Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 29 March 2023

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 Nashville school shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2023 Nashville school shooting. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2023 Nashville school shooting at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Current events This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tennessee Low‑importance 2023 Nashville school shooting is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. • • • • TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Gender identity of perpetrator Q: Which pronouns should be used when referring to the perpetrator? A: Multiple (1, 2, 3) talk page sections have discussed this topic — it currently appears that a majority of reliable sources (e.g. Independent, The Guardian, WaPo, NPR) now lean towards using he/him pronouns for the perpetrator. As a majority of reliable sources use these pronouns, and these pronouns seem to reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification (WP:GENDERID), we too should use he/him pronouns when referring to the perpetrator. Q: Which name should be used when referring to the perpetrator? A: Multiple talk page sections have discussed this topic. Consensus is to use both names, while limiting the number of uses of the former name, following this RfC. Other questions Q: Why are the weapons used not fully named? A: Multiple (1, 2, 3) talk page sections have discussed this. At this time, there does not appear to be a reliable source for two of the three weapons used. In order for the names of the other two weapons to be included, we would need a source that is considered to be generally reliable. Q: The New York Post has posted an article with details about the shooting. Why haven't they been included? A: Multiple (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) talk page sections have attempted to suggest edits due to information from the New York Post. The New York Post has been deemed a generally unreliable source by the community. (See WP:NYPOST for more details.) This means that the New York Post is not considered to be a reliable source for information.

The year shouldn't be in the title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only "where" and "what"

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

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

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

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

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

Except you're not. WP:NCE documents what the community has decided we should name articles on events. That a few articles about school shootings deviate does not change that community consensus or somehow make it right. It's literally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Doing something wrong repeatedly doesn't suddenly make it right. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree that it should be the 2023 Nashville shooting or the The Covenant School shooting as there's only ever been one. The rules lay out that "if there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a 'Bloody Sunday'), use that name," and in reading all major news outlets covering the event, it's being referred to as the "Nashville shooting," in which case the only missing descriptor is the year. Cgrnt1694 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cgrnt1694 You may wish to chime in at #Requested move 28 March 2023 (below). The thing with common names is that it requires historic perspective. This typically allows our reliable sources to settle in on a name, and doesn't have Misplaced Pages effectively engaging in citogensis by choosing a name for the media, and making a self-fulfilling prophecy occur where the name we chose ends up being used by our RS. The time required for historic perspective has generally been accepted to be at least a few months to (more desirably) a year. This allows research articles and other quality secondary sources beyond the mainstream media to come up with their own names for this event. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"White woman"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. https://heavy.com/news/audrey-hale/
2. https://www.pinkvilla.com/trending/world/who-was-audrey-hale-14-things-to-know-about-the-nashville-shooter-1214359

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

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

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

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

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

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

More interesting information

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

Pronouns

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

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

There seems also to be confusion about the shooter's biological sex. tobych (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Transgender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Levenson, Eric. "Nashville private school shooting suspect had maps of building and scouted possible second attack location, police say". CNN. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
2. Brown, Melissa. "Emotions, tempers flare at Tennessee Capitol hours after Nashville school shooting". The Tennessean. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
3. Reyes, Ronny. "White House slams GOP on gun control following Nashville school shooting". New York Post. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
4. Reyes, Ronny. "White House slams GOP on gun control following Nashville school shooting". New York Post. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
5. Reyes, Ronny. "White House slams GOP on gun control following Nashville school shooting". New York Post. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
6. Brown, Melissa. "Emotions, tempers flare at Tennessee Capitol hours after Nashville school shooting". The Tennessean. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
7. Brown, Melissa. "Emotions, tempers flare at Tennessee Capitol hours after Nashville school shooting". The Tennessean. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
8. "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre". The White House. Retrieved 28 March 2023.

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

Deadname, gender, pronouns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to use the pronouns and name that is primarily used in reliable sources. Right now the NYT and WaPo have chosen to use Audrey Hale and are just avoiding pronouns; I think that's what we should do at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 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 02:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

Gendered by what the US justice would call them?

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

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

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

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

The shooter went by Aiden

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

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

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

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

I found another sources:

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

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

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

What about this?

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

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

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

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

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

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

to:

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

Reference 29 is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I propose this wording be added somewhere.

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

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

Footage released

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

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

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

Well, since no one has added it, I will. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 01:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Deadname

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Came out recently?

The suspect may have come out recently. From Snopes:

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

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

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

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

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

I am bracing myself for the police releasing the manifesto and reading about how he was motivated by general lack of acceptance of his transition or the christian values of the school he targeted being oppressive. this is already going to be a huge hit to the fight for trans rights which we are already losing, and if that happens it's going to be really bad. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

weapon type should be removed

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

Misplaced Pages 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)

Firearms

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

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

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

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

This isn't a soapbox to express your opinions on gun control. Misplaced Pages 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)

References

1. Rahman, Khaleda (28 March 2023). "What we know about the guns used in Nashville school shooting". Newsweek. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
2. "Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California". Retrieved 5 September 2020.

