Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting

Adding redirects

• 2023 Nashville school shooting
• Nashville school shooting
• School shooting Nashville

I am adding the following redirects - Any concerns about these needing to be done as disambig pages or something if there are other similarly namable incidents, let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the first one on top is the best option. 2600:1702:5225:C010:617B:C3FA:73D:BEF1 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO last one is the worst as you have probably some amount of shootings in Nashville. I suggest moving to first redirect given. A09 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: At this time, I am not proposing changing the name of the article, which is "Covenant School shooting" - What my intention was was to create redirects that would point users looking for information on this event to this article. If there is discussion that emerges about changing the article name, then that can occur as appropriate. KConWiki (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe you can name it "2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting" or something like that, that will be another option. 2600:1702:5225:C010:617B:C3FA:73D:BEF1 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Response section

So I was editing the page earlier, left and came back to what looks like vandalizing attacks - but the response section is also gone. Is that due to something else or due to the constant reverting due to the vandalizing? Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone reverted it accidentally I believe. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on a glance, I believe what happened was that an edit at 21:01 changed the number of sections in the page, then an edit at 21:02 tried to remove a paragraph from the Perpetrator section and instead replaced the Reactions section with a duplicate Perpetrator section. The duplicate got removed, but the section was not restored prior to the next set of vandalism. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Vehicle

Before Audrey's name was released to the public, authorities found her name possibly from the car she drove on her way to the school. What car did she drive at the time of the shooting? 2600:1702:5225:C010:617B:C3FA:73D:BEF1 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the car make and model is particularly relevant to this event. Michael60634 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a gray Honda Fit, thanks to newly-released surveillance video. 108.207.107.176 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a minivan if that is of any interest to you. From the police twitter:

https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/1640506268065431552 Jennytacular (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. Justanother2 (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Its a gray Honda Fit. There is newly-released video from outside. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The year shouldn't be in the title

If the title were 2023 Nashville shooting, the year would likely be justified. The year isn't usually in titles of attacks that include specific locations, such as Columbine High School massacre & Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to vary. The majority of articles under the sub-categories of Category:School shootings in the United States use no year rather than a year. Meanwhile, three of the four sub-categories of Category:2020s mass shootings in the United States have a majority using the year than no year. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As per usual, Jim is cherry-picking and using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to try to overcome WP:NCE, which says this:

In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors:

• When the incident happened.
• Where the incident happened.
• What happened.

There is no exception made for school shootings as some category that is excluded from WP:NCE. I'll note that Jim has also chosen two very high profile examples which aren't named per WP:NCE, but rather per WP:COMMONNAME. Which actually brings me to my next point: almost all of our sources refer to this as the "Nashville" mass shooting/massacre. The school name is not used in any of our sources. Of course, since this event is so recent, there is no COMMONNAME to use yet, but this is why NCE prescribes when, where and what happened as the title for an event with no clear name. @Jim Michael 2 Do you have a WP:PAG-backed reason to justify having the year omitted? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, @Jim Michael 2, stop abusing edit summaries like this and use the talk page. You literally did nothing productive there whatsoever. And you're seriously showing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS with that diff and this section (which is just the latest incarnation of you not liking what the community has decided). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not cherry-picking or going against rules or consensus. The large majority of our articles about attacks at specific locations don't include the year, whether they're high-profile or not. I gave examples of high-profile ones, but many relatively low-profile ones such as Pearl High School shooting, Heath High School shooting & Chardon High School shooting also have the same clear, concise, yearless format. It's more precise to use the school's name in the title than its city.

In that edit, I removed a gap that shouldn't have been there; there's no rule that all edits need be major. There's nothing disruptive about my edit summaries. You tried to push against clear strong consensus to add mini-bios of victims - which included very trivial things such as hobbies & favorite foods - on Robb Elementary School shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You are literally cherry picking. You're choosing a very narrow category (school shootings) instead of all mass shooting events to base your opinion on, which, AGAIN, is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I removed a gap that shouldn't have been there; there's no rule that all edits need be major. There actually is a rule about making pointless edits, and theres also a rule about using "good edit summaries". Your edit summary had nothing whatsoever to do with the line you removed (which had no visual impact on the article). Just stop. Respect the consensus at WP:NCE. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm comparing like with like. Those which have the settlement rather than a specific location are much more likely to need the year. The many at other non-school locations which don't have the year in the title include Milwaukee brewery shooting, Mayfair Mall shooting, Don Carter Lanes shooting, Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack, Indianapolis FedEx shooting, Collierville Kroger shooting, Columbiana Centre shooting and Highland Park parade shooting. It's usual to not include the year when the location is specific, and that isn't limited to shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you just not understand WP:NCE or do you just not care? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Jim is correct one this. From WP:NCE and WP:NOYEAR,

Examples of some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title:

Only "where" and "what"

• Tenerife airport disaster
  • Where: Tenerife airport
  • What: deadliest accident in aviation history
• Chernobyl disaster
  • Where: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
  • What: worst nuclear power plant accident in history
• Virginia Tech shooting
  • Where: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  • What: deadliest school shooting in U.S. history
• Charlie Hebdo shooting
  • Where: Offices of Charlie Hebdo
  • What: shooting of journalists and cartoonists

Locke Cole, why do you keep pointing to NCE when it is clear that it doesn't contradict Jim's suggestions? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. LC is frequently hostile to me since I became one of the many people who oppose his attempts to include a lot of detail of victims' lives in articles about mass shootings in the US. Being civil is of course compulsory on WP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Jim, I understand you enjoy using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a specific form of whataboutism, but what I do to improve articles is not what is being discussed here. Whether or not the article has a year in its title is, and your behavior around that by continually editing against established consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm showing what we usually do & have done for years. I've moved this article once, which is far from continual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir You're citing the historic perspective examples (all of which are renowned events where NCE is no longer necessarily being used, but WP:COMMONNAME). Specifically, WP:NOYEAR says this: Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. What "historic perspective" is there in an event that just happened yesterday. [W]hy do you keep pointing to NCE when it is clear that it doesn't contradict Jim's suggestions? It quite literally does. 🤷‍♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that this is a case where I'm not a fan of having the year in this article eventually, but it likely won't help removing the year now. Since the place is specific in the name, unlike 2023 Hamburg shooting, it's much easier for me to justify a removal. I would recommend waiting a bit before a move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think that I'm gonna open up a discussion on this one. I think that while there is merit in waiting, the arguments to remove the year are much stronger. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

the arguments to remove the year are much stronger What arguments? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean we suddenly toss out WP:NCE which has community backing. For something that happened less than 24 hours ago there is no historic perspective to fall back on as WP:NOYEAR suggests. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"White woman"

