Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting

Wrong information on non-reporting
It's known that the suspect was in the Air Force and yet the article says the Navy didn't report the suspects violent information for background checks. The Navy has nothing to do with the reporting of the violations this suspect had while in the Air Force. 47.185.77.48 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a fair point. I've fixed it now. While consultation on a talk page is no bad thing, you are welcome to go ahead and fix obvious mistakes like that yourself in future, if you want. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti religious motivation
Whoever user(s) keep trying to emphasize his motivation as being anti religious. Please stop it. The sources are not that strong, it's only speculation. We'll never know, he his dead and the evidence is circumstantial ie. the circumstances were that he shot people who were in a church and made a few comments online. The official motivation is a domestic dispute, and this needs to be maintained as the primary motive, for that reason. Everything else is just opinion/speculation. Feel free to discuss here, but stop editing the article until there is consensus to change. -- Green  C  14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The "motive" field of the infobox in mass shooting articles is traditionally a bit of a disaster area. It should contain only uncontroversial statements by the investigators, not speculation by journalists, blogs, YouTube videos, what John Doe thought etc, etc.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Motherfuckers or not
Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- Green  C  15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) Special:Diff/1227328404/1227370621 - "motherfuckers"
 * 2) Special:Diff/1224234853/1226521688 - "mother---" (per the source)
 * 3) Special:Diff/1227304448/1227328404 - none


 * Option 3 (primary) or Option 2 (secondary): The word "gratuitous" means "lacking good reason", and it's often paired with offensive content - 'gratuitous violence' - because people will include offense content for the sake of it. That is the case here. What purpose does it serve, for this article, what is the reason for inclusion. It is distracting from the primary reason the quote was chosen, "Everyone dies", which demonstrates that his purpose for being there is to kill everyone in the church. The gratuitous "motherfuckers" is excessively emotive to the point of distracting why the quote was chosen for inclusion in the first place. --  Green  C  15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 is preferrable and I do think may provide information about the state of mind of the perpetrator. More gratuitous, in my view, is the excessively detailed minute by minute account the shooting.  It is arousing/titillating.  Perhaps might be viewed as a risk for 'contagion' ie a 'how to'.  Not sure, but that is my reaction.  Hope those thought are helpful. Birdephant (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 – it is neither gratuitous or offensive, it is what he said, it's sourced, and readers won't even remember that minute detail from this article. However, what will really invoke an emotive response to content in this article, and readers will actually remember, is the fact he "should not have been allowed to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition because of a prior domestic violence conviction", and he murdered 26 people, which included multiple children. We're talking about one word here that our readers will not simply care about, in light of the senseless and horrific tragedy this actually was. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak 1 to quote him more completely, if he is quoted at all. It may come across as offensive, but so is "everyone dies", as well as the entire incident for that matter. Senorangel (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 WP:WINC. I don't see any reason not to quote him in full. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 The relevant guidelines here is MOS:VULGAR: "language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative."
 * I think that the purpose of the quote in the article is to impart the reader with an understanding of the state of mind of the perpetrator. This is important, because it helps contextualize how this event was later seen by authorities and by society at large. With this in mind, I think that "everybody dies" is sufficient to impart the reader with the perpetrator's state of mind without needing the subsequent curse word. spintheer (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, Definitely not option 2, per MOS:PMC: "Vulgarities and obscenities should be shown exactly as they appear in the quoted source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words (G-d d--m it!) [unless the text itself does so]" spintheer (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think it should be Option 1 Birdephant (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 per and the most convincing comments from, "...readers won't even remember that minute detail from this article" (meaning the vulgar wording) and the additional comments, "We're talking about one word here that our readers will not simply care about, in light of the senseless and horrific tragedy this actually was." I agree that vulgar words are not important, and will be less important when any dust settles from possible sensationalism that could happen. There are strange people all over the world. In this case omission would "not" "make the article less accurate or relevant". -- Otr500 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because readers won't remember that detail doesn't automatically make the inclusion of motherfuckers offensive or gratuitous or excessively emotive. And yes, the exclusion of motherfuckers will make the article less accurate, because we are deliberately choosing to misquote what was actually said, which raises a to our readers who will justifiably think we are feeding them misinformation. Quotes should always be verbatim. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Making the article less accurate is not the only condition that's relevant when determining the inclusion or exclusion of curse words. From WP:PROFANE: "[Offensive material] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate,  and  no equally suitable alternative is available" (emphasis mine). I think that using just "Everybody dies" is an equally suitable alternative to "Everybody dies, " in the context of the way that the quote is used in the article. spintheer (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, strongly oppose Option 2 - If this RfC without any prior discussion is going ahead. Wikipedia isn't censored. He said "motherfuckers". BoldGnome (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak 3 - (Summoned by WP:RFC/A) I would have to agree with the other editors on the sentiment that Wikipedia should not be censored, but I do agree more heartily that the detail of the vulgarity does not really elevate this article in any way. Therefore, best to leave it out.
