Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Category Query

Here's the current list: Categories:

• 2023 active shooter incidents in the United States
• 2023 in LGBT history
• 2023 in Tennessee
• 2023 mass shootings in the United States
• 2023 murders in the United States
• March 2023 crimes in the United States
• 2020s crimes in Tennessee
• Deaths by firearm in Tennessee
• Murder in Tennessee
• 21st century in Nashville, Tennessee
• Child murder
• Crime in Nashville, Tennessee
• Elementary school shootings in the United States
• LGBT in Tennessee
• Mass shootings in Tennessee
• Mass shootings in the United States
• Transgender history in the United States

We currently have 11 crime based categories, 8 Tennessee based categories, and 3 LGTP related categories. The thing is this was a targeted attack on a Christian school connected to a Christian church yet there's nothing in the category listing that covers this. I'm not an expert on categories but shouldn't there be something like Category:Massacres of Christians (probably excessive), Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence or Category:Persecution of Christians? If others can suggest more appropriate categories that's fine, as I say I'm not an expert on categories, but the current choice seems to ignore the victims and intended targets which is wrong. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

add hate crime Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

good point about the victims but I suggest we wait till the manifesto is released and the details come out so that we can appropriately delineate this article. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As has been stated: there is no source yet that this was specifically an attack on Christians. A manifesto exists but has not yet been released or reported on, and police have said repeatedly they have no motive yet. Those categories have been added and then removed because of that very reasoning. It may well be the case that this was an act of anti-Christian violence or hate crime — but the sources for that aren't there yet. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

☝🏻 Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234, the facts show this was an attack on Christians. Now whether Hale's manifesto explicitly states the school was targeted because it's Christian, or she simply targeted the school because she hated what they taught, or she chose it because she hated her time there or the culture there, doesn't negate the fact it was a hate crime. Note too that while she lived at home, she had significant problems with her parents who are, as I understand it, Christians themselves. That may be a contributing factor in her choice of target. Are you saying a pro-KKK type mass shooter who just 'randomly' chooses to attack a Black church can't be accused of a race crime unless his manifesto explicitly states such? I guess I'm not really sure what level of evidence you're demanding. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:590D:6BC0:543D:DF08 (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

jeez relax man. listen, by Sunday, it will be termed a hate crime either way. just show some patience and wait for the facts to come out bro Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Any evidence at all of this claim from any reliable source is what Wikipedia demands. That's the bar, and nobody here has found anything that fits the bill so far. You're welcome to look on your own, but I suggest waiting for the details of motive to inevitably emerge, and not getting yourself banned in the meantime for insisting that acknowledging the shooter is trans means Wikipedia is "partisan" or has "opted out on the science". 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

well said Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 - We must have reliable sources label the event as a hate crime or bias-motivated before we can use that label. No matter how obvious it may seem to people. I think the Pulse Night Club shooting is a good example of how prematurely labeling events can be detrimental. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd the above, Wikipedia isn't a news site and so we are in no rush to change things that could spread possibly false information. It'd be irresponsible if we did. Planetberaure (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

More Info on the House Hale Lived in & Where She Hid Her Guns

https://nypost.com/2023/03/28/photos-reveal-inside-of-nashville-shooter-audrey-hales-house/

Hale hid 7 firearms from her parents whilst living in their house, using 2 assault rifles and a handgun in her attack. Her parents were under the impression she'd only had one firearm which she'd gotten rid of - they didn't believe she was fit to own firearms, plus her mother has very strong anti-gun beliefs and is a devout Christian.

This seems to be slightly different to what's currently claimed in the article - two shotguns and other evidence seized, but accuracy on this matter likely isn't essential. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:5890:1A4F:E6E6:D17E (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting". WWGB (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, New York Post is not considered a reliable source. Additionally, the article doesn't state how many guns were inside of the home nor recovered. This page already notes that the shooter purchased seven firearms in total.

Also, the shooter uses he/him pronouns. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be leery of saying she used "assault rifles" as this is a loaded term with little actual meaning. Even the press has been consistently saying "assault-style" rifles, which is even more meaningless but I suppose could do for consistency's sake. Most accurate would be "semi-automatic rifle" since that's what they were.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:849:B18F:23BC:9DAA (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson’s response

Tucker Carlson portrayed the shooting as evidence of a supposed transgender war against Christians, see: [1]. I added this to the reactions section of the article but it was reverted. Carlson is in an odd position because, while his political commentary is quite extreme (and frequently not based in fact), he’s also very popular in the US, frequently ranking #1 in the list of most-watched cable news shows (if his show can be called news). Being popular doesn’t make him right, but it might at least make him notable, particularly if other conservative pundits begin echoing the same opinions (which they seem to be doing). Should his reaction be included or not? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those sources alone justify inclusion. See WP:DAILYBEAST and WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Since Carlson is an expert on neither transgenderism nor Christianity, his comments are irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that Fox News has argued and won in court on the basis that Carlson's words should not be taken literally, I think that warrants exclusion. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

bwahahah good one Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed everyone who's not officially responsible for and to Nashville on some level. Less bullshit that way. People known for ruffling feathers are especially unwelcome (in a perfect encyclopedia, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And I get that NBC is even more famous than FNC, but I must insist, LightNightLights (talk · contribs), unnamed social media users and gun control advocates are known (broadly speaking) for ruffling feathers. Maybe if someone on Ogles' level of notability reacts to him about this event, we can cite that critic. Sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: I may have botched the ping above, sorry, sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The ping worked, no worries; Wikipedia Mobile takes a while to notify. I'm currently writing a response. LightNightLights ^(talk) 07:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

My point in restoring the response-criticism text was more that it *is* sourced, despite your removal reason that "[the removed text is] someone's reaction to him, not his [reaction] to [the shooting]" (diff). While I get the point that Ogles is notable and that the mentioned groups are for-better-or-worse "known for ruffling feathers", we do have a source that mentions the criticism, and I don't think we can just ignore that. I'm also leaning towards including it here than Ogles's own article, since part of the source (what it deemed as notable) mentions a parent whose child was killed in a shooting that "the tragedy of the latest mass shooting is listening to Tennessee politicians who refuse to call it a shooting but who engaged in behavior that caused this to be more likely when they glorify guns". Maybe we can check if there are other sources that mention Ogles's statement and see if it's due to mention the criticism. LightNightLights ^(talk) 07:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a slippery slope. What happens if other unspecified masses online start hating on Ogles' haters, as divided keyboard warriors are historically wont to do? Do we include them, too, without saying who they're supposed to be? If you insist more than I do, fine. But I think we should attribute opinions, even if those said to hold them don't have articles or do only go by usernames. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk For what it's worth, the article mentions: "... faced criticism from gun control advocates and Democrats on Tuesday after a 2021 photo resurfaced ..." I'm okay with attributing the criticism to gun control advocates and Democrats. LightNightLights ^(talk) 08:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that. But which Democrats? Just Veronica Escobar? Which gun control advocates? Fred Guttenberg alone?Everyone else in this section is identifiable. These vague characters are outliers, and conspicuously so. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, while it's true that they are vague groups of people, there is a Democratic House-representative (Veronica Escobar) and a gun-control-advocate parent (Fred Guttenberg). While I'd be willing to check other sources to see more individuals criticizing Ogles (and looking at headlines of a cursory search seems to imply that many articles *do* mention criticism of Ogles), this whole issue seems to be about MOS:WEASEL and that guideline allows statements like this, however subpar ("views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source [emphasis in original]"). LightNightLights ^(talk) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Regarding Special:Diff/1147173239, see Special:Diff/1147175097.) LightNightLights ^(talk) 08:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As one Democrat is not Democrats and one gun control advocate is not advocates, I don't think those words accurately represent the source. It's a bad habit in online news, where a single official is also often spun into "officials" for a headline and lede, then clarified a few paragraphs later. Anyway, enjoy your break, I look forward to seeing what you find (even if I might not like it). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

buddy. it was a targeted attack. the shooter had a manifesto. the police said all this themselves. tucker might be in the wrong as he's not being more delicate about the situation, but he isn't lying yk. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has reported the contents of the manifesto yet. Hearsay and speculation are not reliable sources. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

the police chief of Nashville himself said it was targeted.... Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Targeted means Hale had chosen the location in advance, as opposed to spontaneously. Targeted does not mean it was specifically intended to be an attack against Christians. That may or may not turn out to be the case, but we don't know so yet. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

and you derived that meaning from where exactly? " Targeted does not mean it was specifically intended to be an attack against Christians."