The sources currently given, although they state that the shooter was white and identified as transgender, are unclear on the gender identity of the shooter- in particular, NY Post claims that "A Linkedin profile listed Audrey Hale as an Illustrator and graphic designer, with pronouns listed as he/him." Other outlets are contradictory on their identity and what pronouns to refer to them. Although I'm pretty sure they were a transgender man (FTM) and therefore not a woman, I updated the article to be gender neutral until this can be confirmed.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/nashville-school-shooter-idd-as-audrey-hale/ HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian article on the shooting also removed the she/her pronouns after updating to say that the police chief identified the shooter as transgender. As a transmasculine person myself, it does make sense to me that they could initially misread a 28-year-old trans man as a teenage woman. Funcrunch (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I found evidence that Audrey's full name is Audrey Elizabeth Hale. It was also possible that she lived in Nashville throughout her own life but I'm pretty not sure yet. A few sites say that she is a former illustrator, graphic designer, and a former art student at Nossi College of Art in Nashville, and she was honored as the "most improved" student at the school in 2015. It also says that she has previously worked as a freelance graphic designer, a grocery shopper for Shipt, and also at one time a children's book author about a support dog named Millie. She has no criminal history at all.

Down below, there was evidence about Hale's mother.

Shortly right after Parkland occurred in February 2018, Hale's mother shared a link to the Sandy Hook Promise petition to “make large-capacity gun magazines illegal,” without any additional comment. One month later, she shared another link to the Sandy Hook Promise petition to “keep guns out of schools,” and wrote in the caption on the post “So important!” However, one year later on an unknown date in 2019, she shared a photo of a drawing that said “I (heart) God,” and wrote in the caption saying: “Found this in a devotional book I loaned to Audrey.”

A former neighbor responded to The Daily Beast: “If I had to imagine, Audrey’s parents are probably just as shocked as everybody in the neighborhood is…It just doesn’t seem real.” “There’s nothing that would have led me to believe that she was capable of such a thing or that she or anybody in that family would have access to, much less ever used, a gun. They just don’t seem like the family that, like, is around guns. They’re not talking about going to a gun range or they’re not going hunting.”

The reaction from Hale's parents after her death by officers was unreported yet.

2600:1702:5225:C010:849D:F65B:75C4:FD21 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Audrey was born on March 24, 1995 in Nashville, she died three days after her 28th birthday. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Why mention a person's race at all? We don't need to copy 100% of the syntax of reliable sources. Should we also mention the hair color or size of the clothes the person wore? If we do duplicate race remarks from RS should we retroactively amend all of Wikipedia to insert what race everyone throughout history was as well?

This obsession with people's races borders on Nazi eugenics and has no place in an encyclopedia. The rest of the world does not suffer the pedantic obsession the US does over what race everyone is, and it is becoming offensive (and rather old-fashioned and repulsive) to international readers of Wikipedia to see people's titles starting with what their race is. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I too wish for the idealistic goal that "race", which is an unscientific notion and a social construct, should just fade away. But this is not "Idealisticpedia" where we ignore the realities of social problems. Race is important and widely discussed in the United States just as caste is important and widely discussed in India, no matter how much you may dislike it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Genetic differences between humans, like skin color, are obviously not a social construct. There is also an obvious difference in meaning between castes in India (which are a social construct) and human skin color (which isn't). Neither attributes of a subject deserve mention in an encyclopedia unless pertinent to the article itself. Do you not see that arbitrarily mentioning someone's skin color (or caste, political affiliation, sexual preference, position on taxation, opinion on abortions, etc) does nothing else than polarise the population? Your mindset is exactly what perpetuates these old-fashioned segregating prejudices in the US and countries like India, which Europe has moved beyond. Keeping on rubbing people's faces in skin colors is what perpetuates prejudice and hatred among the ignorant. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Where we draw the lines between one race and another are indeed social constructs. 75.100.176.65 (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, skin color in some regions (e.g. much of Brazil) is not highly correlated with genetic ancestry, and in other places and situations (e.g. India, vitiligo, albinism) may not indicate genetic ancestry because of a biological or physical modification; but this is less relevant than the points above ("race" as a division is indeed a social construct, and it is highly socially relevant in the States). TricksterWolf (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

More interesting information

The incident was planned and another location was considered as a target: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/audrey-hale-nashville-school-shooting-b2309043.html Jennytacular (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

FTM or MTF

Are they ftm or mtf? I am seeing conflicting reports about this. Could the article reflect this. 2601:184:4601:5180:38CF:1E3A:D218:BEED (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There are no reports on this. No legitimate sourcing is saying ANYTHING about them being Trans. Period. FrayedOne (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some articles reporting the shooter is trans; however, all of these appear to be based on police officers' testimony, and I don't think the article should reflect what they say until it's been independently confirmed, particularly when it comes to a shooter being trans. The same thing was said of the Uvalde shooter, but that turned out to be a 4chan lie, one that actually got a completely unrelated trans woman beaten up because of it. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This. FrayedOne (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to waste a comment just to show your agreement with the comment? We are not on social media. IMakeSuggestionsInTheTalkPage (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is particularly comparable to Robb Elementary School shooting at least when you posted. It's true that initially there was stuff coming out of trolls on 4chan, Kiwifarms etc, at least some of which was false (e.g. the Samantha stuff) which may be comparable to that case. Some of that crap may have made it into crappy sources. But I checked this page just before 2200 UTC (when the talk page was this [1]) after the police had made their confusing claims about the shooter being transgender in an official press conference which was before your comment and I'm pretty sure those claims in the official press conference were why the article was updated, not stuff eminating from trolls.

AFAIK, noting comparable happened in Robb. Some sources may have repeated baseless rumours from 4chan, Kiwifarms etc about the identity of the shooter; some politicians and other crazy politicians did as well. Perhaps even some police officers did in alleged 'off the record'/anonymous comments. But I don't think the police ever repeated baseless claims about the identity of the shooter in the Robb case.

The latest information suggests that this didn't really happen here either, although they did use terminology which was wrong or confusing which may have lead to inaccurate reports. (What they said lead many to think the shooter was a trans woman AMAB when it appears the shooter may have been a trans man AFAB.) While this is unfortunate to say the least, I don't think it's particularly comparable.

