Jump to content

Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Suspect has been identified by NYT, CNN, and NBC

SUPERSEDED
An RfC has been opened at #RfC: Naming the suspect. Please discuss there to avoid fragmentation. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

{{Is it now safe to include his name in the article @Acroterion:? Di (they-them) (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They have since been added. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Also add some information about him. His DOB is April 4, 1983 and lived in neighboring Bowdoin at the time of the shootings, as this was all according to The Maine Wire. It was unknown where he was born or any early info on him, but all I know is that he was once part of the military and was divorced twice. 2600:1702:5225:C010:40C8:CE30:D97F:2B6A (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
is there a source for this in more than one news outlet? Marmorda (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This is information that appears to be from the police and appears in CNN, though I urge all editors to exercise caution at the moment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Multiple sources, even CNN did tell some info about him. I am still investigating on his backstory as well. 2600:1702:5225:C010:40C8:CE30:D97F:2B6A (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Cut it out. See WP:OR and WP:BLP. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This all sounds like personal information that's not directly relevant to the shootings themselves (which is what the article is about). Di (they-them) (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Not a Reliable Source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
No. See WP:SUSPECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you provide a quote where providing a suspect's name is not allowed given several reliable sources and police confirmation? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I think I just did. See the link. That said, if this person is actually arrested and formally indicted, I think at that point it would be permissible to post their name. But as of right now this individual does not even appear to be in custody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting case as a very large majority of mass shooters die at the scene and hence are not subject to the BLP policy - in this instance shooter is at large. Did editors wait for Nikolas Cruz to be convicted before adding his info to the Parkland page as a suspect? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't recall the specifics, but I believe that once a suspect in an event of this nature is actually indicted, that commonsense might allow us to name that person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:SUSPECT seems pretty clear that the criteria is conviction, not indictment or the issuance of an arrest warrant, but that is not in my experience the common practice here, at least for white collar crimes. Sandizer (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
At some point, in an incident like this, the suspect will become well-known enough to fall under the WP:PUBLICFIGURE exemption of WP:SUSPECT. That would likely be well before a conviction. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I would say we are there at this point in time. Sandizer (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree with you and @Valjean below, we're well past the point of BLP being a concern here. We've gone from "person of interest", to "wanted suspect" who is well-named in numerous WP:RS. BLP (in so far as WP:BLPCRIME is concerned) is no longer relevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Per @Ad Orientem - I'm uncomfortable putting the name into the article in any significant way, much less the lead paragraph. I've removed it from there. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Not relevant to here, but this has taught me to not jump the gun so quickly! thanks guys :) Marmorda (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Same. Learning and growing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd support this, now that he has been named in quite a few RS. Clyde [trout needed] 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind, per Ad Orientem. Clyde [trout needed] 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
All I asked was the editors wait until that kind of consensus emerges among major news organizations. The rush to name a name at all costs on thin sourcing or rumor is unseemly, and editors really need to remember BLP at all times. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Police have confirmed his name. That is as far as I'm willing to go here, and I have created a custom label in the infobox to that extent. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Police only have this as a named person of interest, but that doesn't make his the suspect. Do not add any names until they say they have actually caught the shooter and identified him. Masem (t) 03:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
To be fair they have named him and described him as "armed and dangerous" but yes conservative approach is good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree - a "person of interest" is not necessarily a suspect, and does not need to be named here unless that status changes. We stick to what the sources say. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The police now refer to him as a suspect. From the transcript at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/maine-state-police-hold-press-conference-after-shootings-transcript: I think we used person of interest last night for half of the room that was here for that press event. As the colonel had mentioned, there is now arrest warrants for murder for this particular individual, Mr. ████. So he’s viewed as a suspect and there is a full court press by all of our partners to bring him into custody. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Do not add any names until they say they have actually caught the shooter and identified him Do you have a WP:PAG for this? Because the name of the suspect is well sourced and easily verifiable, and being on the front-page of various widely read sources is more than enough to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 27 October 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.

Name

Consensus of RfC was to add name 22:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