you literally have no clue about what happened (none of us do as of now) and you're openly speculating after yourself arguing against speculation. show a little consistency s'il te plait Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Countless reliable sources quote the police chief and police department spokespeople as saying they have no motive yet. Just because Tucker disagrees does not make it so. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, which parts of what Tucker said is he not lying about? LightNightLights ^(talk) 07:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, it would appear they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather in part to push their ideological viewpoints. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

kinda sad that a random IP doesn't want to bother continuing what's been a so-far respectful decision so you just baselessly claim [[[Wikipedia:NOTHERE]] as you've got nothing else of substance to say here. what ideological viewpoints did I even push? I simply stated that tucker was wrong in the fact he's not being more delicate in how he's delivering the news regarding this, but his core point is not really wrong. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And what's this "core point"? LightNightLights ^(talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've realized this is veering into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Feel free to hat. LightNightLights ^(talk) 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Not worth it. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

good point Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

check other reply Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

it's my belief that tucker isn't necessarily lying so far in his characterisation of the 'war' etc. obviously it's hyperbole, but the point he's tryna get across regarding a clash of beliefs isn't of itself incorrect Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't think Carlson's take is important, and it's not reliably sourced (see FormalDude's comments about Rolling Stone and The Daily Beast). Also, it appears to be too early to speculate about Hale's motive for the shooting (if there is one at all). Perhaps the manifesto will reveal more about the motive; I'm sure the authorities are investigation that as we speak. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Deadname, gender, 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.

---

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)

I don't understand this comment. A transgender man (male gender) is a woman (female sex), as far as I understand. And a transgender woman (female gender) is a man (male sex). Surely Wikipedia's style guide hasn't gone so far as to actually require authors to work with anything else as a premise. I really hope not. I know there are plenty of people that argue otherwise, but my understanding is that a transgender woman actually being a woman is very much a minority view, and very much debated. Maybe I'm wrong here in terms of the general acceptability but I've been quite taken aback by the editing of this Wikipedia article. Using Audrey's legal name seems only reasonable here. I mean, if she was known as "Smiley McSmiley Face" rather than "Aiden" I can't imagine that being used here (sure, I'm arguing from an extreme example there). And this "deadname" idea, while fine in general discourse, doesn't seem relevant in a legal situation like this. Audrey is her legal name, as far as I understand. tobych (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. Legal status is irrelevant; using a trans person's chosen name is a matter of respect. Funcrunch (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And we want to respect a mass murderer and child killer because ... ? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Respect doesn't even have to factor into it, because consensus and the preponderance of reliable sources say the shooter's pronouns are he/him, so that's what we use. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

we want to respect trans people reading this article so they don't feel like their right to self identify is up for debate depending on what they do. Aiden Hale is dead, it doesn't matter if we do or don't respect him personally, but you can't set a precedent that trans people are only who they say they are as long as they earn it. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 15:47, 30 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)

Singular they is not universally accepted in English and can often sound unnatural. Gendered pronouns should generally be used in articles unless a person has expressly stated a preference for they/them pronouns. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Did she ever actually legally change her name? Without a formal name change, it might as well be a nickname. 162.118.117.210 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hale was a "he", and a legal name change is not required to respect the name and pronouns of trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

what are you talking about?? What respect is due?? 83.223.224.34 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place to be the harbringer of due justice to those who are evil. We care more about accuracy than morality. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The most objective truth is that the attacker was a female. Another undisputed fact is that that female identified as a man. These two facts ought to be included in the article. Whether the gender self-identification of the Audrey Elizabeth Hale (CNN) should permeate the entire article by the editors using "he" I think is a step too far. While editorially I think it is generally better to stick with objective sex instead of subjective gender self-identification of the subject, I think the best compromise at this time is to avoid using pronouns. Several sources including the CNN have taken that route. They refer to Audrey Elizabeth Hale as "the attacker" "the shooter", etc. Al83tito (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hale was a trans man who went by he/him pronouns. A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. That is the objective truth. Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 30 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.

Victim ages

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.

---

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)

No need to be pointy/whatever you prefer to call. Thanks for bottom responses. A09 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Vague and unproductive reply. Your initial reply to me did not assume good faith, as you immediately linked to policies without even considering that I might just know what I'm doing and that I understand what it means to prove something with a reliable source. I chose to post here because I did not yet find the source, but I did not want the truth (or at the very least, a conflicting source of information) to become lost. Being mindful of context and your tone is important. Rowing007 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Many editors will be reading article talk pages and not all of them will be as familiar with relevant policies and guidelines as you say you are. Even if you find no value in those links, they are a kindness to others and should be encouraged. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Facile and reductive argument, with yet more incessant doubting. It seems nothing can be evaluated at face value without ascribing some ulterior motive or meaning to it. Bottom line is, the user's reply was to me, so the blind linking to policies is patronizing and shows a lack of proper investigation. If I had somehow gone into a conversation wherein I demonstrated a lack of understanding for WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, then linking them would be well merited, but linking them from the get-go fails to assume good faith. The majority of my edits constitute fixing references and properly sourcing statements, and this is readily apparent from even a cursory glance at my recent contributions. Rowing007 (talk) 03:37, 31 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)

Yeah, I heard it, too. It came from a short man (the mayor, if I recall) who spoke briefly and generally about the dead to start the first press conference, after saying he'd let the chief identify them. And then the chief did, presumably more knowingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. CTV News didn't upload that to their YouTube channel as far as I can see, but I was able to find the news conference posted by CBS News on Monday with the mentioned line. I will note that both CBS News and CTV News have reported their ages as nine on Tuesday afternoon. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That video of the police chief stating the ages is solid proof. I managed to find a few sources mentioning age 8, likely referencing that very press briefing statement by the police chief: [2] [3]. The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of sources state that all three were age 9. We also don't know yet exactly which of the children was 8. Rowing007 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk's undone edit: Yes, yes, yes. 3:04 in the YouTube video posted above quite clearly says "Two of them were age 9, one was 8, about to be 9". I am quite capable of identifying the police chief and differentiating him from the mayor. Thanks for correcting yourself, but perhaps do so before posting a reply, next time. Rowing007 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, of course, we all could do better on some things. Mild thrashing accepted. Good luck, brother, the truth is out there! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rowing007: Whoops, also forgot to subscribe to this. (I actually thought this got archived.) In any case, I wouldn't call the video solid proof as the press conference uses both. The Police Chief says one is eight while the Public Affairs Director says all are nine. It seems that most sources went with the information provided by the Director. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the fact he said it at all is enough to raise doubt. Basic logic would dictate that there must be a reason he said it, and it would be most unusual for him to have made it up or misheard it, as others are suggesting below. Rowing007 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

At the same press conference, the mayor followed the police chief, named all three children, and said they were all aged 9. This is consistent with all printed sources. I am not aware of any other source that reports one child aged 8. The chief's comment is included in a footnote of our article, but it must not be reported as an infallible truth. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Police get stuff wrong all the time, we must take their statements with a grain of salt. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What a ridiculous stance. Just think for one second. Why in the world would the police chief explicitly state that Two of them were age 9, one was 8, about to be 9 if he didn't have the precise information to back that up? They knew the names of the victims, and were able to verify the exact dates of birth before giving the press briefing, hence the police chief's statement. The facile shortcut here is to state that they were all 9. Indeed, it's much quicker and easier to state "all three were age 9", but that would simply not be correct. From there, it has snowballed with all the news sources latching on to that one misrepresentation of reality. For comparison, Betty White and Prince Philip died a few weeks/months before their 100th birthday. No one claims they were 100. This should be no different. Facts are facts. Rowing007 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We can't just assume the police have the facts 100% right, so it must be attributed. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, Occam's razor; truly, logic has left the chat. Secondly, if you insist on attributing it instead of accepting it as the ground truth, there is no reason why it should not be attributed in the body, with the reference making note of the conflicting body of sources which state that all three were 9. Rowing007 (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Because 99% of sources say all were 9. We don't need to bore readers by publishing one contradictory source in the body of the article. An exception in a footnote is sufficient. If indeed one child was 8, that will eventually come out when the funerals are held. WWGB (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The "99% of sources" argument is extremely poor. What's been happening here has been like a massive game of telephone, wherein something gets misheard and perpetuated down the line, or like a rumour that gets spread around and repeated so much that the ground truth is disbelieved. Per my above comments, basic logic dictates that it is perfectly reasonable to accept as fact that one of of them was, in fact, aged 8, per the police chief's purposefully specific statement. The truth will out. Rowing007 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We aren't the determiners of truth. As editors we care about what is verifiable to reliable sources. In this instance, the police chief said one thing, and all of the secondary sources said another. Per WP:WEIGHT, we must follow what the majority of sources say which in this instance means we state that all three were aged 9, and if there is a consensus for inclusion of the chief's alternate age then as a minority viewpoint it must be attributed to him.