We do have to be careful about stuff in sources that originates from stuff police say even at official press conferences, it's a different thing from random rumours and misinformation like what happened in the Robb case. Notably the press conference was quite a while after the situation had been resolved and when there was no active threat, when there's an active threat tends to be when there is greater urgency so police may release information that turns out to be misleading or untrue.

Also however common transphobia may be in that state police saying misleading or untrue things tends to be a biggest problem not in such matters but when talking about their responses or the actions of someone they did something to, rather than misleading on untrue information on someone's identity. Transphobia etc among police tends to manifest in derogatory language or offensive or confusing terminology rather than repeating untrue information originating from trolls at major press conferences.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"The shooter was 28-year-old Audrey Hale, who police said identified as transgender". [2]. See also here: [3] It is of course possible that this is incorrect, but we do have sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a terribly frequent editor, so please pardon my ignorance, but is it really Wikipedia policy to take cops' word on current events as fact? At the very least, we should add a qualifier like "police allege." Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Er, never mind me, it seems that those qualifiers have been added while I've been on this page. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A speaker of the police said himself, when asked "Did she identify as a transgender man or women?" to which he replied "woman". IMakeSuggestionsInTheTalkPage (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw that too, but based on all the other sources identifying the perp as female-to-male, I am thinking that the police rep. may have misunderstood the meaning of "transgender woman", assuming that the "woman" referred to the originating gender/sex, not the one transitioned to. But it does add more confusion to the mix.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 04:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the better sources identified this quite quickly. I was watching something on Twitch which while not an RS, identified very quickly after the PC that it was likely the person had just used confusing information as LinkedIn (and maybe other social media) profiles had been spreading by then. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2023 (3)

Under “perpetrator” heading, remove footnote 12 after “28-year-old resident of Nashville who police claim identified as transgender.[12]” This cites a Chattanooga Times Free Press article which does not include the information from that sentence anywhere. Likely a mistake as there is a second footnote immediately after it 104.55.45.57 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

Jennytacular (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a mistake, this a reoccurring thing that right-wing trolls do when these things happen. But yeah, there's no proof that the perpetrator is trans at all, nor has it been stated ANYWHERE but here. RavenousScrivener (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this article went up so fast and was SO QUICK to call them Trans, all of which appears to be based on heresay and slur which has then been repeated and perpetuated throughout multiple articles is EXACTLY why these articles should not go up until all of the facts actually exist. I'm usually a supporter of Wikipedia but this is terrible. The whole thing should come down until the FACTS are known. Period. This is perpetuating a cycle of hate and violence that is already getting people killed. Y'all should be ashamed. FrayedOne (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources state that she is transgender, but the article makes no claim to hatred against the perpetrator for that fact, so I don't know what you're referring to. If you're referring to previous revisions by trolls spamming a hoax, that appeared to be from 4chan and not actual Wikipedia editors. It was vandalism and was quickly removed. Jennytacular (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a transmasculine person, as I stated earlier I think it's quite plausible that the police initially misidentified a young trans man as a female teenager. I am very alert to transphobia on Wikipedia and in the media, but I do not believe that the identification of this shooter as transgender is a slur in this case. It's the shooter's specific gender identity that is still in question. Funcrunch (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Several reputable sources refer to the shooter as a transgender woman. Regardless, the current language (not using any pronouns at all in reference to the shooter) is probably the best option for now. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns

Police report states the shooter was a trans man (not a trans woman), who was born Audrey but went by Aiden and used he/him pronouns. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/27/audrey-hale-identified-nashville-school-shooter-re/ 24.188.35.116 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

it looks like someone has (wisely) changed the article to not use pronouns to refer to hale, since the only source claiming the shooter to be transgender has been the police. probably best to keep it that way until more information comes out for confirmation. there's been quite a lot of confusion about the shooter's gender, and considering the anti-trans reactionaries jumping onto this, keeping it vague is probably for the best You know i had to do it to em and i did what had to be done (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Transgender

The shooter was transgender. MUST be included in intro 47.200.110.84 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A sourced police statement that the shooter was transgender is already in the article. It doesn't need to be in the lead. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly do you feel this is necessary to include in the lead? Your emphasis on "must" makes me think your intentions are less than good. If I'm wrong about that, then please to say so and give a good reason as to why. Michael60634 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Just pretend the shooter wasn’t trans but part of white supremacy. Just write the article that way. This was a HATE crime. The school was targeted best it was Christian (where the shooter went). Are you trying to cover up a hate crime? If I’m wrong just please say so and give a good reason why. 47.200.110.84 (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is, as of present writing, no reliable sources are stating this was a hate crime in any capacity that I can find. If you have any sort of source to back this up, please provide it. Thank you. Planetberaure (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that I'm now being accused of "trying to cover up a hate crime", and that they are claiming Wikipedia is "biased" on their talk page, I don't think they're the type of person that can be bothered to find any reliable sources. With that said, I'd love to be proven wrong. Michael60634 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My pronouns are he him 47.200.110.84 (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted. michael60634 / talk / contributions 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I am personally operating under WP:AFG and would be remissed to not give an opportunity to provide a source from the user in question, although I get where you are coming from. Planetberaure (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I was operating under WP:AGF, with a degree of skepticism, until I was accused of trying to cover up a hate crime. I am absolutely giving the editor an opportunity to provide reliable sources. If it was indeed a hate crime and this is confirmed by reliable sources, so be it. I am not going to try to argue about that or "cover it up", as this editor has claimed. I can see how this event can be assumed to be a hate crime, but Wikipedia isn't the place for speculation. michael60634 / talk / contributions 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

True no media has reported that is a hate crime, yet. But NBC reports that resentment might have played a role in the shooting. 47.200.110.84 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That is currently idle speculation with no factual backing by reliable sources. Should law enforcement release information and deem it a hate crime the article certainly will be updated accordingly at that time. Wikipedia isn't in the business of adding speculation unless that speculation is later relevant to the subject at hand. Planetberaure (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

Requesting permission to add additions onto Reactions, specifically I plan to use note President Biden's request for more gun control laws, as well as arguing between the TN Democrats and Republicans on gun control laws in response to the shooting, sources are as well as and finally Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You must provide a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it in order for your request to be considered. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

After President Biden's comments, requesting this be included (Karine Jean-Pierre was at the same press conference as Biden):

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemned the shooting, stating “Schools should be safe spaces for kids to grow and learn and for our educators to teach." Additionally, Jean-Pierre called for Congress to "step up and act" by passing an assault weapons ban and closing loopholes in background check systems.