The POI has been formally raised to suspect. As far as not naming him is concerned, yes, law enforcement knows that incorrectly naming people in criminal investigations causes great harm to them, but in the unlikely event that it does happen (not what I think happened here), especially for a high-profile case like this, the damage is already done, and we are not in a position to mitigate it. Unless somebody has evidence of police misconduct, possible political motivations, or something similar, there is no reason not to name him. BLP says “strongly consider”, not “do not”. Esszet (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite him being named a suspect, it's generally the Wikipedia-wide consensus that we don't name the supposed perp until after a conviction. Unless somehow the perp can be considered a public figure, we should not name him. Luigi7255 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it? See here and here for two mass shooters who were named pre-conviction. Esszet (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
That's not true regarding conviction, as WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are different things. Rather, after the person is charged or indicted and is "widely disseminated" then that opens up the possibility of naming the person. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we can wait for an arrest. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If we wouldn't be following Wikipedia:BLPCRIME to a tee, I would definitely prefer we wait for an arrest than give the name right now. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The suspect is clearly eluding justice. There is a warrant out for his arrest. If he was so concerned about defending his legal reputation, he would have turned himself in and answered to the charges. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If you have issues with the policy bring it up elsewhere PyropePe (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Now that there is an arrest warrant for the person, that opens it up more for posting the name, as we saw with Brian Laundrie and the killing of Gabby Petito. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem with the Gabby Petito comparison is that there was reasonable suspicion that it was her fiance, as he was the last person who saw her. Here, however, it could still be a chance of a mistaken identity, a small chance, but high enough to merit exclusion in my opinion. Luigi7255 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
That's true, as it was a case of familiar crime. A better one to examine might be 2022 University of Idaho killings, where the Wikipedia article included the name of the individual at multiple stages throughout the investigation. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a reason, I would take a look at WP:SUSPECT. Living people are presumed innocent. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Identifying somebody as a suspect does not violate the presumption of innocence. Esszet (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The issue is in the off chance the suspect didn't do it, there are serious implications for the innocent individual. I'm not saying that it is at all likely in this case, but if we adhere to policy, it is still too early to name. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Not at all, policy allows it, it’s what usually happens (I think?), and as I said before, the horse is already out of the barn, we can’t mitigate it now. Not naming him here accomplishes nothing at all. Esszet (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Naming him also doesn't really accomplish much. There still will be way more holdouts presuming innocence if we give the name now rather than later. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Seriously? Very few people would genuinely presume innocence here, that’s an extremely idealistic way to look at it. I don’t know what you’re all trying to prove, but that dimply isn’t the way the world works. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I would caution against assuming that your world view is representative of the majority. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Look at the news and tell me I’m wrong. Esszet (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
How is this a productive/constructive comment? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'm assuming you didn't read the link I provided. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. I don't see how that isn't exactly what is being stated to avoid. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I have to assume you didn’t read my initial comment: “BLP says “strongly consider”, not “do not”.” I’m not sure exactly what it means, the perpetrator has engaged in high-profile activity (see WP:LPI), so it doesn’t apply anyway. Esszet (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
High-profile activity =/= merit to bypass the "seriously consider" portion of BLPCRIME. If that was the case, we'd be naming suspects of the murders of high-profile people before they were even arrested. Luigi7255 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, naming individuals in Wikipedia articles before they are arrested does happen, though not always. Also, using the term "bypass" is not a fair characterization in the context of the guideline that says to "seriously consider" something. It is not an iron clad rule. It is intentionally a term of art and relies on the judgment of the editor. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it is merit to bypass, it specifically says it’s for non-public figures. Esszet (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
BLP applies to all living persons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Not that part though. Esszet (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Where does it say that part does not apply? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
When did I say that? To be completely clear: that provision applies to non-public figures only. Esszet (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
"not that part though" and "that provision applies to non-public figures only" - you just said that part of BLP doesn't apply. Where does BLP make such an exception???? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I’m assuming you have not read the policy, the exact quote is: “For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” It does not apply here. If you would like to keep Wikilawyering, go right ahead, but you can’t get around that. Esszet (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem is not only around the debate with BLPCRIME, but if the shooter can be classified as a public figure, and from what it looks like (according to BLPPUBLIC and the corresponding essay) he doesn't necessarily qualify. He hasn't made himself known through his name (only a suspect's name, not necessarily the perp's, being revealed hours ago) and he hasn't made his name public through any other means (i.e. through RS prior to the shooting). Luigi7255 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
And, just to clarify, I'm not opposed to inclusion of the name until conviction, I'm only opposed until the suspect is arrested; for now, we should just wait until the suspect is detained before we include the name. Luigi7255 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
He has been named as a suspect and an arrest warrant has been issued for eight counts of murder. This is widely reported and extremely well sourced. In my view, tt seems kind of silly to argue not to include his name, but yet its okay that we have included an image of the guy identifying him as the suspect?? As long as we stick to what the sources say, and use attribution where necessary, there is no BLP violation in including his name. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but that is very general guidance and is simply pointing out that, generically, an editor "seriously consider not including material." In the case of articles specifically about shootings and killings, context does indeed matter and it is not unusual at all for us to include the names of individuals arrested or charged, well before any "conviction" happens if it is widely published in reliable sources and we cover it responsibly. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
It is extremely silly -- I can think of no better adjective than that -- not to name the suspect when he and his life are now a primary focus of mainstream news coverage, but I've given up trying to argue the logic of such things on Wikipedia. I'll just say that Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality, not create its own bubble of omissions. Moncrief (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Our references literally name (BLP violation removed). His name is all over the media. This is a fast-paced story and I am not sure how it is libellous to simply cite the facts as they are stated ((BLP violation removed) has an arrest warrant out, he is formally a suspect and subject to a massive manhunt). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
In the spirit of not naming him, in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME should we also not be posting his medical information? PyropePe (talk) 21:31, 26 October 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.