If in a week, or a month, or longer it turns out that the chief was correct and the sources we're currently relying on were mistaken, then we can look at updating the article at that time. However we should not try to guess the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Once more, that's an instance of illogical reasoning. My arguments are present above, and once again, the truth will out. Rowing007 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's reasoning founded on the common interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines at hand. In this case, The WP:WEIGHT subsection of WP:NPOV says that we cannot do what you want us to do. If we are to include the age from the police chief, it must be attributed to him, as he is a minority viewpoint that diverges from the mainstream accepted viewpoint. Only if the sources later correct themselves, should they have made a mistake, can we then look at saying that two of them were age 9, and one was 8. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

False. The police chief made the statement the day of the incident. This massive game of telephone that has occurred since then is nothing more than a snowball effect based on a simplification made by someone at some point (perhaps the mayor in that same briefing, at the origin). Regardless, this is a classic case where the policies do a disservice to the truth and ignore basic logic. For the third time, the truth will out. Rowing007 (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For the third time, the truth will out. And until that happens, we must follow what is verifiable now. And that means that we state that all three were aged 9, and if we mention the chief's deviation at all it must be attributed to him. Anything else is not policy compliant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As stated multiple times, the police chief's statement is verifiable and reliable. The "deviation" is the litany of news reports that have come out since the police chief's statement, parroting the line that all three were 9. This, along with the precision of his statement, is basic logic pointing to its accuracy, but go ahead, cling to the policy. Rowing007 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I know it's hard, brother. But that's Wikipedia. I can't even begin to tell you how many inaccuracies I've seen in my years of mass shooting corrections. About half are still there, especially where those Amaq News Agency parrots still outnumber the free thinkers. If knowing a dead kid was almost nine and not nine is important to you, all you can really do is believe you know better than Wikipedia. And there's no smugness in that. Wikipedia is more an average of human knowledge than a sum, so about half of our articles are going to naturally be of below average information (credibilitywise). Can't fix them all. Thanks for trying! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment of solidarity, but please do not refer to me with colloquial terms such as "brother". I fully understand the nature of the policy; I am contending that it is being misapplied in this instance. The child in question was either 8, as the police chief made a point of explicitly specifying (Gee, I wonder why he would do that? Maybe it's because he had access to their information and was reporting on it?), or the child was 9. If basic logic bows to policy in a scenario such as this, there is either something wrong with the policy, or it is being misapplied. Rowing007 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's less a personal remark and more a consequence of adopting some of my online gimmick from Hulk Hogan. I do feel your pain, but I'll remember to watch my words with you. Sorry. Even with police, there's strength in numbers. Do police press releases representing the department as a whole's thoughts on the ages suggest THEY agree with HIM? If so, there you go. If not, there you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in government, much of the time the simplest route is taken when drafting hasty documents, sometimes at the expense of accuracy. Whomever wrote that press release must not have looked very much into it, or they were fed the ages to fill in a blank, and whomever fed them the ages must have just relied on the already-snowballed version that they were all 9. Which begs the question (Occam's razor): why would the police chief even mention that one of them was 8 in the first place if it's not true? The amount of hoops one would have to jump through to explain that is more than is necessary to explain the opposite (namely, that the police chief was correct, and that everything else is a snowballed simplification). Rowing007 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a logical thought experiment for you. Picture a guy making a mistake, then correcting it later, like I did when I thought the mayor was wrong and the chief was right instead of the complete opposite. Pretty fucking stupid, eh? It happens. The press release is from later and even brief time can bring great wisdom. He thought he remembered hearing the kid who was nine was almost nine instead, I say. You can trust me on that or you can appreciate why I don't respond to any further attempts to convince me there was some snowball of unknown origin that couldn't have been corrected in this, the digital age. Good day, Rowing007! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For him to have heard it means someone would have said it. For someone to have said such a specific caveat on tbe ages without basing it off of observed facts (i.e., records) is rather outlandish. Occam's razor. We shall see how things unfold. Rowing007 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you stop bludgeoning the conversation please? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say he heard it, I said I think he thought he did. Like how you possibly read something I didn't write because some part of you thought it seemed close enough. I'll concede he also may have thought he read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's even more of a stretch. Do not try to gaslight me by suggesting I am cherrypicking your words. I am drawing out your proposed logic to its conclusion. What you're suggesting now is that the police chief completely fabricated such a precise detail. Absolutely the most far-fetched notion proposed so far. Rowing007 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gaslighting anyone, to err is human. That's why it's an old saying. Fabrication is far beyond what I'm telling you happened, that implies intent, not an accident. I honestly think that's what it was. If you need the story from the man himself, contact his department, long distance is basically free now, just takes time. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What an incredibly patronizing and direspectful message and edit summary. Fabrication was the first word that came to mind; I did not imply intent. Let me say it differently: it is incredibly far-fetched to propose that he somehow hallucinated it. Your arguments have now devolved into derogatory personal attacks against me; please refrain from further WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. The bottom line is that basic logic dictates that it is not unreasonable to assume his statement was founded on ground truth information obtained from personal records. Rowing007 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So now what I proposed was an honest mistake has become more than mere fabrication, you've got me accusing him of hallucinating on the job. Great. Have fun with that imagination, I'm just glad John Drake and his lawyer(s) can read. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous and misrepresentative argument. You can't seem to form or respond to cogent arguments. Enough is enough already. Rowing007 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying Occam's razor, but I'm not sure why you think "the police chief said the right ages, after which every single member of the news media, every family member of the deceased, and the police department itself proceeded to state one of the ages incorrectly" is a simpler explanation than "the police chief misheard one of the ages and stated it incorrectly, after which the police department corrected it and news media reported the corrected press release."

Why not apply Occam's razor to the question of why none of the three families—despite each of them having made a public statement since—disputed the ages as all being 9? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's very clear to reason that it is much simpler to say "they were all 9" than to go through the extra work of saying "two of them were age 9, one was 8, almost 9". There has not been a major correction yet because it is such a minute detail that bears no mentioning for media people more concerned about pumping a story out and not spending the time on going back and correcting it. The families are likely too grief-stricken to want to go through the trouble of detracting from the memory of their child to say "um, actually, they were 8, not 9". At this point, it's abundantly clear tbat the only way there will be a clarification on this is if someone mentions it during a funeral/memorial, or the exact dates of birth are made public, becauae the simple logic of recognizing that such a specific statement be made by the police chief in the first place clear isn't enough right now for most. Rowing007 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is verifiable that the police chief said it. It is not verifiable that the police chief was correct when he said it. Maybe the chief was right, and maybe he was wrong. We don't know, and we aren't the people who are here to determine that truth. We only care about what the mainstream viewpoint is in reliable sources, and that is for now that the kids were all aged 9. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is no less verifiable than what the mountain of news sources are saying. Once again I will refer to Occam's razor. Who do you think is more likely to have had access to the truth (i.e., the personal records which displayed the dates of birth), the police chief, or the media? The media report on what sources such as the police chief say (and, unfortunately, the mayor's contradictory statement). This means the police chief is a secondary source, and the media is a tertiary source. Once again, to ignore the fact that the police chief spoke with such precision would be an egregious flouting of logic. Rowing007 (talk) 04:27, 31 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.

High Functioning Autistic Triggered by August 2022 Death of Idol?

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.

---

I don't think I've seen it claimed elsewhere but a source close to the Hale family apparently claimed Audrey was autistic “but high-functioning". Relevant if confirmed elsewhere? She had been suicidal prior to her attack so when friend Averianna Patton received her message she contacted the Suicide Prevention Help Line and Nashville Davidson County Sheriff's Office but it was already too late. The trans identity was also quite new: https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-covenant-school-transgender-killer-and-her-6-victims.html?page=7

Hale was heartbroken over the August 2022 death of a former basketball teammate with whom she was allegedly infatuated with. Accounts differ as to whether any romantic relationship existed. According to police she only started identifying as male in February: https://nypost.com/2023/03/29/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-was-heartbroken-over-death-of-crush/#

Given the concerns over her mental\emotional state, is it fair to call Hale trans given the short duration, or should it be seen more as a fad? Yes police etc initially said she's trans, but we're talking a duration of less than 2 months at this stage based on the evidence. If it is the latter then talking about a trans killer and linking this to such categories isn't fair. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:5890:1A4F:E6E6:D17E (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Autism does not cause criminal behaviour. Hale's alleged diagnosis is unrelated to the attack and should not be included in the article. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources per RSP.