After Rep. Greene's statement, requesting that this be included in a seperate paragraph:

Both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly paused legislative debate and held a moment of prayer in honor of the victims. Tennessee Democratic legislators criticized their Republican counterparts for quickly adjourning the session without allowing debate and called for legislative action on gun reform. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sunnyediting99, New York Post is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. Please find an alternative source. Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@EricPupper thank you, perhaps could this work? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

EpicPupper That looks good to me, what do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Note: Closing due to ongoing discussion, feel free to re-open once resolved. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Deadname, gender, pronouns

Many have brought it up, but while we know the shooter was a trans man named Aiden Hale, the article uses a lot of gender neutral pronouns (better than she/her) rather than he/him while also deadnaming him. I get he's a murderer, but think of the people who are reading the news articles about this shooting that will see the fact someone's deadnamed and treated like their identity doesn't matter. Aiden won't see the deadnaming because he's dead, but those attacks against his identity will affect others reading about him. All I ask is if new information is presented, make sure to use he/him pronouns and his actual name. Thank you once more for at least eliminating the she/her pronouns and please put in his actual name. Thank you Isiah9903 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should continue to avoid the identity of the shooter entirely until the media figures it out. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the name which is unavoidable, we should use Aiden per MOS:GENDERID I think. But are there any sources that say this? They all seem to say Audrey. If we put Aiden on the article we need at least one or two. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it's WP:SYNTH, but a tweet from the police department of the guns used has the name "Aiden" on one. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be synth, but I don't see Aiden here. I see Audrey. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Look at the handle of the gun in the second image, on the right hand side. It's written on the gun, not something stated by police. (Hence my uncertainty about SYNTH.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not synth, but not a reliable source either. We need something much stronger to override the official police statement and the entire press. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The perpetrator used the name "Audrey (Aiden)" in the text to her friend/cousin, Paige Averianna Patton, on the date she killed/died. 216.106.235.57 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

And now Rreagan007 is repeatedly inserting "transgender woman" without a citation. Nosferattus (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me how you "know" the shooter was a "trans man"?? The sources only say she identified as transgender, and have consistently only used she/her pronouns in reference to her. Show me a reliable source, or preferably multiple, referring to her as a trans man or using pronouns other than she/her.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Local newspaper The Tennessean: "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns."

New York Times: "Officials used “she” and “her” to refer to the shooter, but, according to a social media post and a LinkedIn profile, the shooter appeared to identify as male in recent months."

NPR: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns."

WPLN, the local Nashville NPR affiliate in question: "MNPD says Hale is a transgender man."

Let me know if you'd like more. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Given these sources, and the fact that Washington Post is now also reporting an official update from a police spokesman, Don Aaron: "Audrey Hale is a biological woman who, on a social media profile, used male pronouns", which NPR also seems to be reporting on in their statement: "Police initially identified the shooter as a woman but a spokesperson later told WPLN's Alexis Marshall that the shooter was assigned female at birth and used he/him pronouns", I am fine adding this information to the article. Whether this means we should actually use he/him is, I think, still up for debate. The police spokesman said the perp "on social media, used male pronouns", so is this alone enough to presume that the perp was using those pronouns at the time of death? Or should we wait. I'm good either way.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would personally lean towards the local news sources' (The Tennessean and WPLN) unambiguous statements that the shooter was a trans man—along with the clear statement of "used he/him pronouns" from NPR and other sources—and make the potentially WP:BOLD edit of changing all pronouns to he/him. I think it's fair to assume, at least for now, that the most recent public presence of the shooter reflects the pronouns they chose to use at time of death. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is enough sources to use he/him per MOS:GENDERID. However, it’s unnecessary to edit the article to add them in now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to use the pronouns and name that is primarily used in reliable sources. Right now the NYT and WaPo have chosen to use Audrey Hale and are just avoiding pronouns; I think that's what we should do at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should switch to he/him pronouns, as The Tennessean is doing. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean towards this now, since it does seem that the shooter was a transgender man, not a woman, as was first reported. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"They/them" are not misgendering. Every human being on the face of the planet is "they/them" in addition to whatever else they identify as, because "they/them" are neutral with respect to gender, which is different from the use-case of neuter gender. By English language convention "they/them" is always valid to refer to a person, regardless of whether or not their gender is known, and in the absence of rigid clarity and consensus among cited sources, should probably be the preferred use here. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't and use he/him instead, per MOS:GENDERID. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Gendered by what the US justice would call them?

Since all of the US justice system would call the perpetrator a female should wikipedia go along with the US justice system?

If the female perpetrator had went to prison she would have no longer identified as a male and would let the US justice system classify her as female so that she could avoid going to a male prison. Does the US justice system even let a female who identifies as male go to a male prison? 172.79.177.28 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For the first line: no, Wikipedia shouldn't, and it won't, per MOS:GENDERID. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious how you know what the shooter would have done had he survived. Is there an RS of his writings stating that he wanted to go to a sex-segregated prison for women? The only sources I can find say he intended to die by suicide if not killed (in a message to a friend). TricksterWolf (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The shooter went by Aiden

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/everything-we-know-about-nashville-school-shooter-audrey-hale/news-story/c59bae2f1df43c79ca72daadf9a5e6cc

"Hale, who had also started to go by the name Aiden" Tdmurlock (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Finally, one source says it. Still, I’m not sure it’s enough. We have nearly 30 sources that say Audrey. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, a cursory look at news.com.au doesn’t make it appear very reliable. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I found another sources:

https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/at-least-3-killed-gunman-dead-in-nashville-school-shooting-reports/

https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/nashville-school-shooter-idd-as-audrey-hale/ Gay.cat.dad (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting". WWGB (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What about this?

https://heavy.com/news/audrey-hale-video-photos-aiden/ Gay.cat.dad (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree - it's a major news site in Australia. What a makes it seem unreliable to you? Gay.cat.dad (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Addressed both Heavy.com and News.com.au in the section below this. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (4)

Change:

The shooter was identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale,[21] a 28-year-old resident of Nashville who police say identified as transgender.[1][12]

to:

The shooter was identified as Aiden or Audrey Elizabeth Hale,[21][29] a 28-year-old resident of Nashville who police say identified as transgender.[1][12]