Have authorities in adjoining states and provinces been notified, and are they as well on the lookout for Mr. Card? - knoodelhed (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Situation has concluded. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential motive?

is there any indication of what could have been going through the suspect's mind? Brookline Fire buff (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue I see with the article is quoting a single person from the neighborhood saying he was a gun fanatic and putting that here. The interviewee who said that used a memory of Card after a hunt covered in deer blood and smiling. Being happy with a successful hunt is not grounds to be considered in a negative light and I would argue it pushes the host approach of this page into a negative light. I don’t believe we should take one persons opinion and use it as fact. Card did retweet and recycle far right wing talking points but that is documented through his social media profiles. Not based off of one persons narrative that we can not confirm the bias of. 2603:800C:353C:F800:412B:3D4C:ED6:6842 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Same person as above didn’t notice I wasn’t logged in. I also don’t think we should attribute it to a news source as it was a reiteration of another person’s opinion. Izmeizme (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Right. And that everyone avoided him as said the article, is not true, according to another one, when one of his acquaintances spoke that he was a shy, very kind man- if we are taking opinions into facts, why don’t we write that as well? 74.78.87.9 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Completely agree. Wikipedia has worked for years to be a proper encyclopedia. Printing opinion or falsehoods ruins that reputation. Izmeizme (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
He left behind a suicide note- I also read somewhere (though I don’t know if this is verified) that he was looking for his ex-girlfriend in the two places he shot people- presumably to kill her 74.78.87.9 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for the two men and one woman at the hospital?

InedibleHulk, where does it say that the three victims who died at the hospital were two men and one woman? Neither source provided mentions that fact anywhere. Corgi Stays (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The list has two women on it. One died at the bowling alley, we note. Therefore, it's original research, but reasonably sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
See WP:CALC. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I also like this current version where no gender is explained and the names just imply what they do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspect dead

Confirmed suspect found dead in Lewiston recycling plant. 2603:800C:353C:F800:412B:3D4C:ED6:6842 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by another editor. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 01:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, at least we don’t have to worry about BLP anymore. NM 05:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
BLP still applies to the recently deceased. PyropePe (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
You mean BLARDP NM 06:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Minor Killed during shooting at Just-In-Time Recreational. 2601:282:4300:2B:0:0:0:D5 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because a minor was killed doesn't mean this was a pedicide. The minor definitely wasn't the target of this (as far as we know anyway). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Acts of Heroism

It has been described in media Joey Walker died charging the shooter with a knife. Should we include this information. I may be biased as I am from the Lewiston community and Joey Walker and Ron Morin were close family friends. Izmeizme (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also a piece on fact checking. I had deleted the section on Card being a gun fanatic. The interview was recanted by the interviewee and they are being dragged on their Facebook for it. We can be better than this. Izmeizme (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Please offer a source that states this. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Joey walker hero Izmeizme (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
That supports the first comment, but not what you deleted. Do you have a source regarding the recanting part?
(As an aside, here is a non-AMP link.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Sadly he deleted the apology however a screenshot appear in this threadon his Facebook. Along with members of the community berating him for falsely painting the family in a poor light. Izmeizme (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Also if we are going to include disparaging remarks we should also include every “He was really quiet” or he deeply cared for people” Izmeizme (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
While that technically is a source, I was referring to a reliable source in my prior reply. Regardless, this is a bit of a mess then. I guess we could make a decision not to cite article that deal with that interview, but that might need a concensus and the evidence that there is a problem is currently limited to a supposedly removed social media post with the only claimed remnant of it being a screenshot. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This interview with Cards neighbor is in direct opposition with everything stated by the previous interviewee. Izmeizme (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

When shooter died

Do we know with any certainty when the shooter killed himself? The body was found on October 27, but he may have killed himself on a different day.

I think it's fair to say at this point we don't yet know. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a note sayings that October 27th was the discovery date. Cwater1 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Suicide details?