An autism diagnosis is not relevant, and originates from an anonymous allegation in The Daily Beast, which is not a reliable source.

We do not adjudicate on whether someone's status as trans is "a fad". The shooter uses he/him pronouns. Please avoid veering into transphobic territory. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The shooter doesn't deserve to have their pronouns respected. It also states for living people not dead people 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:A527:7987:B6EF:D489 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will add that you have been repeatedly denying the shooter's identity and questioning whether trans people even exist for the past day, and have been warned about this behavior. It is not welcome on Wikipedia. Do not continue it. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

please don't pretend to speak for "Wikipedia." There are a diversity of opinions here, and all should be welcome. Basic questions about the shooter's identity seem very pertinent and it would be foolish to pretend anyone has all the answers. That goes for you as much as anyone.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:849:B18F:23BC:9DAA (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Derogatory references to groups such as trans people are considered incivility. Expressing hateful points of view towards trans people is disruptive editing. Tendentious editing with an agenda is a sign that someone may not be here to build an encyclopedia.

This goes for you as well; you've already received a warning about saying that a subject's "pretend identity *doesn't* matter". Things like that are decidedly not "basic question[s] about the shooter's identity". 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

More to the point: no reliable sources are questioning the validity of the shooter's identity. (Let alone enough reliable sources to theoretically merit consideration.) No original research or synthesis is allowed here, so there is no reason to even entertain the notion. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:579:E31:E772:8E80 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it even reliably sourced that Hale was autistic? If not, it can't be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think neither of them are reliable. WP:BLP applies. A09 (talk) 15:56, 30 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.

Biden's remarks about ice cream

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.

---

It was talked about by various news sources and seems significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Should it not be included? Derpytoucan (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, and as FormalDude pointed out, there's disagreement about it being included. That being said, it hasn't been RfC'd either, so if there are RS that talk about it (what you used would probably not pass as a reliable source), I am in favor of its inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

We've had thorough discussion here. Feel free to add your thoughts. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 30 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

For: "The shooter, identified as 28-year-old former student Audrey Elizabeth Hale, was killed by responding police officers."

There should be a comma between "student" and the name like this:

"The shooter, identified as 28-year-old former student, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, was killed by responding police officers." Arston22 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's fine as is. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If there was an "a" in there, you'd be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

makes sense. Arston22 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Elronin72 Gaming (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well i want to add a link to PoliceActivity via youtube cus they have some footage of The Shooting from Via nashville

Not a reliable source. Also, CCTV footage released by Nashville police is already embedded in the article. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Please add The Covenant School XC07.jpg to the article--Trade (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. File:The Covenant School XC07.jpg is from 2007 so it seems irrelevant at best and potentially misleading. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And it is apparently about The Covenant School (Virginia), while the shooting occurred at The Covenant School in Tennessee. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake Trade (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

remove the shooter's name from the lede

FOLKS, the very thing these scumbags crave when they commit such depraved actions are fame. the b*stard had a manifesto. let's remove the name from the lede so as to not give that publicity. it'll obviously have to be included somewhere in the article, so the remaining body should suffice Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, the desire to deny recognition to those who do bad things should not affect how articles are written. Virtually all other articles on here about mass shootings feature the shooter's name in the lede. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

guess that should change then. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh? if you want to change that, try your hand at the Village Pump. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 10:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do end up going to the Village Pump, you should review and keep in mind the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy. This has been discussed in the past on other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting censoring anything though. it would just be a relatively minor change as the name would have to be mentioned later on anyway, but removing it from the lede could have the positive effect of Wikipedia not participating as an active fame-giver for the shooters. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I should have been a bit more clear. If you look at the Aurora discussion, you will see that there was a discussion called "Inclusion of the name of the suspect" that I linked to. The discussion was about potentially removing the name of the suspect. Some of the participants cited WP:CENSOR, which is the policy mentioned above, in support of keeping the name in that article. While this is just about removing it from the lede, I would believe that it would incur a similar response. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

oh figures then. thanks for the heads up Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has strayed way off topic

I'd rather see the names of the victims removed. These people simply had the bad luck to be in the path of a bullet. Their names add nothing to our understanding of events. It seems horrific and ghoulish to post their names here as a constant reminder to their families. And, no, it doesn't matter that "reliable sources" are so sensationalist to include them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This is an absurdly bad take lol what. The point of their names being included is remembrance. You can’t just forget the innocent victims of horrific actions. Nearly ever single article on a horrific crime like this commemorates the victims, although sadly, the scumbag perps often get a lot of the attention😒 86.99.168.243 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't intended to be a memorial, though, it's an encyclopedia. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC) An encyclopaedia’s existence dictates that it records the names of those with significance to the event of record. This isn’t hard, stop making it so hard for yourself. People like you really lose all critical thinking under the guise of ‘hurr durr it’s an encyclopedia‘. You think you’re doing something by stating that when all you actually do is point yourself out as someone with a lack of conviction who doesn’t even have a real point. so what if it’s an Encyclopaedia? You realise being a quasi-memorial for victims of tragic events isn’t mutually incompatible with being an encyclopaedia right? Matter of fact, your ‘argument’ is ever more flawed because you seem to think an encyclopaedia is some fugazi objective standard (never has existed and never will as we’re constantly trying to improve Wikipedia for the better). You don’t understand how historiography works and it shows. 2001:8F8:173D:64D:9C16:C04D:3E9B:3A23 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC) They weren't significant to the event. The event was significant to them. Big difference. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The event was significant to them, but they're crucial to the event article, which wouldn't exist if they survived. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC) exactly. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) If these people hadn't been there, the shooting would still have occurred and other people would have almost certainly been killed instead. They weren't personally targeted, they were just the ones hit. Their identities are no more relevant than the identities of random deaths in a hurricane. Say that x number of people died, give demographics of age and sex and such, but naming them is disgusting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC) You could say the same thing about Christ, Ware and Anderson. Could have just as easily been Flart, Shore and Panderson in their shoes, but for the grace of God. They don't hold vigils for hurricane victims, nor write feature pieces about those vigils, nor set up grand monuments and use their names to campaign for sensible hurricane control. And nothing is random in this world. Everything has one and only one reaction to every given action. It just seems random because our tiny human brains usually can't predict what'll happen next, so it's generally considered unexpected. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) well said Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 'if' your entire awful argument is predicated on a hypothesis. 'if 9/11 didn't happen' that's how you sound lmao. well guess what. the shooting did happen. and these 6 innocent lives were taken away. your point means nothing Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC) this is such a goofy opinion as to be parody lmfao Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC) the people who died weren't significant to the event? are you daft? Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) "Remembrance"? Of people you NEVER met. Leave the memorials for the family, friends, and community affected. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Most of the people I remember, from Jesus Christ to Koko B. Ware to Gillian Anderson, I've never met. These people aren't as famous. But they're still part of a new and popular story. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC) you tell him Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I have been, he's a formidable opponent (certainly not daft). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC) god knows how people develop such bizarre opinions Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC) And people know how God does. It's a covenant. Anyway, stop personally attacking the living, it's frowned upon. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC) well yes, but he's way too unreasonable and bizarre to be nice towards, especially since he keeps doubling down upon 'let's remove the victims names because they're essentially irrelevant' Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Funny, I have the same opinion about your position.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC) You think so because you think anybody disagreeing with your bizarre opinions is wrong. I think so because I acknowledge that your opinion is repulsive and out of the pale of normality. We are not the same. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Capital Protests

Should there be mentions of the recent capital protests in Tennessee, as the are related to the shooting? Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added to the reactions section. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget the differences between a capital city and its state capitol building. Well, forget most of them, if you must. But not the way they're spelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 31 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)

There's a source that gives the types of all three: KelTec SUB2000 (as CNN says), a Grunt .300 Blackout, and a S&W M&P9 Shield EZ. Shall it be included? Etnguyen03 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek is generally not considered a reliable source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Etnguyen03: Could you link the CNN article? Per WP:CNN it's a reliable source A09 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a few sources I found while I'm at it: CNN (Kel-Tec), Euronews (Grunt), and Guardian (S&W). Etnguyen03 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Dude you took issue with the name of the gun, but forget the external video is showing the perperator armed and walking in the school💀. Illchy (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(In fairness, while I disagree with the person's stance, I will note that the external video was not added to the article at the time they had posted that comment.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:742D:25AD:5EFB:98BA (talk) 20:25, 30 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.