Reference 29 is:

Report, P. S. (2023, March 28). At least 7 dead, including 3 kids, after transgender shooter opens fire at Nashville Christian elementary school. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/at-least-3-killed-gunman-dead-in-nashville-school-shooting-reports/ Gay.cat.dad (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source — WP:NYPOST. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(I agree with making the change, but the closest thing to a reliable source I've found thus far is the fact that "Aiden" is written on the gun in the images posted by the police department. But that specific detail hasn't been noted by a reliable source yet.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The LinkedIn profile also used the name "Audrey" though, even with "(He/Him)" showing in brackets right next to the name Audrey.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans person, it's very common to go through a phase of using new pronouns without having chosen a name yet. The fact that there's several other social media accounts (TikTok and Facebook) with the name "Aiden" indicates to me that he probably hadn't gotten around to updating LinkedIn with it yet. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

See above - I got heavy.com and news.com.au as sources. Shouldn't this be enough? Gay.cat.dad (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Heavy.com: "There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements."

News.com.au is predominately an aggregator of content from other News Corp Australia sites, which are generally all unreliable. Its sister paper is The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), whose article has a long section specifically about its unreliable and often prejudiced reporting on LGBTQ individuals... so I would be inclined to consider any original reporting from News.com.au to be unreliable as well. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

When using news aggregators, the key is to actually work out where the story comes from. For example if it was The Australian then this is an RS. Many aggregators do this. For example Yahoo and MSN publish a lot of crap from unreliable sources but also post stuff from RS. It's the reliability of the original source that matters. Arguably it's better to link to the original source but in certain cases especially with paywalls, people do link to the aggregator. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep — the News.com.au source mentioned here (linked in the section above) isn't aggregated but written by a staff writer, which is why I also mentioned why their original reporting is likely unreliable too! SIGH. Has their logo by the byline, but of course, buried at the end is "with the New York Post". And sure enough, it's an exact copy of the NY Post's article. I tire of the aggregation era. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Another probably-not-reliable-enough source reporting it: "One of the guns can be seen with the name Aiden on it, which was a name Hale used on some social media profiles seen by The Daily Beast." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, apparently this source is being used to insert the claim "A person close to Hale's family stated that Hale was autistic." (which should really be "A person who claimed to be close to", but I lack the energy to make a protected edit request for that right now) — so who knows, maybe it's now considered reliable enough to add the name Aiden? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

They pick and choose when to be vigilant about sources that's for damn sure. Gay.cat.dad (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This source has also just been added, which features a screenshot of the name on the shooter's Facebook being "Aiden", and that same name included by him in one of the messages he (ostensibly) sent. Is this combined with The Daily Beast enough to add the name?

And if The Daily Beast is considered unreliable for the name claim, then shouldn't the autism claim be removed as well? (If not and it's kept in, it should really be qualified with "A person who claimed to be close to".) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I propose this wording be added somewhere.

"Audrey Hale also went by Aiden, according to some sources." Gay.cat.dad (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The Perpetrator subsection seems to summarise what is currently known quite well, and since the sourcing for "Aiden" is sparse, I'm unsure what the necessity of this edit is. Feel free to re-open when the sourcing situation is sorted out and there is agreement on what to do with this, as per WP:consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Footage released

They were heavily armed. Could it be added to the page somewhere, maybe as an external link? No violence in the video. https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/1640545519511404546 2601:2C6:4700:5300:7D28:D9B3:A7E9:34D7 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use that video unless you can provide evidence that it is in the public domain or has been freely licensed in a manner acceptable for Wikipedia. Lacking such evidence, the video must be assumed to be restricted by copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It could be added as an external video using {{external media}}. I can't add it since I'm at school and the wifi in my district has a firewall that blocks pretty much all major social media sites, but can some else do that? - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 14:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Deadname

Can we use the correct name for the perp? 72.89.27.178 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

See several of the recent discussions above — we're trying to find a reliable source that notes the correct name. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that it is the "correct" name, the perp's social media profile was shown to employ the name Audrey Hale alongside "(He/Him)".— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but (while it's not yet evidence in the "reliable source" sense) I can't imagine why the shooter would write "Aiden" on the gun if it wasn't the name he was going by. Agree that there's not yet justification to include it, though. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but even if "Aiden" is later confirmed as the first name Hale was using, there's the challenging question of whether MOS:GENDERID precludes us from including the birthname. The letter of the MOS states (my bold): "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page". Hale is not living, and, due to the widespread reporting of the name "Audrey Hale", is technically notable under that name, just like how we use "Ellen Page" on the Elliot Page article because Page was notable under the former name.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that raises the question of whether a deadname's notability due to mis- or incomplete reporting is considered notability for the purposes of GENDERID. Can notability be conferred for that purpose by the initial statements of police, even if later proven false? Curious if a situation like that has ever come up before. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is part of MOS:BLP, which includes the recently deceased. --Pokelova (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crumpled Fire fwiw, WP:BLP applies to the recently dead so I think GENDERID would too. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

In evaluating administrative action on this article and talk page, I ended up with not enforcing the BLP policy as it generally does not apply to people confirmed dead by reliable sources, and applying it to dead people in this case would be an editorial rather than administrative decision (see the wording of WP:BDP). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BDP states: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." (bolding mine)

Given that this appears to be up to editorial consensus, what are people's thoughts as to whether the subject's name should be considered contentious material with implications for his living relatives and friends? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This reasoning in this move discussion from last year might be pertinent, in which consensus was to change the subject's name away from her deadname, despite her being deceased and the majority of sources only using her deadname. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that move is a useful comparison. This is a complicated case and I don't think stuff like Page is particularly useful as a comparison. While shooters are sometimes notable from their shootings, it seems too early to conclude that here, they may not be notable point blank therefore it's impossible for them to me notable under a previous name.

Also if the are notable and for that matter in so much as we need to cover them in this article, the reason we have to cover them arose from them being a shooter i.e. from just before they died. I'm fairly sure Hale didn't yell a completely new name at the police or victims of the shooting, so whatever name they had was from before whatever it is that requires coverage or which makes them notable. (In other words, they were already using whatever name it is, possibly Aiden, at the time of the shooting.)

The fact that in a late breaking news situation sources may have originally used a name (and pronouns) which may not have been their latest preferred name doesn't mean they were ever notable under this name IMO.

