![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Do we want to include the victim names in article? There are sources out there now for their names. [1] [2] This is usually always contested when added in, so I am starting the discussion now. WikiVirus C (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (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.
Support including a victims list.
Oppose including a victims list.
The bodies aren't even cold yet.I assure you, they are, not that that matters in the slightest.
Revisit in 6 months.WP:NOTCENSORED, see also Streisand effect. Do you even have a policy-based reason for this arbitrary six month period, by the way?
There's no race to be won here.Apply that reasoning to having this article at all then. Once you've worked your way back from the precipice, rationalize how we can have so much detail on the suspect but so little on the victims (without which this event would not be notable in the first place) without violating WP:NPOV/ WP:UNDUE. FYI: They are, as I write this, featured on the front page of CNN: [3]. As InedibleHulk notes below, they're also featured by the New York Times. We should follow our reliable sources and name them. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't copy everything the media does.No, but we must follow the same balance they do or risk introducing bias (whether intentional or not). Our sources are now providing exhaustive coverage of the victims as a component of this event. Your other distasteful and disrespectful comments notwithstanding, you have no policy reason to exclude them beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that, as at deletion discussions, is not a reason to exclude information. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The media often include things that are sensationalist & unencyclopedic; we shouldn't.Do you have a policy-based reason for this?
I haven't written anything distasteful or disrespectful.:
The names mean nothing to over 99% of readersand
...the victims were strangers who played no active role in the attack. They were unlucky...I'll say it again, do you have a rationale for excluding them, or is it just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? — Locke Cole • t • c 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
No policy says to include victims' namesWP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV (which is policy) does.
The rationale for excluding is that the names aren't important enough to include & that doing so is an invasion of the families' privacy.I'll say it again, do you have a policy-based reason for this? As it stands, we're still at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither of those policies says to include victims' names.*sigh* from WP:UNDUE:
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.I will not be answering any unrelated gotcha questions today. Stick to the topic. Do you have a policy-based reason for excluding the names of the victims? — Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.The victims are integral to documenting this event, an event that would not be notable were it not for the deaths of these people. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:BALASP does not remotely support indiscriminate inclusion of victim namesI suppose I can quote it again for you, since you missed it:
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectA majority of our reliable sources name the victims, how do you justify excluding them from our article and violating article neutrality (which WP:BALASP is part of)?
9/11 and Hiroshima would have had little or no notability if there had been zero victims.We're talking about mass shootings here, stop trying to strawman these discussions.
Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information.We're in luck then, as the victims' names are not indiscriminate information, they are clearly connected to this event (as they're the ones that died) and our article already provides the context for our readers to understand their significance. Naming them in our article is the minimum we should be doing, considering our body of reliable sources have often presented biographical details that go far beyond just their names. — Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.So for me, this whole debate is kind of pointless as we don't get to omit information that makes some editors uncomfortable. We're WP:NOTCENSORED (another policy) here. I'm sorry you don't understand how article neutrality works or how BALASP applies here. You may wish to seek out mentorship from an experienced editor willing to educate you on this. It's not me. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED also addresses an argument I have not made.You've said that I've not provided any policy based reasons for including them. As you're replying to me in multiple places, I'm attempting to consolidate the actual arguments where they make sense rather than in the meta discussion below where you derailed it... — Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Ive opened a discussion on the wider topic of including lists of victims here. nableezy - 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
So, what became of the above discussion? What was the result? The conversations seems to have just abruptly stopped? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Do we want to include the victim names in article? There are sources out there now for their names. [1] [2] This is usually always contested when added in, so I am starting the discussion now. WikiVirus C (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (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.
Support including a victims list.
Oppose including a victims list.
The bodies aren't even cold yet.I assure you, they are, not that that matters in the slightest.
Revisit in 6 months.WP:NOTCENSORED, see also Streisand effect. Do you even have a policy-based reason for this arbitrary six month period, by the way?
There's no race to be won here.Apply that reasoning to having this article at all then. Once you've worked your way back from the precipice, rationalize how we can have so much detail on the suspect but so little on the victims (without which this event would not be notable in the first place) without violating WP:NPOV/ WP:UNDUE. FYI: They are, as I write this, featured on the front page of CNN: [3]. As InedibleHulk notes below, they're also featured by the New York Times. We should follow our reliable sources and name them. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't copy everything the media does.No, but we must follow the same balance they do or risk introducing bias (whether intentional or not). Our sources are now providing exhaustive coverage of the victims as a component of this event. Your other distasteful and disrespectful comments notwithstanding, you have no policy reason to exclude them beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that, as at deletion discussions, is not a reason to exclude information. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The media often include things that are sensationalist & unencyclopedic; we shouldn't.Do you have a policy-based reason for this?
I haven't written anything distasteful or disrespectful.:
The names mean nothing to over 99% of readersand
...the victims were strangers who played no active role in the attack. They were unlucky...I'll say it again, do you have a rationale for excluding them, or is it just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? — Locke Cole • t • c 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
No policy says to include victims' namesWP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV (which is policy) does.
The rationale for excluding is that the names aren't important enough to include & that doing so is an invasion of the families' privacy.I'll say it again, do you have a policy-based reason for this? As it stands, we're still at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither of those policies says to include victims' names.*sigh* from WP:UNDUE:
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.I will not be answering any unrelated gotcha questions today. Stick to the topic. Do you have a policy-based reason for excluding the names of the victims? — Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.The victims are integral to documenting this event, an event that would not be notable were it not for the deaths of these people. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:BALASP does not remotely support indiscriminate inclusion of victim namesI suppose I can quote it again for you, since you missed it:
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectA majority of our reliable sources name the victims, how do you justify excluding them from our article and violating article neutrality (which WP:BALASP is part of)?
9/11 and Hiroshima would have had little or no notability if there had been zero victims.We're talking about mass shootings here, stop trying to strawman these discussions.
Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information.We're in luck then, as the victims' names are not indiscriminate information, they are clearly connected to this event (as they're the ones that died) and our article already provides the context for our readers to understand their significance. Naming them in our article is the minimum we should be doing, considering our body of reliable sources have often presented biographical details that go far beyond just their names. — Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.So for me, this whole debate is kind of pointless as we don't get to omit information that makes some editors uncomfortable. We're WP:NOTCENSORED (another policy) here. I'm sorry you don't understand how article neutrality works or how BALASP applies here. You may wish to seek out mentorship from an experienced editor willing to educate you on this. It's not me. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED also addresses an argument I have not made.You've said that I've not provided any policy based reasons for including them. As you're replying to me in multiple places, I'm attempting to consolidate the actual arguments where they make sense rather than in the meta discussion below where you derailed it... — Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Ive opened a discussion on the wider topic of including lists of victims here. nableezy - 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
So, what became of the above discussion? What was the result? The conversations seems to have just abruptly stopped? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
|