So maybe just get it right. There was no AR-15 involved it was a kel-tec sub2000 and a hand gun. That's it. 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)

I would contest that the terms assault weapon, "assault rifle", and "assault-style gun" are all legally vague terms specific to the United States. Within the United States they are not even consistently defined across jurisdictions; this may also be a conflict with MOS:COMMONALITY.

Putting that aside, the reason why the term "assault-style pistol" is important to the article is that the gun in question has been explicitly included in other "assault weapon" bans. The efficacy of such laws are not in question here, but the fact is that these weapons were purchased legally, and Tennessee has no such laws on the books. EatTrainCode (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the term "assault style" has no consistent definition (and to note, has no definition at all in Tennessee) and is inherently politically charged, I don't believe it has any business being used in that context on Wikipedia. It could be used when explaining ban proposals or whatever, but not in simply describing the weapon. I've just left it as "two rifles". Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Other coatrack concerns

• This portion removed by Kieronoldham is clearly much more balanced than the deep-dive on Biden's reaction. It mentions both liberal and conservative takes. I'm personally not sure if we should include it or not, but it certainly shouldn't be removed based on Kieronoldham's reasoning. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • They self-reverted, but we should still consider whether this is relevant or not. The last sentence in particular seems to hold little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Don't waste time. Work aside from political aspects and adherences to conform to sterile impartiality. Public perception of Wikipedia can be improved without selectivity re: political affiliations.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what this means. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
        • Not trying to speak for Kieronoldham, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they mean that the political aspects ie "hot takes" shouldn't be prioritized or given more weight than the more objective and factual components. Otherwise we may see editors and ip coming out of the woodwork to POVpush and distract from getting consensus on less subjective details, IMO. Not a bad idea, but it could be easier said than done for admins. Is there any kind of protocol for these types of articles yet? This happens so frequently there really should be, otherwise it must be exhausting. DN (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    As any fyi as I am unsure if this has been settled or not but wanted to mention that the entire part has been removed again by @InedibleHulk along with comments by Rep Tim Burchett and the comments by the Highland Park parade shooting survivor. The comment left was that it was "Beyond their jurisdictions" If this was discussed and settled in the Tucker Carlson section below, I might have missed it. Leaky.Solar (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    That works for me. Mentioning every politician's reaction would definitely get us into COATRACK territory. Limiting the reactions to only those who are related to or involved with the event (e.g. those who have jurisdiction over the area where it occurred) seems like a good way to prevent that. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns...

IMO, the beginning of the article, as currently written, is rather confusing...In the first paragraph, it identifies the shooter as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" - a very female sounding name - but then shortly, thereafter, we read that "Hale sent a message...that he planned to die today." (emphasis mine)

Up to this point though, there was no discussion of the fact that Hale was a female to male trans-person (this doesn't come until a ways later in the article), so I think that's rather confusing....Yes, there is a note "b" by the pronoun, but IMO there should be more clarity from the plain text of the article, without someone having to click on a note.

It seems to me that there are two possible solutions to this issue (to maintain clarity while avoiding misgendering):

1)Discuss the shooter's gender identity earlier in the article.

2)Avoid using pronouns for him at all, until the fact that he was F->M trans is mentioned. So, in that sentence for example, it would read that "Hale sent a message...that Hale planned to die today."

Personally, I prefer the first option, but either could work. -2003:CA:8708:3F11:AE24:B40F:B794:1F57 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We should just use an explanatory note about the pronoun usage at the first pronoun just like we do in the Bella Ramsey article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's a comparable situation...."Bella" and "Isabella May" (the names listed at the beginning of that article) are both female, and then the article proceeds to use female pronouns for her. So not a lot of confusion is likely in that case. The note in that article is more than sufficient. But this article is quite different, as it identifies the shooter with a female name, and them proceeds to use male pronouns, thus causing confusion. Like I said, I think the plain text of the article should be much clearer, without readers having to click on a note. Of course if the primary name Hale is identified as is switched to "Aiden," as some have suggested, this would no long be an issue. But so long as Hale is indentified primarily as "Audrey" then it remains confusing. -2003:CA:8708:3F11:AE24:B40F:B794:1F57 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone added an explanatory note to explain the he/him pronouns. I just tweaked it to change "male" to "he/him" to describe said pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The way I had it referred to Hale as "I". The fuller quote was "basically a suicide note. I'm planning to die today." I still think that's the clearest way, and something like "Hale, who used he/him pronouns,..." would work better than an interrupting note people have to click. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There are other uses of he/him pronouns in that section though, before Hale's trans identity is mentioned later in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the very first word is "Hale". This could easily be Hale, who used he/him pronouns, sent a message... I won't do it while we're still discussing this, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The full name "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" is currently in the lead, hence the desire to avoid confusion. (Though I suppose the explanatory note could be moved up to the lead, that might make things more confusing rather than less.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We could add his gender identification there, beside the police's, and save the pronoun preference for the beginning of the Shooting section. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've "gone ahead" with the first bit. I'll defer to anyone on whether trans adults prefer to be called men/women or males/females. I'll also accept pure reversion, but won't be as happy about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I would have "purely reverted" but did not as I knew you edited in good faith. I'm still not entirely comfortable with calling attention to his trans status in the lead in this way; I think an explanatory note might be better. But I'm open to other input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to avoid confusion, being upfront is the way to go. More than nine times out of ten, someone identified as "Audrey Elizabeth" is a woman and calling her "him" does jar the unaware. Your parenthetical change is fine, but I feel like it still slightly appears as though it's "trying to hide" or "distance itself" from the main identification line. I'll suggest "and trans man" after "former student", but that's my final offer. Take it or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If the subject were, say, a cis woman named Michael, I'd agree with you about being upfront to avoid confusion. But given the state of "dialogue" around trans people in the U.S., the wording in this article should be considered extra-carefully. I'm hoping for more input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You brought up "the desire to avoid confusion", I was trying to agree with you. I don't know what "dialogue" you're talking about now, I'm a Canadian. I think we write for a global audience, so don't have to tiptoe around anything the way a mainstream corporate paper might, but if there's something potentially harmful you're trying not to say, yes, be as careful as you need to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I think "preferred" beats "used". From the message I saw, he didn't refer to himself in the third person. Pending evidence to the contrary, I also doubt he used the words to mean other women. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to say "went by [x/y/z] pronouns" but most editors don't agree with me on that. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is terribly perplexing how we find ourselves in this situation, harming an encyclopedia to satisfy the dreadful delusions of a mass murderer. What progress we have made! Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Or we could just refer to a biolocical female as “her”. She has no male organs - and shouldn’t be referred to, or allowed to call herself, he/him. 2600:6C5D:5CF0:8B40:59CE:7D6E:7C86:D653 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the issue had been fixed, but then someone went and removed the information again, so we're once again back at square one. I haven't gone yet and looked through the edit history, but I did see that someone above commented about "the state of dialogue." I would note though that Wikipedia is not censored. Our job is simply to present accurate and relevant information in a clear manner, not to omit things because it doesn't fit with a desired narrative. -2003:CA:8708:3FB4:1366:9663:457D:FCF6 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@StarryNightSky11: You two might want to settle this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The source says the shooter was later identified as transgender man. [4]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/28/nashville-school-shooter-identity-transgender Cwater1 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk I've updated the lead section, to prevent confusion for readers. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 18:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to violate NPoV by calling her a man. If she's undergone gender reassignment and had her gender legally changed fair enough, as far as I'm aware she just identified as a man why is everyone falling over themselves not to misgender her, especially considering what she did? Faronnorth (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have stated that whilst born a woman, she identified as male as used he/him pronouns, regardless of whether she legally changed her gender to male or had surgery, the article simply reflects what the sources are saying, as you put it above why is everyone falling over themselves not to misgender her, especially considering what she did, because articles are written from a neutral point of view, not based on editors thoughts or opinions as that wouldn't be neutral, regardless of what she has done, articles are written from a neutral perspective with no bias regardless of who or what the subject of the article is about. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 13:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Background of child abuse in Covenant Church

It appears that the church associated with the school has dealt with a child abuse scandal at the right time for Hale's attendance of the school. Could this be relevant to mention in the background section, or do we have to wait for current media coverage to mention this? 83.141.209.216 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

We would need to at least have reliable sources make such a connection between these two events, especially since these are two separate events that might not actually be connected. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait until media reports it and makes connection. Making connections ourselves might count as WP:OR. A09 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why but I've only assume for my possible motive:

Emotional disorder according to the media.

retaliation against members of the covenant school for unknown reason. Dyaz04102003 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dyaz04102003: Just clearing that making bold assumptions/connections on two subjects is considered WP:OR A09 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate\Misleading Addition to Perpetrator Section

I see someone added "People who knew Hale said he had been having a difficult time dealing with the death of a classmate in the summer of 2022. Hale had known the individual since they were in middle school; they were basketball teammates".