However given how widespread the name was in early sources and I expect it is likely to be in a fair amount of continuing coverage and maybe even from the police, while we might be able to respect DEADNAME in terms of which name we choose to make the main name we use, I'm not sure we can actually exclude the name completely like we are supposed to when the subject wasn't notable under that name.

Their death also means it's likely we'll only have social media posts, perhaps some stuff from their 'manifesto', and whatever they told family and friends; to guide us. (Although most of this isn't particularly unique, I can think of at least two recent cases were it arises.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This I think is a case of WP:RS and MOS:GENDERID being in conflict. In this case, I would suggest WP:RS takes precedence. I think the best idea is to wait until this resolves itself as more sources start using the correct name. Theheezy (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to the multiple discussions on this talk page regarding the suspect's name and gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Came out recently?

The suspect may have come out recently. From Snopes:

Speaking to The Daily Beast, an unnamed source reportedly close to Hale's family said she "recently announced she was transgender, identifying as he/him."

I'm not certain whether this is worth including, please discuss. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Unnamed source and reportedly don't sound like such good terms to have for inclusion of information like that. Especially since we can't know if they actually knew much about the person's life. Close relatives often claim they knew all about someone, but were actually completely ignorant. Silverseren^C 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

An unnamed source who still chooses to use "she" in the same breath as acknowledging the person prefers "he/him" also raises a small red flag. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree with you now. I had the thought that a recent coming-out may have (say for instance: if it was received very poorly) had some kind of impact on the motive or timing of the shooting, and thus this comment may have been more relevant to future developments than it seems, but if so then we'll just have to wait for stronger evidence. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

weapon type should be removed

Listing the specific weapons should be removed. They do not need to be named/ made known. "Gun violence" is enough to describe the shooting. No need to give details that may create interest in these weapons. 2406:E003:18DE:1C01:86B7:16AC:532C:6E7A (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your NOTCENSORED, and raise you a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Touché. I had the infoboxes for Columbine, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, etc in mind; but definitely worth removing for now if unsourced. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:7472:BF3A:464B:A1FE (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed them as they were unsourced, they also are not mentioned in such detail in the article body, and infobox values typically need to exist in the body as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Once reliable sources discuss the details of the weapons extensively, those details should be added back to the article. Hint: None was a lever action 30-06 Winchester hunting rifle like the one I owned as a teenager over 50 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

JBW95 continues to add them without adding sources, I've removed them again. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Firearms

Again the media and the reporters go for sensationalism instead of fact. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault style pistol or assault weapon. Those phrases are used to make an ordinary tool seem scary.

I mean firstly they don't need to list the weapons at all, just say firearms were involved and be done. Its like when columbine happened they listed the guns used and soon after, Several of the guns they used went from 50 to 100 dollar firearma no one really bought to costing 400 dollars with some manufacturers even making clones briefly in the early to mid 2000s. So don't mention what types to prevent copycats and sickos.

Secondly they shouldn't mention the types because it is irrelevant. The ownership of guns didn't cause this person to shoot up a school, it was something else whether it be mental illness, twisted sense of morality, even a twisted sense of religion but its never the guns fault. Loneviking (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well a nuclear bomb or double trailer truck doesn't make someone into a terrorist but I doubt you will convince people you should just say explosive or vehicle if a terrorist uses one to kill people. Actually why say firearm at all? Just say weapon. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a soapbox to express your opinions on gun control. Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources are highlighting the guns used. Couruu (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly understood terms and/or have legally-defined meanings. I am less certain of "assault style pistol". It appears News Week addressed this issue previously and concluded:

"While the term assault pistol has been cited by the government and may have been used in the past to name certain models of semi-automatic pistol-type weapons (including at least one model that bears remarkable similarity to the firearm used in Monterey Park), it's not a well known or understood descriptor." Source: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-assault-pistol-real-type-gun-1776538

I would think "semi-automatic pistol" or "handgun" would be the more appropriate descriptor, and these terms seems to be the ones employed by many news reports. However, I would defer to more experienced editors. I don't think the current terminology is technically incorrect, but the uncommon usage of a term may lead to more confusion for readers than a more commonly used term. ProbitasVeritas (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional information on Joe Biden's response

"President Joe Biden spoke about the shooting at a press conference, calling it "sick," and urged Congress to take further action on gun safety legislation."

That wasn't what he started the conference with. Reporters had to actually ask him questions about it to get a response. Before, he talked about chocolate chip ice cream.[4] Please add this to the page. 98.20.130.103 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:NYPOST, the New York Post is not a reliable source and should not avoided in articles. What happens around a statement is generally irrelevant unless brought up in multiple reliable sources; the statement itself is what matters. Couruu (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hale's name

Its mentioned that s/he was a trans-man, but that their name was "Audrey". Did they use a male name? (is it in their social media?) That would be good to add to the article if that's also the case, and not just the birth name or legal name. As for the name on the gun mentioned above... that could just be the name of the gun, as some people do name their guns. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's said above that it's Aiden although I have not looked at the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (6)

The shooter is referred to as “he”. The shooter is Female. You should change He to she 174.247.236.160 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Hale was a trans man who used male pronouns. M.Bitton (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Victim ages

I just wanted to specify something I saw on TV regarding the ages of the victims. They said two of the children were 9, while the third one was 8, almost 9. I tried digging for a source to confirm this, but all news reports are currently stating that all three were 9. I assume this detail will be specified in the near future, but I wanted to mention it here for accuracy. Rowing007 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Any reliable source backing up your claims? A09 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I know what a reliable source is; you'll notice I'm not an inexperienced editor, so there's no need to link WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. Like I said, it's not "my claim"; it's something I saw on the news, live. Refer to my message below for more details. Thanks. Rowing007 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What station was that? Some of them upload their news segments to YouTube and others will include them in an article on their website. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It was on CTV News Channel, this morning (March 28, 2023). I casually had it on when I heard the ages as noted above. More than half-an-hour later (my TV can only rewind up to 30 minutes on live programming; I tried backtracking to find the snippet, but no luck), I looked at this Wikipedia article (and a subsequent search of any source I could find), and I was only met with the statement that all three were 9, hence my confusion and my posting about it here. I would not be surprised if there are additional details that emerge in the coming days which explain the exact ages. Everything is still so fresh and information still so limited that I assume initial reports have merely simplified the ages. Or the report I heard on TV this morning could be completely wrong. Who knows? We'll see as more details emerge. Rowing007 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