He was found dead in a recycling bin, next to the facility which he previously worked for. Just thought this might add a bit more detail 74.78.87.9 (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Source please? PyropePe (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure the source. Somebody else told me it, and I don’t know where he saw it. I have seen it somewhere too, but I didn’t take notice of the source. Bear with me for a bit. 74.78.87.9 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
One of the core policies of Wikipedia is WP:V meaning everything must be verifiable. Usually in fast moving situations like this any addition to the article requires a source. PyropePe (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Forget my previous message- the sources are all quite different- I don’t know which is true or false. Sorry to be a bother. 74.78.87.9 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

PIC of Suspect

Why the prohibition on not naming him as a 'suspect' or 'assailant' (what's the difference, if any?), if you are going to already publish the pic of him? Inconsistent, or illogical, to say the least! If you can't publish his name, then you shouldn't be allowed to publish his pic. This illogic is what makes editors so upset with Wiki with their illogical rules: you can publish THIS, but you can't publish THAT, although the two are just different ways of naming him. Get rid of the pic of him, if you can't add his name, or let the name be allowed under 'suspect' (labeled that way in his pic), or add some other line, as 'accused' for the temporary case (?) between beginning accusation and later arrest (or death), if that latter event occurs. Otherwise, the THIS [pic] vs. THAT [name] for the same thing with only THIS allowed is plainly one-side of the two-sided coin, although exactly the same. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SUSPECT, as mentioned several times above. Seasider53 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Right, so the question remains, why are we including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime. A photograph/image of the WP:SUSPECT is clearly material. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is enough support to take it down, then sure it can be removed for now. As far as I understood the reasoning, an image does not immediately connect the person to the crime as the person is not well known, but I could be mistaken. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
And done for now. Pinging Di (they-them) and Manchesterunited1234 for input due to editing/uploading the image in question. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: I believe that the image of the suspect is not clearly identifiable, it is a low resolution image of a security camera feed with his face partially obscured. In my opinion, there's no BLP concern. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Di (they-them): I will agree with that assessment. With everything resolved, I will personally say that I feel that the image and name issues are separate issues, especially with law enforcement putting out a CCTV image to help identify Card to the public. In any case, thank you for your work and for your response. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, the man's name is literally spelled out several times right in this article's reference section (sources 29, 37-39) - and three of those titles explicitly mention he's the suspect. Should those be taken down/modified? 73.168.37.85 (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The consensus at BLPN has been that we avoid sources with the suspect name in the headline where possible, but not if it's the only source available. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
You did not answer my point of having the pic there in the first place. If you have him already labeled as the 'suspect' in his pic's caption, than why not junk that prohibition on putting his name to the pic of him, when he IS the suspect, befitting that line as many reliable sources have named him already? It makes NO logical sense, at all! I agree with Isaidnoway and 73.168.37.85 points that again make Wiki a mess of THIS but not THAT as I outlined originally. Either go the whole consistent route as 'suspect': pic and name, or no pic and no name! Otherwise, another Wiki contradiction in BLP, making editors try to figure out what is ok, and what isn't. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Have you ever started talking to someone, thinking it was someone you know, only to realize that it wasn't? Different people can look very similar and have no relation i.e. Doppelgänger. The problem of ID is largely affected by the resolution as well. That's how I see it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This is silly and bordering on WP:POINTy. No sane reading of WP:BLPCRIME prohibits blurry photographs of a notable event from being used on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Thought since we have had a discussion, the editors must seriously consider not including material clause is fulfilled, so there should be no further objections. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I actually agree. If we're not comfortable repeating the shooter's name that RSes provide, then we shouldn't be putting an identifying-quality photo of a suspect or a person of interest. It's just difficult to care because a) he likely did it and b) even if he did not, his face and likeness have gone around the world already, Wikipedia showing it or not makes no material difference if it turns out that he didn't do it.
But for the sake of consistency, if we give suspects presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt until charges are filed, then we shouldn't be showing his face as the lead image. Maybe there is a compromise here to blur his face, so that we can still benefit from having a visual aspect, without identifying a person for a serious crime with no charges being filed? Melmann 04:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion the image isn't very useful for identifying him because it is low resolution and his face is partially obscured, however I have no qualms with blurring his face further if that's what we decide is appropriate. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not an "identifying-quality photo". Police identified the suspect through his vehicle registration, not the blurry security camera footage. All the footage did was show that it was plausibly the same person. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Police identification is obviously going to be more thorough than a photo, that doesn't mean the public wouldn't recognize him. During today's press conference, the investigators revealed their first few tips actually came from Card's relatives, who called in after recognizing him from this photo.73.168.37.85 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Spree shooting vs. mass shooting

@Stephen has twice removed the wording "spree shooting" claiming it is "unsourced". The sources all fairly well document that the shootings occurred at two different locations, which is, as far as I've seen, what we use to define a "spree" (multiple locations over a period of time) shooting vs. a "mass" shooting (one place, one time). @WWGB, @Jim 2 Michael, as regulars on event articles like this, can you offer any thoughts on this or guidance? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say. The vast majority are calling this a mass shooting. If there are sources labeling this as a spree shooting I haven't run across them so far. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
As I indicated, the sources are 100% consistent in documenting shootings occurred at multiple locations. There is no synth here, this is more WP:CALC territory where the meaning of words appears to be lost on people... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is clearly a spree killing & spree shooting, consisting of two mass murders which were also mass shootings. Some RS describe it as a spree. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I have added multiple sources that refer to the event as a shooting spree. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you WWGB. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Introductory sentence is written like a news report