Additional information on Joe Biden's response

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

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

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

Hale's name

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

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

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

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Victim ages

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

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

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

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

It was on CTV News Channel, this morning (March 28, 2023). I casually had it on when I heard the ages as noted above. More than half-an-hour later (my TV can only rewind up to 30 minutes on live programming; I tried backtracking to find the snippet, but no luck), I looked at this Misplaced Pages 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)

More Audrey info

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

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

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

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

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

Pronoun inconsistencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course it isn't misgendering, they/them are gender neutral. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

they/them pronouns being gender neutral doesn't mean they aren't misgendering. if you know someone's pronouns and you choose to use different pronouns you're misgendering them, regardless of what the pronouns you choose to use may be. you don't know what you're talking about. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Seven Guns in Several Stores

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is true. Hale being under care for emotional disorder. Hale was still able to legally obtain weapons. Cwater1 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns (again)

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

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

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

you do not have to identify as male or masculine to use he/him pronouns, which is why the vast majority of trans people do not refer to he/him pronouns as anything other than "he/him pronouns." they may be referred to as "masculine" in linguistic terms, but that is really outdated to the point that some younger people might not recognize the term. for clarity and for inclusivity we should use the term "he/him pronouns" when speaking about he/him pronouns. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Commenting to point to another discussion on pronouns made after this section. I closed it to centralize discussion. Please see Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting#Gendered Pronouns EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Some1: Why did you remove all pronouns in favor of using "Hale" everywhere? That goes against editorial consensus here. A source is not required to use the same pronouns as we use in the article; that's never been the case. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kline: Ditto. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you in another life
Audrey
(Aiden)

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

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

I understand what you're saying but this is a difficult situation as we have very little to go on here, either from reliable sources or from pages maintained by Hale himself. We can't ask him so we shouldn't speculate on why he used Aiden in some places and Audrey in others. I think it's unlikely that we'll get consensus to remove Hale's deadname from this article entirely. (Again, I'm speaking as a transmasculine person myself.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

why does not speculating mean assuming that his birth name was the one he preferred, rather than the one he consciously chose and allegedly even wrote on a weapon used in the shooting? it's widely accepted, at least by my community, that if someone chooses a name for themselves you use that name unless they specifically say they want to keep their old name in rotation. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should remove any mention of his birth name. I could see an argument for referring to him as Aiden/Audrey throughout the article, but in my opinion there is no justifying referring to him only as Audrey when we know he chose the name Aiden and went by that name on social media. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It has come out that the person he was sending messages to was someone who didn't know he was trans, which would explain why he included his birth name in that message.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-contacted-authorities-after-speaking-nashville-shooter-audrey/story?id=98182991

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/us/covenant-school-shooting-nashville-tennessee-tuesday/index.html Derekeaaron1 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We now have a source stating that the shooter did indeed ask to be referred to as Aiden.

NYT: "Maria Colomy, a former instructor at the Nossi College of Art & Design in Nashville, said she taught the shooter, whom the police have identified as Audrey Hale, in 2017, and later saw Facebook posts in which her former student asked to be called by a new name, Aiden, as well as by male pronouns." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2023

It has been proposed in this section that 2023 Nashville school shooting be renamed and moved to Covenant School shooting. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

Support per the proposal. The proposed title is reasonable, makes sense per WP:NOYEAR, and there's precedent in relation to other article titles of similar events. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Striking vote. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Please tone down the comments...they're starting to seem uncivil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What a time to be alive, equating requesting consensus be respected to being incivil. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Jim as with all of the past move discussions we've both been involved in on this, the standard community consensus naming convention is spelled out at WP:NCE. That means that until this event has a common name, which it won't for at least a year, the When, where, what standard naming format should be used. In this case, this means that the article should be named 2023 Covenant School shooting or ideally 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The historic perspective argument is one that requires a significant amount of time to have passed from the event to be accurately assessed. One day is nowhere near enough time, and as such Locke Cole is correct that the primary convention on When, where, what of WP:NCE should apply. Additionally all of the examples listed at NOYEAR largely follow the common name for those events from the sources that discuss them.