More Audrey info

Audrey died three days after her 28th birthday, please add - Thanks. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless sources mention that as important, it's trivia that we would not include. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Well I just found it on a website about the life of Audrey. Besides, every suspect has a story behind it, especially in early life. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of our articles about mass shootings include the perpetrators' dates of birth, but most don't. Those which do include Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting & Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. It's relevant enough to include & should be if it's reliably sourced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jim Michael 2. Most stories involve those incidents needs to have some early personal information involving the suspect but not all. Date-of-births are important as well as where he/she live previously (just to name a few). 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronoun inconsistencies

This page is really inconsistent with using the pronouns of the perpetrator. at some points it uses she/her, while others it uses he/him. Doesn't wikipedia respect the pronouns of transgender people? 24.94.27.97 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. Until there is a consensus of media and official sources the article should use they/them pronouns. GBRSean (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Audrey Hale used he/him pronouns on his linkedin page and neighbors who said he identified as transgender used he/him pronouns. There's no reason to use they/them pronouns for someone who we know used he/him pronouns. That would only be further confusing and distract from the topic of the shooting by drawing additional attention to his gender identity/pronouns. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently he also went by the name Aiden so why is that not even mentioned in the article, let alone used consistently to refer to him? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"They/them" are gender neutral, rather than neuter gendered. Every person on the planet is a "they/them" in addition to whatever else they identify as. Use of "they/them" is 100% correct. I support the use of "they/them" until clarity may be had, and also in an effort to distance Wikipedia from participating in misgendering simply because cited article sources misgender (either from lack of knowledge, or from willful malice) HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Using they/them instead of he/him, when most sources now acknowledge the shooter was a trans man who used he/him, is itself misgendering. As a trans person, if I tell you my pronouns are she/her and you address me as they/them, you don't get to go "I'm not misgendering because it's technically correct!" 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (7)

The "Shooting" section misgenders the shooter as "she." I suggest editing "she" to "he." 50.53.45.16 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please see above discussions about her pronouns. A09 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Er, it was done, so not sure what you're thinking of. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (8)

Change any she/her/hers pronouns referring to Audrey Hale to he/him/his pronouns, Chane terms "masculine pronouns" and "male pronouns" to "he/him/his pronouns." Derekeaaron1 (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please see above sections about perpetrators pronouns. A09 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Seven Guns in Several Stores

Just came in, Hale legally purchased a grand total of seven guns from several different local gun stores in all across Nashville. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7882:7F46:BC0F:6466 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Source, please? — Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

NBC News mentions seven firearms purchased from five (not seven) different local gun stores. Funcrunch (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

NPR: "Chief Drake said during a Tuesday press briefing that the shooter had legally purchased seven firearms from five local gun dealers. Three of those weapons were used in Monday's attack."

CNN: "The shooter who killed six people at a private school in Nashville purchased at least seven guns legally and locally, according to Metro Nashville Police Chief John Drake. Drake said those seven firearms were purchased from five different gun stores in Nashville. Three of the guns were used during the shooting at Covenant School Monday, he said."

NYT: "The shooter purchased seven firearms from five local gun stores and stashed them around the house, Mr. Drake said, using three of them on Monday to kill three 9-year-old children and three adults." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns (again)

There seems to be a rough consensus the past day to use he/him pronouns for the perpetrator based on new information. A number of WP:RS are using he/him or confirming the perpetrator was a trans man according to the police (Independent, The Guardian, WaPo, NPR). There are still some sources (e.g., Fox News) who seem to contradict this, but given that the police are saying Hale was transgender and used he/him pronouns, I suggest we adhere to WP:GENDERID and use them as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also suggest changing "used male pronouns" in the Perpetrator section to "used he/him pronouns", as per usual Wikipedia style (see articles like Ari Fitz, Miles McKenna, R.D. Riccoboni, Utica Queen, and so on). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I just changed it to masculine pronouns which is the linguistics term for he/him in English. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; at this point it makes sense to use he/him pronouns in this article. There's still going to be a fair amount of confusion regarding the name, but I fear that's unavoidable at this stage. Funcrunch (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The shooter was a trans man, so he/him is justified. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought

Since the sources differ on what name to use for the suspect, perhaps A. Hale could be used as a compromise? I know that it isn’t commonplace to refer to mass shooters with just the first initial, but it’s still technically correct in either case. Some might consider it a good idea from an ethical standpoint too, since by partially anonymizing them it would avoid giving the shooter too much “fame”/attention. It might also be a prudent measure if, as is suspected to be the case in the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, the suspect’s gender transition turns out to be less than sincere. Since Hale is dead, we may never know for sure. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Per my understanding of MOS:GENDERID, I think the shooter's full name as reported in reliable sources, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, should be stated once, and from then on he should be referred to as simply "Hale" in the article (which would be standard practice anyway). If enough reliable sources state that the shooter changed his name to "Aiden", that should be included as well. But it seems clear that he gained notability under the name Audrey, even though most trans people would consider that a deadname. (I'm trans myself, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

He only gained notariety under the name Audrey because people are using his deadname. The notariety was gained while he was using the name Aiden, and this is an actively developing story that will most likely result in Aiden being used to refer to him moreso than Audrey. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a WP:DEADNAME, but the shooter is more notable under "Audrey Hale" than "Aiden Hale". That being said, DEADNAME exists for WP:BLP reasons. Hale isn't a living person anymore, so there's not much of a compelling reason to err on the side of caution to protect his privacy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: See up here and the few posts below in that thread. BDP does have exceptions for the recently deceased, and there is precedent to change away from someone's deadname even when that deadname is more notable and the person is deceased. The question is what editorial consensus will be in this case. (Seeking that consensus might be better spun off into its own section?) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Using someone's preferred name is not just about protecting their privacy it's about being respectful of their identity- more importantly, this issue effects all trans people not just this individual, and if we decide to just stop caring about people who we don't think it matters for then we're not even trying to make the world/wikipedia even marginally welcoming to trans people. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A couple sources treat "Aiden" as an alternate name, and perhaps the suspect did as well. This was what he wrote in one text:

See you in another life
Audrey
(Aiden)