The current introductory sentence is written like a news report, and it should be changed. This is the current introductory sentence:

On October 25, 2023, a gunman killed 18 people and injured 13 others at two locations in Lewiston, Maine, United States.[1]

The introductory sentence should be rewritten as per WP:NOTNEWS; here is what I believe the introductory sentence should be rewritten to:

The 2023 Lewiston shootings were two mass shootings that occurred on October 25, 2023, in which a gunman killed 18 people and injured 13 others at two locations in Lewiston, Maine, United States.[1] Cobblebricks (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The intro sentence you suggest is significantly longer, without adding more info. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The construction "<insert name> shootings were … shootings" is usually discouraged unless there is significant and consistent usage of a name in a large majority of reliable sources (eg. the Columbine High School massacre). Instead, the accepted style is that the lead will be descriptive of the event rather than try to elevate a particular label as official or common, which could be seen as WP:OR. In the future this may change as the usage becomes clearer, but oftentimes this is a result of a combination of factors, such as the uniqueness of the place of the tragedy. For example, the top two "deadliest" shootings in the U.S. have descriptive leads like this article currently has (2017 Las Vegas shooting and Orlando nightclub shooting) whereas others have bolded names (Virginia Tech shooting and Luby's shooting). While it is possible that this article may be renamed in the future, and the lead may be rewritten, we would have to wait.
The relevant policy pages is WP:MOSBOLDTITLE with elaboration at WP:BENOTBOLD:
"Wikipedia has articles about topics that don't necessarily have their own names... Trying to mimic other articles, editors will often try to fit such a title in the first sentence and bold it, leading to tautology... It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title."
- Fuzheado | Talk 04:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Maine city deserted as residents hole up during hunt for killer". France 24. October 27, 2023. Retrieved October 28, 2023.

Misinformation

Why not add a Misinformation section about the false reports of 22 dead and 50-60 injured? 174.67.226.163 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between initial reports being unreliable and deliberate or negligent misinformation. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Deliberate is disinformation. 174.67.226.163 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Call it what you will, it is common with many events for initial reports to be unreliable. It's not "false" which suggests deliberate lying. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
There's no evidence of the early casualty figures being deliberately wrong. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
It's common for early media reports of the number of victims of mass casualty incidents to be very wrong. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Can we add something for This interview as it is directly refuted by This interview and the original interviewee has since wiped social media or is this not covered under misinformation. The problem is I’ve seen many people parrot the initial interview across social media Izmeizme (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 Not done – Both of the videos you reference are no longer around. Regardless, this would be original research, so we would need a WP:RS addressing it before considering to include it. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The videos are still online. It's just that the incorrect URLs were posted. [1] [2] Ixfd64 (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Found dead(?)

I'm seeing that he was found dead in a dumpster at around 7:45pm est Friday? NaturalDisasterMaster (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear. The Guardian says: The location where Card was found with a self-administered gun shot wound, behind a dumpster, had been searched a day earlier. (Emphasis mine.) Presumably, this will be cleared up in the next press conference. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Another one said he killed himself in a tractor trailer 74.78.87.9 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Yep. The press conference on Saturday seems to have mentioned that and the article has been updated since. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

The victim Peyton Brewer-Ross was 40 years old. I'm his partnerand mother of his child. What more sourcesdo you need?</ref> 2603:7080:E63F:8C97:682:84DE:8D4C:C553 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Age changed to 40 based on [3]. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Please note that your word is insufficient as it is impossible to verify. WWGB has found a source, so we cam use that. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 (2)

In this phrase: 

found in a trailer, on part of the land

Please remove the comma, as it's unneeded. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Stephen King's reaction