This is problematic and misleading. Hale never played men's basketball and there is no dead male classmate. The reality is that one of her women's basketball teammates died (was killed?) back in August or so, and she struggled greatly with it.

The current language misgenders the historical reality. Since I don't want to start an edit war I'm posting this here in the hope consensus will recommend change. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no misgendering. The sentence doesn't say the teammate is a he and never states that Hale was in men's basketball. What exactly is wrong with those sentences? Silverseren^C 04:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I've bolded the original sentence to make it more apparent. Hale is referred to as male then it pivots to 'his' teammate. This is misgendering. Basketball is divided by gender so if Hale is male then 'he' played male basketball and 'his' teammate is also male. This is false. Thus the paragraph ought to say "People who knew Hale said she ..." I'd also recommend tweaking the language to "... they were in middle school and were basketball teammates". The current syntax is a little awkward. 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like WWGB already fixed the issue by changing the sentence to "Hale had known her since they were in middle school". Silverseren^C 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Baptist News Global article

Here’s an article that delves into the relationship between the school (and its affiliated denomination) with LGBT issues. [5]

I’m not sure whether it’d be considered a reliable source or not (BNG is a Christian publication, albeit one that tends to be far more progressive on social issues than the aforementioned organizations are; it has more of a mainline Protestant perspective). But I think it’d represent a unique perspective, mostly because secular news organizations tend to shy away from writing too directly about explicitly religious/theological issues, while this site shows no such reluctance.

The article also points out that there was sexual abuse of students taking place at the school at the time the shooter attended. It’s a topic that has to be handled with extreme delicacy (so that readers don’t get the impression that the article is blaming the victim or empathizing/sympathizing with the shooter in any way), but I think the article I linked to did a good job of this.

In fact, according to the article, it seems that what happened at Covenant in the 2000s ended up being the catalyst for the Southern Baptist Convention′s recent, widely-publicized reckoning with sexual abuse in its own institutions. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the content about sexual abuse for now. Unless we can say how it is related to the shooting, it probably doesn't belong here. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never edited a wikipedia article (although I read a lot of them), and so I'm not sure all the details for determining what constitutes a Reliable Source per Wikipedia protocols. (I'm a Wikipedia layman, so to speak). My understanding is that the context of the source is to be considered when assessing its reliabiity, and that while the presence of bias doesn't necessarily preclude a source's inclusion it is to be considered when assessing its reliability. I'm sure that's harder to do in matters of religious news, which generally don't receive a lot of attention from non-biased sources. Most who write on those issues have a dog in the fight so to speak. As a Christian pastor (neither Southern Baptist nor Cooperative Baptist nor Presbyterian), who reads a lot of religious news and church history, including quite a bit of Baptist News Global, I do think it's relevant to the discussion that the linked-to article in question comes from a source that is far from unbiased on the matter, and seems to be using the issue to prosecute broader fights within Baptist denominational politics that goes back decades. The linked-to article is also labelled "Analysis" on the top of the page, (Baptist News Global separates its articles between "News" "Analysis" and "Opinion").

The article source, Baptist News Global, was formed by the merger of two Baptist news agencies, one of which, the Associated Baptist Press, was founded after the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (a more theologically liberal Baptist Fellowship split from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1990 in part over whether women should be ordained.) For those not familiar with Baptist history/controversy, those within the Southern Baptist Convention holding more theologically conservative positions on a variety of religious and political issues managed to organize themselves and gain control of Southern Baptist denominational structures and institutions in the 1980s and 1990s and began purging those they deemed overly theologically liberal from denominational positions within the SBC, leading some of those more theologically liberal (in terms of the SBC) churches at the time to split and form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, in part with the express goal of ordaining women which the theological conservatives who gained control of the organization opposed. There's still a lot of bad blood because of how that went down in Baptist circles, both within the SBC itself, but especially between the CBF churches that felt pushed out of the SBC over these matters. Baptist News Global which was formed in the aftermath of that split, and which is an official partner of the CBF (the churches that left), frequently focuses much of their opinion/news analysis on criticizing the SBC. Often this is over serious and legitimate issues of power abuse the SBC including the sex abuse crisis, but it's also on other related theological issues which were related to the original split, especially issues of gender and LGBTQ topics.

Some of that history I think explains why an issue involving a shooting and past sexual abuse issues involving a non-SBC Presbyterian church is throughout the article being tied to other issues of contention between the CBF and the SBC, including LGBTQ issues (the article references the Nashville Declaration and highlights shared theological positions on those disputed issues between the SBC and the Presbyterian Church of America (the Covenant Church and School's theologically conservative Presbyterian denomination).

Again, that's not to say the article may not contain accurate information, and I've read the linked articles/blog posts in the article regarding past issues in the Covenant Church, around the sexual abuse issues. When the manifesto is released that may prove to be the issue, but until there is a tighter connection demonstrated, I think inclusion of this source and the speculation in the source is probably jumping the gun from a source with a pretty strong axe to grind. 69.77.212.43 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR: You could include such allegations in article about the school, but as far as media reports go, no connection between the two exist. A09 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Do unproven allegations from blogsites and failed lawsuits meet the threshold of credibility for Wikipedia? 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If reported in reliable sources, than yes (talking about failed lawsuits). For blogs, see WP:SPS. A09 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is the previous discussion?

The talk page is missing earlier discussion topics. Where are they? 62.212.144.248 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

They've likely been archived at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting/Archive 1. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And also Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting/Archive 2. Nothing was lost, I just archived older and/or closed discussions. A09 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 (4)

Here are the important updates"Nashville School Shooter sent me messages before the attack" Santoshsendha (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This appears to be an unreliable sources (WP:IRS) because it has no stated editorial oversight and the article is attributed to the NEP Team instead of a named author. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The pertinent facts are already in the article, more or less, just without names or much insight. She's the "old friend" at the beginning of the Shooting section, and the cited sources have more detail on the messages themselves. Is there something in particular you think is missing and educational? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that North Eastern Post is either committing plagiarism or is just badly summarizing other news organizations.

Long comparison table made with the help of H:COLS

BBC	North Eastern Post
(Friend) is thought to be one of the last people the Nashville school shooter messaged before the attack.	(Friend) is believed to be one of the last persons messaged by the Nashville school gunman before the assault.
On Monday morning, Ms (Friend) received a message on Instagram from her former classmate, who sounded depressed and desperate.	Ms. (Friend) got an Instagram post from a former student on Monday morning, who sounded despondent and frantic.
"She said that I would see her on the news later on… and something tragic was about to happen," Ms (Friend) told BBC News.	“She said I’d see her on the news later… and that something tragic was about to happen,” Ms. (Friend) told BBC News.
She immediately called the local sheriff's office.	She dialed the local sheriff’s office right away.
"I don't know what she was battling... but I knew it was a mental thing, you know?" Ms (Friend) said.	“I don’t know what she was going through… but I knew it was a mental thing,” Ms. (Friend) explained.
"Just something in my spirit, when she reached out, I just jumped into the mode of trying to call around make sure that I'm doing everything that I could."	“It was just something in my spirit, and when she reached out, I just went into the mode of trying to call around and make sure I was doing everything I could.”
But within minutes, (Hale) attacked the Covenant School, killing three nine-year-old pupils and three staff members.	However, (Hale) attacked the Covenant School within minutes, killing three nine-year-old students and three staff members.
Brackets in the next row are directly from both of the original articles.
"I later found out that this was not a game, this was not a joke, it was [Hale] who did this," she said. "It's just been very, very heavy."	“I later discovered that this was not a game or a joke; it was [Hale] who did this,” she explained. “It’s just been extremely heavy.”
Ms (Friend) said that police came to her home that afternoon to review the messages from Hale.	Ms. (Friend) stated that officers arrived at her house that afternoon to examine Hale’s communications.
There are eight more lines in both articles, but I think the point has been made.

