Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting/Archive 2

Names of the dead

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

Per this discussion, there will need to be consensus on this talk page to include the names of the dead when they are known. Just sayin'. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Personally I am against having a list of the victims' names, but they will likely be added at some point.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough to know that a vote without an argument is likely to be discarded. Not a democracy and all that. So I'm not sure why you bothered to comment at all. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  18:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that was a bit rude. Unfortunately we've had this debate many times and it would only lead to past arguments being repeated. For clarity's sake, I fall into the WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPPRIVACY camp for the victims' relatives. Also, it doesn't usually add much encyclopedic content to list the names.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * NOTMEMORIAL and BLPPRIVACY do not apply here. Without getting into the weeds, NOTMEMORIAL exists to prevent people from creating articles to honor the memories of non-notable people close to them, or inserting tributes to them into existing articles that the deceased have some connection to. The issue here, and in all similar articles, has nothing to do with trying to "to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others" who aren't notable. That provision addresses a purely personal agenda. Ours is about the business of editing a serious encylopedia article; it's solely about whether or not the names of those killed constitute noteworthy content in relation to the subject, in this case the Thousand Oaks shooting. And BLPPRIVACY is abundantly clear when it says, "Wikipedia includes full names...that have been widely published by reliable sources". (Other personal details such as dates of birth, email addresses, telephone numbers, etc., of course have no relevance for our purposes.) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "eff no" to both questions. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. And "well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, a Wikipedia policy, states: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet [Wikipedia's notability] requirements." Proponents of victims lists very often say this applies only to the subjects of bio articles. In years of discussions about victims lists, I've yet to see a halfway lucidlet alone convincing argument for that distinction. To say only "Because that's what the rule says" is to ignore or be unaware of two facts: First, that that is not how Wikipedia works, that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording." And second, that the rule does not actually say that. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  10:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I support listing the victim names and ages. We have done so in many, many, many similar articles.  Articles too numerous to mention.  No reason to not include them here, also.  I am referring to the deceased victims, only.  Not the injured survivors.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. I ask myself how much real reader value there is in these names, and myself answers, "Not much". The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information in the article is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. Genders and ages can be summarized in prose and that would add to reader understanding.
 * Oppose - The list of victims is completely unnecessary in an encyclopedia format. The only exception would be if any of the victims are notable on their own and widely reported as such. It doesn't really add any information to the reader unless the reader is familiar with the names. Danbert8 (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is completely irrelevant; this issue is solely about the value (noteworthiness) of content. Where did you get the idea that the level of familiarity readers have with the names of victims, or anything else, should ever be a factor when deciding if information should be included in an article?? The subject here is the Thousand Oaks shooting and we are deciding if the names of the 12 killed are noteworthy content about that subject. As we do when we weigh the encylopedic value of any content for any article, we evaluate the coverage it has received in reliable sources and of course consider due weight and other factors. Whether our readers are "familiar with the names" is not one of those factors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many events are not noteworthy unless someone noteworthy was involved. In this case, the event itself is noteworthy, but the victims are not unless the victims are noteworthy enough to be listed in several news sources. Many readers are unfamiliar with the names because they have no reason to have heard of the victims. If the victims become noteworthy because they were victims of the events, then that would be a valid reason to include their names in the article. In most Wikipedia articles, most people who are named as individuals have a Wikilink to a page of their own. If Wikipedia doesn't think the individuals are notable enough to have their own page, what is the noteworthiness of including their names in this article specifically? Danbert8 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

1. The killer's name is reported in every RS article. The victims' names are reported in a relative few. 2. Unless specific individuals are targeted, the victims are completely random. 3. No Wikipedia article about a mass shooting in the history of Wikipedia has ever omitted the killer's name. To my knowledge the killer's name has never been seriously contested. This constitutes an extremely rare beast in Wikipedia editing: a unanimous de facto community consensus. 4. Whataboutism is rarely useful in a content discussion. The killer's name is not the topic here. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  08:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose including the names of any of the victims. I've stated my reasons for excluding them in a discussion on Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Victims' names are on many articles about mass killings, but not on many others. There should be a clear ruling about the matter, so that we don't need discussions on many talk pages of mass killing articles about whether or not to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple attempts to establish such a "clear ruling", the last one at WP:VPR in July (we didn't see you there). The current community consensus is that this needs case-by-case evaluation, and that even a "default" guideline would be bad. You and I disagree with that, but we're in the minority. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  14:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support including the names and brief info (age, occupation, where they are from, perhaps a couple of other details) about the victims. In these situations the stories of the victims become a significant and integral part of the entire event and they receive a significant amount of in-depth coverage. This already happened here, e.g., , , , , just to give a few examples. We should not artificially leave out any significant aspects of the story, basically per WP:DUEWEIGHT reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The stories of the victims typically become part of the story only in cases where the survivors/witnesses choose to talk to the media - and even then usually only briefly. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Usually both the media and the public are interested in who the victims were, to put a more human face of these kinds of stories and also to balance the coverage so it is not so that not just the perpetrator gets all the attention. Among the links I included above there are two stories BBC News, "Thousand Oaks: Who are the victims?" and NBC News "Victims of Thousand Oaks shooting were full of hope and heroism" that are about all of the victims, rather than about specific ones, and that were written because these media outlets wanted to write stories covering the victims and not because the family members of specific victims sought out such coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's more often the media seeking the survivors, witnesses & families of those killed rather than those people seeking media coverage. Nevertheless, I think we should not publicise or memorialise the victims. I also don't see what the reader is supposed to gain from seeing the names of those killed. The names mean nothing to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The name "Ian David Long" also means "nothing" to 99% of readers. No?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean the victims' names. No-one here is saying that we shouldn't include the killer's name. Jim Michael (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But why shouldn't we omit the killer's name, Jim Michael ? I would like to hear you defend the inclusion of the killer's name. What would be your justification for including the killer's name? Bus stop (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will respond once and once only, as I know you to be an editor who believes a debate must continue until you're convinced, until the other position makes sense to you.
 * Yes, and in addition to that, the killer is the central figure in a mass killing, so to not name him would be ridiculous. Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, my thanks to Mandruss and Jim Michael for those responses. In the same vein of thinking, can I ask you why we include the proper name of the establishment at which this occurred? Does the article benefit from the inclusion of the information that the establishment is called the "Borderline Bar and Grill" and that it is located at "99 Rolling Oaks Dr"? You will see if you think about this that the reason we include this level of specificity is ultimately because the reader has an appetite for the facts. I believe all of your argumentation against the inclusion of the victim names boils down to the far simpler argument that you think you know what is best for the reader. My counterargument is equally simple: give the reader what they want. Of course they want to know the name of the establishment at which this occurred. Of course they want to know the name of the killer. They are reading the article because they want all the information presented to them. And of course we are not protecting anyone's privacy by noting a name and an age that is widely published. The reader wants a certain level of specificity of detail. The reader has an appetite for the real facts. It is tantamount to nannyism to think that we know what is best for the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your claims about what readers want are both unproven and unprovable. You can testify to what you want. You can say what the extremely few people in contact with you want (and we would have to take your word for it). You can even state a perception based on the minuscule sampling of public sentiment that you've seen on the internet. But none of that is very relevant to this discussion. I'll say what I and those around me want, which is equally irrelevant: We don't care about the names of the victims because the names don't mean anything to us. We knew none of those people, or any of their families or friends. (While some readers did, their numbers are vanishingly insignificant as a fraction of the reader population, and are therefore not a factor in content decisions.) This doesn't mean we don't care about the victimswe most certainly do care about the victimsrather, it means we don't care about the specific identification labels they were assigned at birth by tradition. You might as well list Social Security numbers, for all it would mean to us. And finally, I'm unaware of anything in Wikipedia pillars, policies, or guidelines about making content decisions based on our subjective and unprovable opinions of what readers want. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  14:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vis-à-vis "subjective and unprovable opinions", Mandruss, how is it that you are knowledgeable of "the reader's understanding of the event"? Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a part of PAGs somewhere (I can't put my finger on it at the moment but I'll spend the time to hunt it down if you disagree). It goes without saying that the PAG wants us to make an editorial value judgment there, or the PAG wouldn't exist. "What readers want" is not a part of PAGs, as I said, which is the crucial difference. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  15:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The raison d'être of Wikipedia is to provide details. We only omit details when a good enough reason is given for omitting details. Our ultimate default position is for the inclusion of material. That is our reason for existence. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We only omit details when a good enough reason is given for omitting details. I think good enough reasons have been given for omitting these details (I get that you and others disagree). Which pretty much kills that as a meaningful argument in this discussion. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  15:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the spirit of WP:MEMORIAL I would argue that we not include biographical-type information about each decedent, but I think the simple listing of names and ages makes the article more useful in several ways. Doing so provides a record in one place of this identifying information. And it also facilitates further research for readers interested in Googling further. A list of victim's names serves as a jumping off point for additional research. This is making the article more useful. I have not seen a good reason for omitting the simple notation of all names and ages of the deceased. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, you remain unconvinced. Me too. How did I know this would be the result of all this? Maybe because it invariably is? Thanks for the brain exercise, but fini, s'il vous plaît. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a believer. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good ear candy! ― Mandruss  &#9742;  16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the vast majority of readers don't want to know the names of the victims, because they mean nothing to them. Jim Michael (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there were space constraints, Jim Michael, you would have a valid point. But the article is not overly long and thirteen names + ages takes up very little article space. The advantage of inclusion under such a circumstance is that it facilitates further research for the interested reader—the interested reader merely cuts and pastes one name at a time into Google. By including the names we enhance the usefulness of the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're saying that there are people who look for articles about mass killings by typing one or more names of the victims into a search engine, rather than entering its location and/or date and/or killer's name? Jim Michael (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jim Michael—in my conception of this article it is not primarily a memorial to the deceased. I think the primary focus of the article is a description of the incident, plus some related material. The lives of the deceased are extensive and have strong sentimental components. I think there is reader interest in the lives of the victims. There are no space constraints with this article at this point as it is still a relatively short article. Though the names of the victims are listed in many sources I think we should want to make this article as useful as possible by including a simple listing of the names and ages of the deceased. I don't think this is any big deal and I think it should be the rule and not the exception. And I think the onus burden is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased. No, it is not. WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I have to say it, you seem to have a fairly weak understanding of the relevant PAGs hereboth letter and spirit. In place of that, you tend to make up your own, like the "what readers want" and the "strong sentimental components". And, per WP:SATISFY, no editor is obligated to provide what you consider to be good reasons. It's really to see that if you turn it around; are you going to change your !vote if I don't think you have provided good reasons to include this content? I didn't think so. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * —I did not say that the WP:ONUS was on anyone to do anything. I said "I think the onus is on you". My intention was to simply use the English word "onus", not the Wikipedia-specific reference to policy. Perhaps I should have said "I think the burden is on you". If you won't mind I'll alter my above comment to make clear that I was not referring to the Wikipedia acronym. Your response is understandable but incorrect in relation to my perhaps unclear intentions. Thank you in advance. Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mandruss and Jim Michael—allow me to make a few points. I think these discussions boil down to only 3 factors. On the one hand adding the names to the article makes the article more useful for the reader. On the other hand adding the names of the victims to the article might compromise the privacy of the victims and their surviving loved ones and we might memorialize the victims. We clearly differ in the significance we attach to each of these concerns. So in summation we have 3 factors: usefulness on the one hand and privacy and memorialization on the other hand. That I think is a summation of the arguments pro and con. Obviously you will correct me if I am wrong in my analysis of this discussion. And no, Jim Michael, I am not saying "there are people who look for articles about mass killings by typing one or more names of the victims into a search engine, rather than entering its location and/or date and/or killer's name". I don't know where you got that idea from as I've said nothing of the sort. Bus stop (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where I got it from is you saying in this section ' ... the interested reader merely cuts and pastes one name at a time into Google.' If you didn't mean the victims' names, then I can't see what you could mean or how it could be relevant to the article. No-one is arguing for exclusion of the names of the killers in articles such as this, so it sounded like you were saying that people search for articles such as this by putting the victims' names into Google. Jim Michael (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jim Michael—our role is to make sure the reader is well-supplied with information on a given topic area. This topic area is the scope of the article. We know that information connects with other information and therefore a judgement call, a decision, has to be made as to how much information on a given area should be contained in an article. Should we tell the name of the dog of the deceased? No, that would be too much information. But on the other hand there are juncture points that can be considered the roots of areas of information. This is the reason that the names of the deceased should be included in the article, or at least one of the reasons—there are other reasons as well, but I am focussing on an especially pragmatic reason: the name of the deceased is a root of an area of information. Armed with the name of the deceased, the reader can do further research on their own. They can cut-and-paste the name from our article into a search engine to further research that deceased person. I might not have been clear in my earlier reference to cutting-and-pasting, so I thank you for this opportunity to clarify what I meant and also to elaborate on my reasoning. I am suggesting that you are suggesting that we omit a root of information. Without even the name of the deceased included in our article the reader has to first find a source containing that name. It is only after finding out the name of the deceased from another source that the reader