So I've changed one of the sentences in the article to read: Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who also went by Aiden, was identified by the police as the shooter. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of reasons he might have written it that way that have nothing to do with his actual preferred name. It's very common, especially early in transition, for people to continue to use their deadname while the people in their life get used to it or with specific people who do not accept them for who they are. It's my understanding that he used Aiden on social media aside from linkedin, which nobody updates unless they're looking for work, and that indicates to me that he was using the name Aiden and not Audrey whenever possible. I think he should be referred to as Aiden and it should be mentioned in the lead that he used to go by and is often referred to by the media as Audrey. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (2)

They shot through a side door to gain entry into the building Ninja2020 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Newsweek Article Source

The Newsweek article source 28 should be removed as a source for the identification of the shooter. I think sources 27 and 29 should be enough but if not there are countless other sources that can be used at this point. I don't think an article that is principally about the effect of hormones on the brain should be used as a source for the shooter's identification, even if it does technically provide that information. GBRSean (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the Newsweek source because, as you said, it isn't needed, and Newsweek is considered a questionable source. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2023

2023 Covenant School shooting → Covenant School shooting – I think that WP:NOYEAR and WP:NCE has a much stronger case here than in other recent shootings. Since the title is much more precise in its location (naming a specific school), and given that history has usually not seen a major notable shooting happen in the same precise location as opposed to maybe a city (for example, there are numerous shootings in Pittsburgh but only one at Sandy Hook Elementary). The precision of the location in the title is too specific to justify more, and I believe WP:CRYSTALBALL could potentially be implied (albeit weakly) if we keep a year in here, potentially suggesting that there are more shootings, notable or unnotable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per the proposal. The proposed title is reasonable, makes sense per WP:NOYEAR, and there's precedent in relation to other article titles of similar events. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support as the standard, concise title format for this type of article. It includes a specific location, so there's no need for the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The "standard, concise title format" is prescribed at WP:NCE. It would be utterly amazing if you accepted that. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:NCE, the title format for events is When, Where and What happened. WP:NOYEAR suggests the year can be omitted for titles where the event is so recognizable that the year is irrelevant, but that also requires historic perspective, and for something that happened less than 24 hours ago it's far too soon to be claiming this is the WP:COMMONNAME. If anything, I'd support moving the page to 2023 Nashville shooting which is what the vast majority of our sources refer to this event as. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I never understood the historic perspective argument given that the same argument can be tossed back in the courts of the argument's proponents. Yes, we have a day of precedent, but that means that there's no argument to support inserting the year either, especially considering that in practically every "year or no year" dispute, the subject event is the only kind. People also frequently mention WP:NCE, but there's a reason why at the top of the wider page, it states that [this wider guideline] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I also strongly oppose moving this article to 2023 Nashville Shooting, which violates WP:DESCRIPTOR by being needlessly vague and broad. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - this is a specific location, at that point, there really is no point to disambiguate further. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both titles - Both are too vague, as a simple google of "covenant school" will show that this is not even the only covenant school out there, as results show there are also ones in Virginia and Texas. Also complying with WP:NCE, I think we should have the title as "2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting" or "Nashville Covenant School shooting". - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, but a point has to be raised in that this is the only Covenant school that has been subject to a shooting. I am neutral on the latter Nashville Covenant School shooting suggestion of yours. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair point of yours also, and I understand where you're coming from. I'll keep your comment in mind in this RM and future ones. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment – If the consensus of this debate ends up being to exclude the year from the title, I recommend changing the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting, 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting, & 2021 Oxford High School shooting articles back to their original titles, without the year included. Silent-Rains (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (3)

I believe that the shooter should be identified as a she considering she was born a female and is a complete monster not worthy of respect or decency. Jellyybean (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That's not how we normally do things around here. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Gendered Pronouns

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.

---

There seems to be confusion and/or malice in the article with regard to gendered language. I believe some people genuinely do not know the attacker's gender identity, and some are intentionally and maliciously misgendering. Not that a killer deserves an ounce of respect, of course, but the killer is not around to hear such insults, only readers who are trans get to witness such attacks against an identity group rather than the vile character of that individual's actions. Honestly, I don't know their gender identity either. I would like to recommend using the gender-neutral pronouns "they/them" to identify the attacker until such clarity can be had.

Personally, I don't think attackers should be named or identified at all. I know that's going to be an uphill battle on an encyclopedia, but I favor erasing completely the names, identity, opinions, everything, of such attackers from public discourse, outside of any relevant discussion that might lead to social consensus on how to prevent further such attacks. I don't think it is "Neutral" to publish the names of attackers and thus contribute to their glorification/martyrdom in such a way. I personally think they should only ever be identified as "the attacker" and "they/them" and never by name. But that of course does not mean that transphobic language is ever acceptable. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are supposed to provide relevant information on specific topics. The suspect is a relevant part of any article about an attack. When a person heads off to an encyclopedia for information about an attack, they probably won't be disappointed when they encounter information that's entirely relevant. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is increasingly clarity from a majority of reliable sources that the shooter used he/him. I understand your reasoning, but as an encyclopedia, we do not misgender people nor erase their names from history as retribution for their actions. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2023 (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.

Edit which firearms are included

The 3 firearms that were used are an M&P Shield 9 ez, an AR-15, and a Keltec Sub2000, which you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=35&v=UeXLhQv11tY Bageltre (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Those weapons are already specified in the infobox; besides, this source does not state what the firearms are, just shows photos of them. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't see the info box Bageltre (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually — only the Kel-Tec is specified in the linked source for the infobox, not the other two.

Can anyone find a reliable source that notes the other weapons? (I found Newsweek, but they're iffy.) If not, they should be removed pending better source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

you can visibly see them holding the keltec and the ar15 in the video linked previously at ~20 seconds. I haven't been able to confirm the M&P Bageltre (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For us to judge what the weapons are based on the released photos and videos would be considered original research. We need reliable sources that state what they are. All I can find is Newsweek, which is not considered a reliable source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023 (5)

Change the following lines from:

".....side door to gain entry into the building,[13][14] armed with an assault-style rifle, an pistol-caliber carbine, and a handgun.[15][16][14] Hale..."

to: ".....side door to gain entry into the building,[13][14] armed with a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle, a pistol-caliber carbine, and a handgun.[15][16][14] Hale..."

Reason: "semi-automatic" is the common description given to the AR-15 style rifle on its main page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

Reason: "pistol-caliber carbine" is the common description given to the Kel-Tec SUB-2000 on its main page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_SUB-2000 Hendrickson90 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove the part regarding Gun laws in Tennessee

This isn't the page for that and it is very clearly politically biased, so it should not be included. Bageltre (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)