I know we normally don't quote a state's foremost author. But when the state and the author are as intertwined as these two, an exception might be made. Just putting it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that, and additionally, Patrick Dempsey, who is from Lewiston, also released a statement. He also opened the Dempsey Center in Lewiston. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
These are fine to add, in my opinion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Not a fan of celebrity reactions. That's a slippery slope with no real upside in terms of adding to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally, me neither. In this case, though, we have a crime/horror/Maine writer who writes about this horrific crime in Maine and happens to be a celebrity. It'd be like if an actor (say, Patrick Dempsey) portrayed one of the characters we write about here in a television miniseries (or similar work of fiction). Less "thoughts and prayers", more "direct consequence". Not as "significant" as if a full novel came out of this mess, or if a locally famous government figure straight-up banned the problem here, but clearly relevant. Clear relevance is a fairly solid barrier against these oft-maligned and rightly feared slippery slope situations, I find. For now, Dempsey's birth and institution to prevent preventable death in this town make his immediate response relevant enough (if relatively less textually substantial). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
On that note, I see King has expounded on this. Still no novel, or even new novella, but "bigger" than a tweet. Or whatever tweets are called these days. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Mainer here. Stephen King is a highly prominent Mainer and has been very public about his views on firearms. I can see adding his reaction here or at least in the article about him. Dempsey is less prominent but a Lewiston native so his reaction seems relevant too. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Also from Maine and I think that is the exact reason we don’t include King. His history of comments and disparaging remarks could be seen as inserting bias into the encyclopedic value of the article. Maine doesn’t produce many celebrities so we have no counterpoint to show a fair and balanced narrative between the 2. We need to think about not only the educational but also the optical reception of the record. Izmeizme (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    We don't need to provide a fair and balanced narrative as long as we are reporting on what reliable sources report on. If no other remarks have been made by a counterpoint then that is simply too bad for the opposition. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
honestly, what a celebrity has to say about a mass shooting has no encyclopedic relevance IMO. Also as the other user pointed out, adding celebrity opinions is a slippery slope and the section will likely balloon only to get nuked by an editor who thought it grew out of hand in the future. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

Please remove citation #14, [4]. Citation #13 provides all the information in the cited statement ("The shooter used a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .308 Winchester"), it's just as reliable as #14, and including two sources for the same statement makes it appear as if some information comes from one source and some comes from the other. (In other words, it's less convenient to find what comes from where.) It also leaves open the possibility that there's a synthesis of the two sources. This isn't the case, but without checking both sources, you can't know that. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 (3)

Remove Newsweek's analysis of who he was interested in. Focusing on those interests isn't relevant. They didn't randomly include his movie or food preferences because they have nothing to do with this news story. Same can be said of his politics. It is being used to try and assign blame and is divisive. 50.200.149.188 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is #Perpetrator's behavior on social media worth mentioning? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Authorities were alerted in mid-September about Robert Card's threats

A statewide awareness alert had been issued to all Maine law enforcement agencies:

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 89.12.147.156 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am sure an editor will add it in shortly. I would but I am busy and support adding this content. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:NYPOST, WP:DAILYBEAST, and WP:SYNDICATED apply, but the rest should be fine. Direct link to The Independent to replace Yahoo and Direct link to AP to replace WBUR. No good replaced for the ACB7 article as I can't find the original AP article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Card's Maine Recycling job (February 2022-Early June 2023)

NBC News reported that Card worked as a commercial driver for Maine Recycling from February 2022 until early June 2023 when he was fired at the job. Former co-workers say that they saw a change of Card's mental state earlier. Card's behavior immediately grew increasingly erratic and he spoke aggressively about guns before he left the job. 2600:1702:5225:C010:5D42:29E1:197C:E4D5 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you give the link to that article? Luigi7255 (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Took me a bit to figure out the article they were referring to, but it might have been this one: Former co-workers at Maine Recycling Corp. say they saw a change in Card’s mental state earlier this year as well. Card was employed as a commercial driver from February 2022 to early June 2023. (New paragraph) Card’s behavior grew increasingly erratic and he spoke “aggressively” about guns before he left his job, one co-worker told NBC News. (Doesn't say he was fired in either paragraph.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator's behavior on social media worth mentioning?

The following passage has been added and removed multiple times from the perpetrator section:

"Card had used Twitter to like and retweet far-right extremist views, including transphobic views by right-wing figures like Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr.,[1][2][3] as well as Twitter's owner Elon Musk.[4]"

Some of the users removing it are accusing the passage of betraying political bias but it's clearly sufficiently notable behavior to have been mentioned by several media outlets. Can we have a conversation instead of endlessly edit warring, homies? Cheers. Tdmurlock (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that his activity on Twitter is connected to his killing spree? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
He liked many posts on Twitter that advocated against gun control and posts which falsely claim that most shooters are non-binary or trans.
He also replied to a CNBC tweet about Brittney Griner being released from Russian custody with "Mass murderer for a wnba player great job keep up the good work" (the irony). Cobblebricks (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Obviously "mass murderer" in this context refers to Viktor Bout. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wiggins, Christopher (October 27, 2023). "Maine Massacre Suspect's Anti-Transgender, Extremist Views Emerge Amid Pleas For Gun Control". The Advocate. Retrieved October 28, 2023.
  2. ^ Owen, Greg (2023-10-27). "Suspected Maine mass shooter made anti-trans posts on social media". LGBTQ Nation. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  3. ^ "Maine Mass Shooter Liked Anti-Trans Posts Online". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  4. ^ McBride, Jessica (2023-10-26). "Robert Card's X (Twitter) Account Shows 'Likes' on Politics". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2023-10-28.