can resume searching to find out more about the decedent(s). Why not give them that information—the name of the deceased—at our source? Can you give me a good explanation as to why you think even the names of the decedents should be omitted from this article? I don't think there is any question that policies and guidelines would not prohibit the names of the deceased in this article. But you could have reasons of your own that you feel support an argument that the names of the deceased should be omitted from this article. I hope you will state your reasons here. Respectfully, Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support the inclusion in this article of a list of names and ages similar to what is found at Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The names and ages (only) of those killed most should definitely be included. It is clearly noteworthy content in relation to the subject, particularly when the names become widely published by most major metro newspapers in the U.S. and other national and international mainstream media outlets. Leaving the names of the deceased out would make the article incomplete; it would be a glaring omission. I believe if they weren't included many readers would ask themselves, "Where are the names of the people who were killed; how can that not be in here?!" So, as we have done with Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and numerous others, I feel we should list the names and ages only. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * STRONG Support They had their lives taken, for no reason. I think the least we can do is cover their story at least as much as the perpetrator. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We have an article because twelve people were murdered by a gunman. The identification of these victims are needed to describe the event in full; its impossible to have a complete victims section without actually having some information of the victims. In regards to WP:Notmemorial, the policy states that “Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.” Basically, the policy requires that articles on deceased individuals meet notability requirement. Further, the history of the rule shows that it was originally meant to apply to articles. When the rule was initially proposed and worked out, editors were discussing article topics but not content within articles (search memorial to find the relevant sections). The earliest version of the rule indicates that it has its roots in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, when Wikipedia was flooded with articles on the victims- more evidence that the rule is addressed towards the creation of articles. Now, I think that the policy could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to overly flowery or poetic language within an article. However, neither the text or the originating history of the policy says anything about neutrally worded lists that merely ID the victims (and perhaps provide basic biographical information such as age). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. IMHO, list only names of victims names already published in the media. SWP13 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPPRIVACY. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." As to expressing my positions, I will comment to whomever I choose, whenever I choose. As will I. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Emphasis mine added per user comment below. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the names of the dead does not add more to the article when compared to the right to privacy for them and their families. The article is fine without them.  -- Jayron 32 05:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Privacy concerns obviously do not apply once the names are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world. It then becomes clearly noteworthy content and we would be irresponsible not to include it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are aware that you don't actually convince anyone to change their vote by badgering them, and that you don't get extra points by responding to everyone that disagrees with you, right? You've made your opinion known, and your extra comments have added nothing to the discussion.  -- Jayron 32 06:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion on the definition of badgering and the value of my comments. I see that my responses to three of the six "oppose" editors (not "everyone") bothers you, but the purpose of a talk page is to have a discussion. Points and counterpoints are a part of the process, and I therefore welcome constructive feeback to mine. And your implication that other editors are close-minded and unwilling to consider other points of view is not helpful. Having said that, I never anticipated changing anyone's "vote"; subsequent participants in this discussion should be able to see other sides of a particular argument. I'm sorry that my two-sentence reply to you triggered such a defensive and condescending response. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Privacy concerns obviously do not apply once the names are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world - That is not "obvious" at all. or we wouldn't have policies like WP:BLPNAME, which discusses whether certain names should be included in Wikipedia content even if they are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world. You need to stop schooling experienced editors about the obviousness of your position. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * News articles will name all of the victims, but Wikipedia does not have to include them as they do not usually add significant encyclopedic value. As predicted, this debate has become bogged down in the usual mire over whether to include the names. The !vote is currently 6 oppose and 7 support, which I would say is no consensus.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Mandruss, I suggest you re-read the policy you cited, WP:BLPNAME. The first of its two paragraphs makes clear that it only applies "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". The names of those killed in these mass shootings have been widely disseminated and have not been intentionally concealed. The second paragraph is not relevant to this issue since no one has ever considered listing the names of family members. As you have just proven, "experienced" editors are not immune from getting it wrong. As to expressing my positions, I will comment to whomever I choose, whenever I choose. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "... especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." These victims' names are not required for context, or even contribute to context. You could substitute 12 made-up names and the reader's understanding of the event would not change one iota.