Multiple times, we have quotes that have been modified. Even the third line has the quote modified in the NEP article, despite going on to mention that this was what she had told the BBC. If we do need to include information, we should use the original BBC version rather than the copied version modified by the NEP. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely seems inspired by the BBC article, but changing a few words is exactly what prevents plagiarism. Just paraphrasing, like Wikipedia does. If, for any reason, we must quote (the woman you call Ms. Friend) and it includes (the pronoun you call Hale), we shouldn't alter her exact words, as relayed by whatever source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what Santoshsendha wants added here, so for now we don't need to do anything unless they respond or someone else finds something that can be added. In any case, if the paraphrasing is not a problem, we still should not use NEP for quotes as they have modified the quotes that the friend said to the BBC. Also, I didn't modify any pronouns; I just excluded Hale's first name since there was plenty of discussion elsewhere regarding names. (I apparently forgot to link to the BBC article which would have made this clearer, so here it is.) That aside, I don't currently think that we should name Hale's friend without a good reason. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended

Could extended protection be applied? Justanother2 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justanother2: Please see WP:RFPP for requesting page protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there has already been an accepted RFPP request. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Good thinking though @Justanother2 Cwater1 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Reaction Addition

Tennessee has just passed a law so that it is now legal for private schools to contract with local law enforcement so they can hire school resource officers.

It wasn't actually what I was looking for but is likely worth adding to the section.

I seem to vaguely recall reading something about (federal?) Republicans proposing that school resource officers be made available to all schools, public and private, but Democrats blocked it. I can't recall where I saw that and can't see it in my browser history. Am I misremembering, or has someone seen a similar story elsewhere? 2001:44B8:2104:4600:DC27:1E52:33CC:A9C9 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Are any reliable sources connecting the bill and this incident? Was the bill proposed afterwards or has it been going through the state Congress for a while? Silverseren^C 05:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The bill's two proposers connected the two two days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Federal business here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

So we'll presumably be seeing reliable source coverage of the bill sometime soon, if the news hasn't reported on it already. Since we shouldn't be using a primary source like that for inclusion of the information. Silverseren^C 16:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's in the news, too, had to add an extra word to find the press release. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The new law's in the news, I mean, I know nothing of the story the OP seems to vaguely recall. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it might fit better in Aftermath than Reactions. It's still words. But they're in effect, like an action. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Support with rewording. A09 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's way too late and beyond our power to reword the bill, and there's no related edit (real or proposed) to finesse. It'll have to be worded at all first. I nominate you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Sorry, I don't think I'm qualified enough to write articles or parts of articles that I don't have much knowledge of. Again, sorry, but you can file in edit request with "change X to Y" format :) Sincerely, A09 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made a request to add this, this is the first time I've ever made a protected edit-request so sorry about screwing up the format. You can find it below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting#SAFE_Act Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think having a sentence or two would be fine. If you want a second source for it, I came across the AP's article that mentions the bill and the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, one fine sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are two sentences. I'd go ahead and add these myself but I'm still 100 edits away from extended-confirmed. In response, Governor Bill Lee has signed a law allowing private schools to contract with local law enforcement to hire school resource officers. The law, which goes into effect immediately, does not require private schools to hire such officers but clears the path for them to do so. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the article make it clear this isn’t the main Presbyterian church?

It’s the second largest denomination and anti LGBT+ which is an important part of the context. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The Baptist News Global article I linked to above goes into some detail about this, and the school/denomination’s policies toward sexuality in general. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've unpiped it in the lead, if that's what you meant by making it clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(Deleted message)

Just have it link to that church. No evidence has been presented that the motive was the Church's stance on same-sex relations, so it would be OR to include. Using "anti-LGBT+" would appear to be a loaded term here. As far as I can tell that label is not used for the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, Islam, or other religions who hold positions that are the same as the one here. If there is some evidence that their stance and actions is closer to say the Westboro Baptist Church, it might be warranted.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that it's a PCA church. But the denomination's, church's, or school's positions are only relevant if they are part of the motive. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing information

According to The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/nashville-school-shooting-manifesto-audrey-hale-b2310865.html

Hale had been able to legally purchase seven firearms – despite receiving mental health treatment at the time. In a press conference, Chief Drake said that Hale was under care “for an emotional disorder” and that her family “felt that she should not own weapons”. The police chief said that Hale’s parents were aware the suspect had purchased one firearm, but believed it had since been sold. In reality, the 28-year-old had legally purchased seven firearms and hid them around the family home. Three of those firearms – two assault rifles and a handgun – were used in Monday’s shooting. Even if Hale’s parents had been aware of the stash of weapons and contacted law enforcement, there is no red flag law in Tennessee that could have been used to take away the firearms.

Hale had “looked at” carrying out attacks on two other schools, both of which were public. But he said that Hale appears to gave decided that “the security was too great to do what she wanted to do” and so “she chose a private Christian school, for, probably the reason is that the security is a whole lot less”. Nashville Police Chief John Drake said on Tuesday that investigators “strongly believe” Hale was planning to carry out other attacks including at a local mall and targeting family members. “We strongly believe there was going to be some other targets, including maybe family members, and one of the malls here in Nashville,” the police chief said. “And that just did not happen.” He said that some maps “pertaining to maybe some thinking about some other incidents” had been discovered during a search of the shooter’s family home, along with other weapons. The Covenant School was believed to have been singled out for an attack because it had a lower level of security – with no school resource officer – than other locations.

Sadly this article seems to be locked (?) and I can't edit it. I think the above information should be worked into the article. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is just WP:BLUELOCKED as there was some vandalism earlier this week. In any case, can you mention specifically what parts are missing from the article? I can see that some of this is covered in the article, such as the line about the seven firearms. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, you can now edit the article again, Nordostsüdwest. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit extended-protected Request (5)

• What I think should be changed (addition to Reactions):

SAFE Act

The Securing Aid for Every (SAFE) School Act is a proposed legislation in the United States Senate, introduced by Senators Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty. If passed, the Act would make available a $900 million grant program for public and private schools to train and hire veterans and former law enforcement officers as school security officers.

• Why it should be changed: This has been suggested on the talk page and has received significant coverage.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):"U.S. Senators Blackburn and Hagerty introduce SAFE act, $900M for school safety | WTVC". Retrieved 2023-04-02.

Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: This reads too much like a political advertisement. I would advise rewriting, ideally making the suggested addition shorter to focus on the facts of the matter, not the intentions and values of the lawmakers. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I dropped the last sentence. Any other suggestions? Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, look at the last line of Aftermath. It already passed. I don't think it makes sense to single (double?) out its proposers, since Tennessee as a whole is now on board, but some detail is probably missing and warranted. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe there might be two different "things" here. One is a local law that has passed, the other is a bill that might have been introduced to the house. In any case, I'll do some research and add it myself at some point if someone else doesn't since I've reached ext-confirmed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I read (past tense) poorly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Arizona press secretary tweet

Yesterday I saw that the controversial tweet of the now former press secretary of Arizona was included in the article; as of the posting of this thread it's not. I think that this controversy should be included in the article in some capacity. It's been reported in several RS, connected to this shooting, and resulted in her resignation. CNN, WaPo, The Hill, Axios, AP, and CBS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh. She's not a notable person and worked for a very different state, from a rather different city. Most of the attention is from association with a notable governor, who really has no business being stuck with the mess. If you want to keep her name out of it, though, and just focus on the actual idiot, I guess that's cool. Cooler, anyway; still could open the floodgates to all sorts of peripheral quasicelebrity yahoos who catch heat for tweeting something yahooish about this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm more inclined to include the allegedly anti-trans responses, as well as the calls for it to be investigated as a hate crime. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't have to cover just one subject. We do have potential sources for the anti-trans responses that can be used (1, 2, 3) and potential sources for the investigation part. (1, 2, 3) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with SGV, we can cover both. starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  @StAnselm: A separate discussion was created regarding covering the investigation part. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am in support of a sentence briefly covering this. If we don't want to include her name, then that is fine with me. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I am OK with including the press secretary's response, including the press secretary's name, but I agree that the governor's name does not need to be included. starship.paint (exalt) 03:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the governor's, that's who I meant by "her". Name the one shamed. That's the name of the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. That is still fine with me. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, an important member of the Governor's staff had to resign and was covered by multiple sources. Also agree it should be one sentence for brevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs)

That part I understood. Just misunderstood and thought we were going to keep out the name of the resigned press secretary for some reason. (I don't have a strong opinion either way on including or excluding either name.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hoax calls

Until recently, there was a line in the Reactions section which read "A two-day string of hoax calls was made about active school shooters in six states." It had an issue that the source used did not mention all six states, so I moved the source and was planning to fix the issue when I could. Unfortunately, I botched my edit a bit and the sentence was removed in the next edit. I think that the sentence could be restored, but I am unsure of all of the states that were impacted. The Washington Post source in the article mentions Pennsylvania and New Jersey and I found a source for Massachusetts and Utah. (And apparently Wyoming, but that was this week.) Does anyone know the other missing states? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hoaxes occur after many major crimes and events. I don't think they are particularly significant or notable. Mentioning every state where a hoax happened is even less useful. WWGB (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, but I wasn't saying to mention every state in the text. I was just trying to figure out what the other two states were, assuming that there was six in total. If there wasn't six, then the sentence would need to say, "A two-day string of hoax calls was made about active school shooters in six four states." In any case, if you think that it is not notable, then it can be dropped. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

These are the six I saw. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Add Congressional Republican's demand for Hate Crime investigation to Reactions?