NPOV tag addition

REMOVED
Based on the discussion here and the edits to the article, this discussion has resolved by removing the NPOV tag. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Locke Cole recently added a NPOV tag to article but did not open a discussion on the talk page to outline his concerns. I'm not seeing any blatant NPOV violations and support removal of the tag. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

•Support. Locke Cole seems thoroughly committed to ensuring the inclusion of a list of victims' names, claiming the lack thereof is a violation of NPOV. There's an ongoing discussion above; concerns are being raised as to whether or not that is relevant information, and if the inclusion of a list of victims would have the appearances of a memorial, which would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (Personal attack removed) He already received a temporary block here for edit warring, (Personal attack removed). Crescent77 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
We're not voting down WP:NPOV, the only "non-negotiable" policy, here on this page. WP:LOCALCON and all that... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.
When to remove: This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article.
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 07:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Since it seems the NPOV tag is about the victims, I have moved it to the Victims section, although I do support its removal. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean WP:DUE? Victim names are often covered and should already be NPOV. Vacosea (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Victims' names are very often included in articles about US mass/spree shootings, but much less often when they happen in other countries. LC is pushing for them to be included on articles about such events ((Personal attack removed)) more than anyone else is. He repeatedly wrongly closed the discussion regarding that matter further up this talk page. We obviously shouldn't have a different rule/guideline depending on which country events happen in. The names not being included doesn't make the article biased, so the tag shouldn't be on the article. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:47, 3 November 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.