 * First, if you're going to bold content ("other than news media") from a policy where it doesn't exist in the source, you need to acknowledge you did so. In any case, pivoting from the fact that you clearly got BLPNAME wrong only diminishes your argument. And one little problem with the over-dramatized quote you injected as a diversion: we're obviously looking at significantly more than "the brief appearance of names" with mass shootings like this one. But I anticipate you will try to spin that, too. I'm sure you would like it if we would simply ban the use of all the mainstream reliable news sources that exist about these mass shootings if they include the names and other detailed information about those killed, but that's not going to happen. I know you'd like others to see the false bolding and believe the policy says "Hey, you can't use reliable sources from news media for the names of victims!"), but fortunately editors are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. And, yes, of course you will continue commenting; but no one told you not to. You were the only one that did that. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification added per your request (i.e. inflammatory ABF accusation). Lest things escalate even further, this will hopefully be my last interaction with you. I stand by the position articulated in my !vote, and you are free to disagree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Ian, you are correct that Wikipedia does not have to include the names of those killed, but the fact is that we do in many of the mass shooting articles. That's why we have these discussions, one-by-one. And we of course do not determine consensus after one day of discussion. Be patient. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (The outcomes have depended solely on who showed up for the discussions, not on differing circumstances between random mass killings. At least I've never seen anybody cite circumstances particular to the event, the arguments are always general in nature, including in this discussion. But that's a different discussion.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Spirit of Eagle's comments above. The argument that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a policy directing us to not include the names of victims in an article like this is a misapplication of the policy.  The policy was intended to prevent editors from creating entire articles on non-notable dead persons to memorialize them.  Two sentences long, the policy states "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirement."  Subjects of encyclopedia articles does not apply here as we're not creating individual stand-alone articles for each dead person.  It does not bar providing readers a simple list of the names of victims in articles like mass casualty events or disasters, and the editors advocating for inclusion here are not friends or relatives of the dead who have come to Wikipedia to try to memorialize their loved ones.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose including the names of the dead. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and there is a consensus in cases like this to respect the family's privacy. Brad  v  16:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 16:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PROGRESS. The !votes at present are 8–8, which looks like no consensus to add names. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The raw count here is fairly useless. Strength of arguments varies widely, so the !votes should be weighted differentlya few votes should be ignored completely because their arguments are nonexistent or close enough. These are tough calls that will have to be made by an experienced uninvolved closer, as usual in these recurring discussions. It's too early for that close in my opinion; the discussion has been open for less than 4 days. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. With 118,000 edits in 12 years, I am well aware how Wikipedia works. I was making a personal observation that the discussion is heading for "no consensus". I still think I will be proved correct but, again, that's a personal opinion. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – I also support listing the victims' names and ages. As others have said, we have done this in numerous similar articles, and I think the reader has the right to know. I am referring of course to just the deceased victims. Thanks.Grammarian3.14159265359 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Grammarian3.14159265359
 * Support: inclusion for reasons I have stated previously in these kind of articles. Particularly I don't see any reason not to include policy wise. WikiVirusC (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support names and ages, maybe hometowns. Answers the basic question of who was involved. Similar to explaining who was in The 5th Dimension, though in this case, about a third as long and far more easily verifiable. If there were one or two victims, the article would likely be named after them and feature their names in the lead; more dead doesn't make each less noteworthy, just excludes them from such prominence due to space constraints. Plenty of space left in the Victims section, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, long time. Can you point to a couple of Wikipedia articles where there were one or two completely random untargeted victims and the article was named