summary of the topic in general and clearly their names are a relevant part of the topic according to many reliable sources.
 * Can you please explain how excluding their names helps anyone? It makes our article less informative and requires it be worded in a less natural manner. Arguing about "significance" is a bit of a red herring here -- you haven't shown how it makes the article better to leave the names out. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the first point you chose to respond to was a side note about an essay. One little aspect within it is perhaps worth considering, maybe not, but let's not expand that to mean the whole essay. Seems counterproductive to counter something I wasn't even addressing and repeating what I said about not being a policy or guideline. As for the source count, anyone is free to do with that what they will. Hearing others refer to "the sources" as if they're nearly unanimous, or even the "vast majority of sources", warranted a quick comparison that doesn't quite vibe with the way those phrases were being used. We don't even have the WP:BESTSOURCES yet. All we know at the moment is that multiple primary sources report the names and multiple primary sources omit them. If you'd like to do a deeper analysis and further break down those numbers, please do."you haven't shown how it makes the article better to leave the names out" Speaking of red herrings, this question diverts from the actual task at hand which is: supporters must show how names improve the article. Verifiability isn't enough on its own when inclusion is challenged. Of the opposition, some may simply feel the details are trivial; they neither help nor hurt the article. It wouldn't make any sense to have to prove an article is made better by exclusion, and there is no such obligation."It makes our article less informative..." To date, no one has been able to properly articulate how adding names makes it more informative, so how can one possibly declare omission makes it less informative? How about clarifying for all of us what is so informing about the names and then maybe we'll get somewhere. More characters and lines of text does not automatically make it so. Stating "two men, ages 32 and 65, were killed in a vehicle collision" is just as sufficient as stating "32-year-old John Doe, along with 65-year-old John Hancock, were killed in a vehicle collision", only with less bloat that allows the reader to focus quickly on the details that actually inform. If you disagree, by all means, please enlighten us. You'd be the first to answer this age-old question that never seems to get answered in these debates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid falling into the media trap of over-focusing on accused murderers and downplaying the victims.. Unfortuately that isn't a trap, nor is it something we can or should 'fix'. The names of perpetrators of awful crimes or evil deeds are almost always better known than the people they harm or rape or kill. That is often history, it isn't a "media trap", nor can we fix it. Only their family, friends and community are going to remember these names, but why should it be otherwise? What is achieved by memorialising the individual names HERE? Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , (and other editors supporting excluding these names), there is a core content policy based reason for including these names, and that policy is the Neutral point of view, which says Emphasis added. In this case, the names of the four who died have been mentioned by hundreds of reliable sources worldwide, and the sources that have devoted deep, analytical coverage to this crime are far more likely to name the victims and describe them than those sources who provide brief, superficial coverage of this crime. Names carry weight. They have connotations and implications and create and strengthen memories. They are evocative.  Readers appreciate names because they help bring topics to life. If we mention that a flood inundated four villages, readers want to know the names of those villages. If we mention that five creeks drain into a river, readers want to know the name of those creeks. We should always try to write articles that engage our readers in compliance with our policies and guidelines. I happen the main contributor to a Good article, namely Harry Yount, which went through a peer review process. I just reviewed that article and counted 24 other people mentioned. 12 are blue links with Wikipedia articles and 12 lack articles, but the inclusion of their names adds value for the reader even though they are not notable people. Adding well referenced names to the prose of articles is a good thing, within reason, whether or not those individuals are notable. The number of names is important when making editorial judgments. Four names is easy for readers to absorb, without being overwhelmed by something that is a list rather than prose. "Let's invite George, Sam, Emily and Gertrude to our dinner party" is easy to understand and remember for a while. On the other hand, mentioning the names of the 60 people killed in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting would not be natural prose and would be more like a list or a roster. Four is reasonable even if 60 is not. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of policy, which seems 'novel', to say the least. Of course it 'personalises' and 'memorialises' to name the individuals and it would be very strange indeed for a news source to not do so. especially a 'local' source around the time of the event. But what encyclopaedic purpose will the names be to readers outside the US in 5 years time? Are we deemed so insensitive that we cannot realise that each of the killed had loved ones mourning them and wished to be given the opportunity to live their lives? How does it help to know the identity of the x-year old girl or boy or n-year old teacher? The event is noteworthy, not the poor souls caught up in it. I believe it may sometimes be intrusive to name people - we don't have permission. I know someone whose close relative is periodically (though rarely) mentioned in UK news sources because of the awful circumstances of her relative's death. Each time this happens, my acquaintance goes into despair for several weeks. This may be rare, but we should be cautious, other people's lives and other people's grief is not 'public property' especially not on a 'world-reach' site like WP. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you,, for being one of the few that have actually attempted to tackle what should be a relatively easy question to answer. We need more engagement like this, and for those who are truly open to change and aren't stuck perpetually defending one side of the argument, this kind of healthy debate is what's needed to move toward compromise. It lends some insight into other uses of non-notable names worth pondering further.From the procedural angle, unfortunately this can't be answered by a single policy alone. Core content policies "complement each other", "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another", and "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines". WP:VNOTSUFF is a component of another core content policy, WP:V, which states "...not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted...". We know this is meant to work in harmony with NPOV, not against it. So putting the two together, we can conclude that while all significant viewpoints should be included by default, consensus may determine that some do not improve the article and therefore should be omitted. But how can this be? Is one being permitted to create a loophole that contradicts the other? A closer look at NPOV might hold the key. The opening line begins with "All encyclopedic content..." Bingo. NPOV instructs how to handle content already determined to be encyclopedic, but it's the other two core content policies that help us make that determination. So no, the two are not directly contradicting, and neither one needs to be assessed in isolation.One reason why this debate lingers on, is that we rarely have the high-quality sources needed to determine "encyclopedic". To build on 's point, primary sources like newspapers and other news outlets are selling a product, overly-humanizing various aspects at times to pull at emotional strings. Why do newspapers plaster tragedies and crimes on their front page? They are also influenced from a cultural perspective, which is why we see disparities in how they report in different parts of the world. We, on the other hand, are not selling a product; we are trying to write an encyclopedic article with a focus on long-term significance. The ability to scrutinize a highly-verifiable detail is well within the parameters outlined in policy. Hopefully we can identify a pattern from all these debates and pull from the ashes a compromise that gets codified in policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverts
Noting that has repeatedly reverted the inclusion of Myre's name in sentences which discuss him, apparently believing that this needs further discussion. While this overall thread has been about including all of the victims' names, I think the case for Myre's is far clearer -- he's discussed individually -- and haven't seen many comments here which oppose him particularly. Therefore I think his name should be included. It's a bit absurd for our article to mention that they're considering renaming the school's stadium after someone without mentioning who for... no reason that anyone has mentioned here at all. I've also tried to discuss 's revert on their talkpage but my message to them was reverted without explanation. If they also refuse to reply here, I will revert them again, it's unreasonable to revert multiple times without any attempt at discussion. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The edits were reverted because clearly this discussion on whether to include the victims' names or not is still ongoing. Love of Corey (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * have you read through the discussion? Looking at most objections I find it difficult to think that they'll apply to including Myre's name in that context. There is no rule against editing an article during an ongoing discussion and reverting just because this discussion isn't closed is not constructive. Do you have a reason that Myre's name should not be included? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Same as all the others: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL states, not that non-notable victims cannot be mentioned at all. No one is proposing an article on Myre, indeed I would support deletion of it per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But that does not apply in this case and just citing the shortcut doesn't make it so. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even so, given the clearly controversial nature of this discussion topic, we must wait until the entire discussion is closed with a clear consensus being declared as reached. Love of Corey (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * no, we don't. This is not an RfC. This is a talk page discussion which does not need to be closed. Uou are ignoring WP:NOTBURO to argue for your opinion here. You've gone from presenting a case for your position to simply objecting procedurally based off of a policy which does not exist. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is as good as an RfC as it gets. Love of Corey (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not tagged as an RfC nor was it originally presented as one. The fact that some people started making bolded !votes does not change that. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but for austerity's sake, I've started an RfC in the talk page. Might as well make it official! :) Love of Corey (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Left a comment there. I'll refrain from editing the article on the topic until the RfC reaches a consensus. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the RfC's closure, I think it's even clearer now that this discussion is clearly meant to be an RfC in all but name. Love of Corey (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should let the discussion run for 7-10 days and then ask for an uninvolved editor (preferably an admin) to close the discussion with a decision. That has happened elsewhere before. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We'll see what happens, I'm stepping back from this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like some clarification here. Are you saying that a consensus to use Myer's name does not exist from your point of view?  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the consensus is not there yet. If I said something to the contrary, then I apologize. Love of Corey (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem. I just saw that it wasn't entirely clear from my point of view.  --Super Goku V (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding closure
Was there some predetermined timeframe set? RfC's of this nature typically run their course for 3-4 weeks, but I also understand this was not advertised as an RfC, so we will likely get less community feedback this time around. I suggest leaving it open until 12/16, which is 2 weeks from the start date (unless, of course, more time is needed). --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to treat this as a RfC given that this is a talk page discussion and the RfC below was closed as premature due to this discussion being ongoing. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I initially was hoping to see this wrapped up seven days after the start, especially as discussion seemed to be slowing down, but with the folks coming via bot request and likely from the attempts to promote the discussion, I think two weeks is workable. I've requested an uninvolved admin to close the discussion, asked in advance so whoever volunteers has the time to carefully consider the discussion above and keep up with any new discussions that may emerge rather than trying to quickly do it all at once at the end. Obviously if it appears there is still constructive discussion ongoing this can be extended. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The names get in the article after the discussion is closed, correct? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The names get in the article if that is the consensus. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)