2023 in the United States collage submission

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Naming the suspect

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus in favor of naming the suspect, per WP:WELLKNOWN, etc. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the suspect be named in this article now that there is an arrest warrant with murder charges out for him? Corgi Stays (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment - We've got four or five different talk page discussions going on about this matter, so I created this RfC to set the record straight and put it up for an official consensus vote. Corgi Stays (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NOTVOTE - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support — The suspect has been named in several publications. The subject in question here has lost anonymity and is thoroughly connected with these shootings, but has not lost the presumption of innocence. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not because there's an arrest warrant, because the public figure threshold exception to WP:SUSPECT has been met. Also, as a practical matter, if the named person's identity had been mistaken, there's been sufficient time and opportunity for him to come forward and say so. Sandizer (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per WP:BLPCRIME/SUSPECT - A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Not convicted, nor even arrested. Not a public figure under LPI. Naming the person can imply that they are the culprit and are guilty of a crime. Per NOTPUBLICFIGURE, Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care [...] which is what we should be doing to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per widely reported in reliable sources. We can use in text attribution - (his name) was identified by law-enforcement as a suspect, and an arrest warrant was issued for him, citing eight counts of murder. He is now WP:WELLKNOWN, because of this event, and we have a multitude of reliable published sources, and this allegation and/or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and very well documented. It's hard to argue that he is still relatively unknown at this point, when he has been identified by law-enforcement, is the subject of a manhunt, and numerous high-quality sources are reporting on this. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. The individual has been named in global media(like BBC) so he meets WP:WELLKNOWN. We can include a specific statement (as the media often does) that an arrest warrant is not a determination of guilt. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, as widely reported, an arrest warrant (that alone should end the prohibition on his name not publicized), regardless of whether he is subsequently tried (maybe he dies before--then what does Wiki do), and convicted or not, and his conviction could be over-turned on appeal. What does Wiki do then, wipe out all the detail on him associated with the crime? There SHOULD be some type of line not yet listed, where an ACCUSED (how about an 'accused' line?) could be added for those merely accused, with it updated to 'assailant' as listed there now? SOME type of compromise MUST be done to stop this constant bickering every time someone who is not a well-known person is ACCUSED of some heinous crime! Otherwise, Wiki editors are doomed to repeat this discussion talk (and pic of him published or not) again, and again and again, ad infinitum! MondayMonday1966 (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, most reputible sources talking about the shooting are using the name and law enforcement has named him as a suspect and has issued an arrest warrant. While I understand the concern that one is presumed inncocent until proven guilty, adding this line alleviates any assumptions of guilt while still providing information (the name of the suspect) and adds to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. The omission of his name here when he is a wanted suspect, discussed and described in minute detail by multiple reliable sources, is a very narrow reading of WP:SUSPECT. This guideline says we "must seriously consider not including material...that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime..." The threshold has been met; we've seriously considered not including his name, but at this point -- when the manhunt for one specific person is very much part of the event -- it is unsupportable to continue to censor his name. Avoiding the suspect's name is also inconsistent with articles on other high-profile but not-yet-adjudicated US murder cases, such as 2022 University of Idaho killings. Care should certainly be taken, as is standard Wikipedia procedure, to neutrally describe the manhunt/arrest warrant for him without "suggesting he has committed the crime." But avoiding using his name full stop at this point is frankly absurd. Moncrief (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: The suspect is now WP:WELLKNOWN (though not under WP:LPI, which I misread), and there is nothing we can do to protect the innocent at this point. Wikipedia is not a news source, and the number of people who rely on us as their primary, let alone sole source of news is extremely small. In the absence of exculpatory evidence (to use the legal term), we’re going on a moral crusade for nothing. And I mean nothing. Esszet (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Multiple reliable sources described the subject in detail. The article should of course be written from a neutral perspective, but it is common sense to include his name if it is described in reliable sources. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Suppport: Suspect is well known. Attempting to keep their name private is futile, as their name is currently being blasted all over the news and is already present in the article's reference section. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Support. WP:BLPCRIME does not contain any prohibition whatsoever on naming the suspect, it just says that editors should consider not doing it. At this point, where the suspect has been charged with the crime, and his name has been plastered across the headlines of every newspaper in the country, it's hard to consider the omission to be anything other than virtue signaling. Of course we should be careful not to accuse him in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "State Police said that they have issued arrest warrants for murder for ██████ ████.") --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
On further thought, Support, as I see way more articles naming him than not naming him. Though, like everyone else here says, we need to be very careful to not accuse him of the crime in Wikivoice. Luigi7255 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there were any recent media reports that aren't naming him. Moncrief (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as arrest warrants have been issued. Ixfd64 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support (invited by the bot) Of course, limit it to what is solidly widely published. No slip-ups, over abbreviations etc. that imply that he is more than a suspect. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds of WP:SUSPECT. I also don't believe that reporting on the suspect's name alone is enough to turn them into a "public figure." If the individual comes out on social media, in an interview, or releases some other form of confession or motive, that would change my mind; however, reporting on the name alone doesn't overcome any of the issues posed in SUSPECT. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    We always turn to reliable sources to determine if a person meets the threshold of being identified as a public figure, that threshold has overwhelmingly been met here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Luigi7255, Fuzheado, LegalSmeagolian, Yanping Nora Soong, ClydeFranklin, Acroterion, and Marmorda: they were in previous discussions - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I never got your ping, so pinging them again in case they didn't either: @Luigi7255, Fuzheado, LegalSmeagolian, Yanping Nora Soong, Acroterion, and Marmorda: sorry if this double-pings you. Clyde [trout needed] 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Named in multiple reliable sources. WP:SUSPECT encourages strongly considering not including content that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.; it doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Clyde [trout needed] 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. The original reticence to name the suspect is understandable and justifiable, but we are now far beyond that stage. This is now a ridiculous failure to interpret BLP properly. His name should be added. BLP is now satisfied. We can, using attribution, framing, quotes, and myriad RS add his name. We should make it clear that he is the suspect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    "This is now a ridiculous failure to interpret BLP properly."
    I disagree, it's a success in following consensus, which was established early on. Consensus now appears to be changing, and this RfC formalizes it, but one single person should not be allowed to deviate from the establishment. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as the subject's name is very widely reported across all new sites and is WP:WELLKNOWN. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, would also support a quick close to this RFC as it seems over the top to do an RFC for something that isn't even prescribed by WP:BLPCRIME, just suggested. If no one else does it sooner, I'll request a closure in 48 hours. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Yikes. I'm hoping we won't have to wait that long for this to close. Having this in limbo is really hindering the ability to keep this article relevant and current. Moncrief (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
"Having this in limbo is really hindering the ability to keep this article relevant and current."
No editors have followed the convention of avoiding articles that name names already, so the amount of work to my understanding is just replacing the suspect's name with the word suspect. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I would say this would be a good WP:SNOW close. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Support - Because the suspect is now well known by global media, and so not mentioning his name would be redundant to protecting reputation. We can clarify that he is not legally guilty. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my whatever) - 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The suspect has been named everywhere in the media and from police sources, yet Wikipedia censor his name. They even found a suicide note in guys house. 86.6.163.32 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is because WP:DENY. He won’t be mentioned by name because that is apparently the motive of the attack, despite basically every reliable source mentioning him as the accused. 2605:8D80:407:37F9:50EC:53DB:4928:5437 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:DENY is an essay specifically about on-wiki behavior. It is not a policy nor does it have anything to do with real-world events. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This is being discussed above. Wikipedia has strict policies for writing about living people, see WP:BLPCRIME, and others which the community is evaluating. These policies protect you, too, in the event people write about you. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME is very specifically NOT strict. It doesn't contain any prescriptive language, just that editors should "consider" not naming names. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to refer to just BLP. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Please offer a source that the note found was a suicide note, or withdraw the claim; CNN only says a note was found without specifying the contents. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Per ABC, apparently a suicide note to the suspect's son. [5] ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
"Police are speculating that it might be a suicide note." (That's attribution and myriad RS can be appended to some variation of that sentence.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:19, 27 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Lewiston_shootings/Archive_2&oldid=1226476279"