after them? ― Mandruss  &#9742;  22:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you were dead, Tony! I could point to the Killing of Mollie Tibbetts or the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, but I feel like you'll say they weren't "random" enough, or that nobody was "targeted" here, despite a trained soldier aiming his gun at each one (starting with the security guard who might've otherwise stopped his plan) and pulling the trigger, knowing this to be typically lethal. Whether he knew his victims (like Flanagan did) or not (like Rivera allegedly didn't), the evidence strongly suggests Long (and nobody else) killed the specific attendees he did (and nobody else). That's all this list is saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the consensus on the above discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ANRFC: "Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one...". As I indicated above (22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)) and User:WWGB appears to agree, I think this qualifies on both counts. I suggest letting it run for a total of one week (05:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)) and then requesting a closer at ANRFC. Unless there is objection or someone beats me to it, I will post that request at that time. Until then, there is no consensus to include and the default is omit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It depends on who you ask. If you ask me, based on the strengths of the arguments, consensus should go to inclusion. As I mentioned in a recent post above, I only see 3 factors under consideration: usefulness, privacy, and memorialization. I think our default mode is to build the article, so I see usefulness outweighing privacy and memorialization. I'm not saying it's a done deal because I really do respect other people's opinions. But that would be my analysis. I would actually very much like to hear the analyses of other editors of the discussion that has so far transpired. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on who you ask. True. And we ask the experienced uninvolved closer. That's how it's done for complex and contentious issues. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this disagreement complex? There are only 3 factors involved. How complex is that? "Usefulness", as a factor, is being weighed against "privacy" and "memorialization" as factors. That's the way I see it. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not going to engage in yet another interminable debate with you about the degree of complexity in this issue. In any case, if you read the whole sentence that I excerpted above, there is an "or" relationship between the two qualifiers, so either one would qualify this discussion for uninvolved close. There is zero question this is contentious. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, let us talk about it—do you see the inclusion of the victim names as not being useful? Or would you concede that the inclusion of the names of the victims enhances for some readers the usefulness of the article? Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As you've indicated, there are several competing factors here. I weight them differently than you do, and that's not going to change by further discussion. It's time to stop talking as far as I'm concerned; if somebody else wants to follow you down that path, they are free to do so. If you want to discuss the cost-benefit of unlimited discussion, my talk page is an open door. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "time to stop talking" You may be overlooking that WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are not prohibiting the inclusion of the names and ages of the victims in this article. What we are doing here is weighing the arguments on "privacy" (as a general concept) and the arguments on "memorialization" (as a general concept) against the arguments on "usefulness" (as a general concept). Axiomatically the names and ages of the victims are "useful" to those readers who desire to know the names and ages of the victims. You are saying "that's not going to change by further discussion. It's time to stop talking". That is tantamount to saying you don't want to use this Talk page. We are not merely voting. At WP:VOTE I find "Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration." We know that the names and ages of victims are included in other, similar articles. Including these names and ages in this article is not a violation of policy. This question concerning victim names has twice been discussed at the "Village pump" without any resulting conclusion that including the names and ages of victims is a policy violation. A productive use of this Talk page might include the presentation of some reasons in your own words as to why "privacy" concerns or "memorialization" concerns should keep this information out of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – In addition to the RfC linked in the first post in this thread, there was another and more recent RfC at the Village Pump that is also relevant to this conversation. Please see Village pump (proposals)/Archive 149. Brad  v  14:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I referred to here and I probably should have linked it. Thanks. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  14:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


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