 * MaximusEditor (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1: I see no reason why the inclusion of this word, and thus restitution of the full quote, should be avoided. Apart from not causing personal harm to anyone, it gives some type of insight as to the speaker’s mental state and general disdain for people, which seems to me to be an important piece of information to include about them. -Konanen (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - I feel that the principle that wikipedia is not censored trumps the preference to avoid vulgarity when unnecessary. It does have a useful and informative purpose here, as mentioned above by Konanen and Isaidnoway particularly. Fieari (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I don't see any reason not to quote him in full The fact that "motherfuckers" is … emotive and has no literal meaning or possible synonym is why it more fully conveys the shooter's angry state of mind, than the slightly doom-laden, nihilistic "Everyone die/s", if we are going to quote, let's do it fully and accurately. Like another editor I can see a case for omitting profanity in cases where it is directly disparaging or hurtful towards a distinct person or directed at a specific group of people, or is simply an extended rant, but that is not the case here. Am I watching too many of the 'wrong' movies if I say that, in such public arenas, if not in private discourse, the word is no longer as shocking as it once might have been.Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. The word is used in the context of a direct quote, and WP:WINC. Definitely not option 2, as per MOS:PMC. I believe the quote is useful to provide context, as per . CVDX (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't you say that "everybody dies" sufficiently captures the speaker's mental state (anger, callous disdain for others' lives)? What further insight does including the curse word give the reader here? This is what the argument revolves around. spintheer (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not including the expletive does change the meaning of the statement. “Everybody dies” may read as more calculated than heated.  The reader, rather than the writer should decide how to weight this in context.  Option 1 is my vote Birdephant (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we already say Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies .... I think that the yelling is sufficient to get across the heated (as opposed to cold, calculated) nature of the statement, without the curse word. spintheer (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. We should not WP:BOWDLERIZE words like many sources do. However, WP:BOWDLERIZE and MOS:PMC both say that if it's bowdlerized, then we must do the same in quotes, putting a [sic] in. There are three books I've found that do have the full quote: "Soft Target Hardening" (Taylor & Francis); "The Tree of Good and Evil" (Wipf and Stock); and "Conspiracy Beliefs as Coping Behavior" (Lexington Books). They all should be good. SWinxy (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Per MOS:VULGAR "quotes should always be verbatim" and "omission would make an article less accurate". "Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies, motherfuckers"" is more accurate than "Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies"". Option 2 is out of the question per WP:NOTCENSORED. Charcoal feather (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Wikipedia is not censored, and it's better to include the full quote so as to speak to the perpetrator's state of mind, should we wish to include the quote at all. Some half measure does not make sense—either we should include the whole thing, or we should include none of it. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I recommend participants stay focused on the content of this article, and not turn it into a general discussion about censorship, to only make a point that Wikipedia is not censored. It lacks reason for inclusion in this article for this quote and sentence. --  Green  C  15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see a discussion among you all on the Talk page about this. Am I missing it somehow? Is it not a bit early for a RfC? WP:RFCBEFORE Pathawi (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit history of the article shows it unlikely to be resolved in a talk discussion. The purpose of RFCBEFORE is to avoid wasting time, that discussion would only lead back to an RfC. -- Green  C  17:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're approaching that the right way. You've had a very brief exchange of reversions with, & you can't extrapolate from interactions with other editors to how they will engage a Talk page discussion. WP:RFCBEFORE suggests multiple options before an RfC, a conversation on the Talk page is only the first of which. None of these have happened. I really think you guys are jumping the gun on this. Pathawi (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, this RfC seems a tad tendentious. And "per the source" next to one of the options preferred by the RfC opener is non-neutral. And personally as someone who reverted GreenC on this matter it would have been nice to have been notified. BoldGnome (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For future discussion (inside or outside this RFC), the relevant guidelines to this case is MOS:VULGAR: "language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative." The discussion should revolve around how this policy applies here.spintheer (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MOS:VULGAR is conceptually my concern when I started this RfC. I was unaware it had been codified. I think you are right this is the relevant guideline it's right on point. BTW for Option 2, the cited source uses "Motherf---r" thus MOS:PMC would apply "unless the text itself does so". There might be other sources that use the complete word, I have not analyzed for common usage. -- Green  C  16:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The question here seems to be whether Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source is considered to trump However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. And furthermore, what purpose does the relativising provision of not including profanity serve? I can see a case for omitting profanity in cases where it is directly disparaging or hurtful towards a distinct person or directed at a specific group of people (while being immaterial to the subject matter), but that is not the case here.
 * I personally think accuracy and completeness in quotes is more important than protecting readers from bad words. -Konanen (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that many sources just quote "everybody die", without any mention of curse words:, , , , ,.
 * Meanwhile, other sources use "everybody die, [expletive]":, ,
 * The final group is sources that bowdlerize the curse word:, , , ,
 * I'm using this to illustrate that a significant portion of sources decided that reporting "everybody die" is sufficient to get the idea across without also including the curse word. spintheer (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Close requested: Closure_requests -- Green  C  21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)