Some congressional republicans have called for a hate crime investigation into the shooting. Multiple main stream media sources (NBC, Axios, the hill, Yahoo news, Fox News) have released articles about this so it seems like this should be put into the article. Foward123456 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No. We are not the news. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense. Members of congress requesting a specific type of investigation, requests that are widely covered by mainstream sources is something exactly in line with wiki standards. What did you mean by "we are not the news." Foward123456 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They are most likely referring to WP:RECENT. A small number of GOP representatives asking to designate or investigate the shooting as a hate crime is interesting as a current event, but its long-term impact is unclear. It may become more relevant long-term when the shooter's motives are made public, if there are more representatives pushing that designation. EatTrainCode (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent although, adding this is some what aided by police statements that the shooting may have been ideologically motivated. Certainly something to watch for, especially if a large number of members of congress sign on to some sort of letter to the justice department, which can often happen in these cases. I will say information related to the discussion of this shooting as a hate crime seems to be relevant to the article. This will also likely be resolved when details of the manifesto are released. I would still argue that hate crime speculation should be added to this article as it has been widely propagated by political figures on the right, and also factors into discussion about an anti-lgbtq backlash. Foward123456 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Now THAT is hilarious. 109.93.177.159 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous

12% of non conforming have I’d their gender!?! Why is it even on here? 47.200.110.84 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't still take Wikipedia seriously, do you? I like to come here when they make articles about ongoing or recent events and just read the Talk pages for laughs. American politics and the Ukraine War are currently my favorite topics for pure gold. I then make memes about it with friends, I find it refreshing. Wikipedia ain't good for much else these days. 109.93.177.159 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s insane. They’re a joke. Why would that factoid be in an article about the shooter. Oh. Don’t forget a definition of recession! 47.200.110.84 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is place that talks about events. I get confused on what pronouns to use. Cwater1 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly also a suicide by cop

A note was found in the bedroom of the perpetrator that says it could have also been a suicide by cop [6] I think something should be put on the page to reflect it could have been a suicide by cop Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The source says nothing about "suicide by cop". It just says a suicide note was found. Maybe she intended to swallow the barrel but the cops beat her to it. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The perpetrator's intentions withstanding, what occurred is textbook suicide by cop. However, the media doesn't frequently use this terminology, and some of the wikipage examples' citations don't include "suicide by cop" in their sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree although it is something that should be talked about more because this is one of those things that fits in but because people don't really talk about it and it isn't really known or used in the media and the fact that there isn't really proof until the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit is done and might be able to shed some light on whether it should be classified as a suicide by cop or not. Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

links that dont operate

some of the links lead to blank pages 71.223.84.215 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Which ones? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request(?): Error in Perpetrator section

The section includes the sentence "It is said to not be rare for trans and non-gender conforming people to selectively reveal their sexual orientation; a 2023 survey revealed over 10% never share this aspect of their lives." — this is incorrect/confused, the source states that 10% of trans/GNC people have not shared the fact that they are trans — gender identity/trans status is separate from sexual orientation. It should instead read that "…trans and non-gender conforming people to selectively reveal their gender identity…", or, preferably — staying accurate to the source — "…selectively reveal that they are trans…".

In fact, that entire sentence is, quite frankly, distorted out of recognition. “It is said”? (By whom?) “not be rare”? (Orwell is spinning in his grave) “non-gender conforming”? (The normative phrase is "gender-nonconforming" as WikiPedia itself attests)

I understand that wikiPedia must be careful not to copy sentences verbatim but this is taking it quite a bit too far I think!

Thank you, that is all. 99.146.242.37 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I updated the sentence to address these concerns. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this sentence, about impersonalized statistics, is relevant in a section about this person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, the sentence is trying to address potential confusion from the line, Six other associates do not recall talk about gender identity. I do get the point that the line is still a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we included the thing about the six associates or the statistic about trans people who aren't out- I get the impression these were added to discredit his gender identity and not to address potential confusion, which is made clear where it's acknowledged that police have identified him as a woman and under his birth name (and in the pronouns and names used in sources, even if they admit that he used he/him pronouns and the name Aiden). is there a consensus that the mention of the six associates and the statistic are notable in this article? Tekrmn (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of the six associates bit does not appear to have been discussed, so it's inclusion right now is per an implicit consensus. Removing it and the subsequent sentence, pending an explicit consensus for inclusion seems like a reasonable thing to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've changed "revealed" to "suggests", "over 10%" to "12%" and the bit about this not being rare to nothing (because any 12% occurrence is pretty uncommon). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Statements lacking balance

The article includes a "former art teacher and a former classmate recalled him coming out as transgender" yet the sourced statement "six other associates did not recall him discussing his gender identity" has been removed. This seems like the removal of balance, and a disputed assertion has been made to seem unrefuted. The claim by the other six should be restored. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The "dispute" is over whether Aiden should be prioritized above Audrey in naming the shooter.

There is no dispute over whether or not he came out as trans to some of the people in his life. As any trans person including myself could tell you, it's exceedingly rare for someone to have come out to everybody in their life early on in their transition.

It is pure WP:FALSEBALANCE to claim that it's necessary to add "but some people weren't told!" after that statement. Not only that, it's clearly a tendentious insertion with the intent to discredit the fact that he was trans. (I certainly don't believe anyone who's still using she/her pronouns on every single talk page entry here is approaching this with a NPOV.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor here. There's no balance issue at play here, and as far as I can tell despite the earlier reporting Hale was a woman no-one is actually disputing that he was trans. There are a multitude of reasons why he may not have discussed it with those six people, none of which are really encyclopaedic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

it was brought to the talk page before it was removed. people not recalling something is not relevant information- none of those six unnamed people even claimed he didn't come out as transgender. Tekrmn (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Add videos

Should be the links for the videos from the body cams be posted onto Wikipedia? It was posted on the article for the Killing of Tyre Nichols. The policy on Wikipedia is not censored refers to how Wikipedia can show anything. Cwater1 (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there an encyclopaedic reason why we would want to include it? WP:NOTCENSORED allows us to include content that some readers might find questionable or objectionable, but at the same time it is tempered by WP:GRATUITOUS. To put it another way, just because we can include something like this, doesn't mean we must include it. What informative content would inclusion of links to the footage give us, that we don't already have from the article's text and linked sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to overboard with the anything can be shown. It was just an idea. The article does explain it well. Wait a minute, I found a link below the infobox. I did not notice that until I looked at the article again. If I had notice it, then I wouldn't had added this topic but it's too late. Sorry about that. Under the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, removing my message isn't allowed. Cwater1 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including the CCTV link below the infobox. But I'd note that the videos were a key part of the story of the killing of Tyre Nichols and are discussed extensively in that article. That is not the case here, so these articles are not particularly comparable in terms of what we should do. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also remember that since the videos are not work of the federal government, they are not in the public domain and thus we'd need a fair-use justification specific to them for inclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

True, it was just an idea I had. Good thing I brought it up in the talk page. Good idea to bring things up in talk page before adding in article. Cwater1 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Npov addition

The perpetrator section has "but six other associates did not recall discussions of gender identity from him"

A sentence should follow "NBC News noted it is common for trans and gender non-conforming people to selectively come out; or as a 2023 survey found, over 10% never share that information."

It's in the same reference. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:517C:35D4:591F:79A8 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in a discussion above called Error in Perpetrator section. It might be better to suggest it there. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Video for the article Covenant School Active Shooter Case--MNPD Body Camera Footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue2tZa4hT0c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.252.45 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)