The boilerplate is a generally accepted standard text is something that is on all Misplaced Pages guidelines, and comes from the {{Misplaced Pages subcat guideline}} template. It's not specific to that guideline and no extra meaning should be read into it by its presence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

this is a specific location Does WP:NCE say it applies to non-specific locations only? Regardless, there are many schools with the name "Covenant" in their name, so omitting the year makes it ambiguous, especially as it's very likely this will not be the only "Covenant" school to have a mass shooting at some point. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, the year should be removed from those titles as well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and concur with Jim and Silent on all of these. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No. The year should only be removed from those article titles if there is a common name in reliable sources for those events, and that removing the natural disambiguation of the year would not cause article ambiguity. A quick Google search for each of those shootings did not turn up a common name that lacked a year, as every source I skimmed, except those local to Santa Fe, specified a year in their ongoing coverage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The year in the title is unnecessary disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per NCE's "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." First thing that came to my mind with the included year was, "there was more than one shooting? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I also support adding Nashville to the title because that's more useful than the year. People will more likely search for Nashville school shooting than use covenant as a search term. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NCE is absolutely clear here that in the absence of a common name from reliable sources, the article title should follow the When, Where, What pattern. A shooting that happened a day ago is far too early to have a common name from sources, and the lack of a When would make Covenant School shooting non-descriptive. That being said, 2023 Covenant School shooting is also a pretty bad title for the Where part of NCE, as there are multiple Covenant Schools in the US and elsewhere. A more descriptive title would be something like 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting, Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCE. The inclusion of the year adds a time context to the event. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Distinctive enough, three words long and more consistent with how reliable sources and the people who know them actually write and talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCE and precedent of this format being used for school shootings as outlined below. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Precedent"

Above, both Nythar and (struck since Nythar struck their !vote) Jim Michael 2 claim there is precedent for naming school shootings without the year. Let's test that theory. I went through the list of school shootings in {{School shootings in the United States}} that have articles, and (surprise, surprise) the vast majority of them in fact do include the year in the title. The outliers are typically the ones you'd expect, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, etc. But here's the rest:

• 2023 Michigan State University shooting
• 2022 University of Virginia shooting
• 2022 Central Visual and Performing Arts High School shooting
• 2022 East High School shooting
• 2022 Oakland school shooting
• 2021 Oxford High School shooting
• 2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting
• 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting
• 2018 Noblesville West Middle School shooting
• 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting
• 2018 Marshall County High School shooting
• 2017 Aztec High School shooting
• 2017 North Park Elementary School shooting
• 2016 Townville Elementary School shooting
• 2016 UCLA shooting
• 2015 Northern Arizona University shooting
• 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting
• 2013 Sparks Middle School shooting
• 2013 Santa Monica shootings
• 2008 University of Central Arkansas shooting

I stopped there. I could go on though, but I think the point is made: most articles on "school shootings" utilize the naming convention put forward by the community in WP:NCE. For an event that just happened yesterday, there's little reason to deviate from that. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. But, well, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting isn't even the common name. That would be "Parkland high school shooting", the most common name found in reliable sources. But I suppose that's beside the point. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be "Parkland high school shooting" And I'd support that move, because we're dealing with the historic perspective that WP:NCE (and WP:NOYEAR specifically) calls out as prerequisites to deviating from the when/where/what naming convention. Let's go discuss moving that page, if we're gonna move anything... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Striking my support !vote above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit which firearms are included

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the following lines from:

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

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

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

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

Not done for now: @Hendrickson90: The sources currently used appear to only verify that the weapons were "two assault-style rifles and a handgun", as the article currently reads. If there are reliable sources that go into further detail about the types of weapons, please provide them and resubmit this request. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove the part regarding Gun laws in Tennessee

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

Which part, specifically? Also, do you think the material is WP:UNDUE? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is what @Bageltre is referring to:

"Gun laws in Tennessee are considered lax, with a recent 2021 bill allowing all those aged 21 and older to carry a loaded handgun in public, openly or concealed without requiring a permit. There were also no requirements for background checks or trainings for handgun owners, with rifles and shotguns being able to be purchased by anyone over 18 and can be carried open and unloaded. Two additional bills aimed to loosen gun regulations in the state were being debated in the legislature in the months before the shooting."

I also agree that this is unnecessary. I don't see why Tennessee's background check laws matter when the shooter did not have a criminal record, nor how trainings for handgun owners would have affected the shooter. A person being able to carry a loaded handgun in public without a permit also does not matter because the shooter had a rifle as well. Silent-Rains (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one that added that part. I felt it should be included since the shooter is listed as having a handgun and rifles on them at the time of the shooting. It was in the background section, as I had seen multiple different articles of both local and national sources reference the gun laws alongside discussio of the shooting and the perpetrator. (Sorry for any mistakes I'm on mobile) Leaky.Solar (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE because the firearms were acquired legally and background checks did not matter in this case. The shooter used weapons that were not allowed to be used in the public anyway and the laws don't matter. If it is relevant again to this story then maybe it should stay but for now it should be removed.

Also, what is a scholarhistorian? BageItre (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BageItre, do you need a different account for each edit, or have you lost your password? — Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I lost my old account. 50.53.20.13 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

and I forgot to login for this Bageltre (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, the status of if one was under mental health care didn't seem to apply. I'm not familiar with the Tennessee laws at this time so my facts may not be straight. Hale was under care for emotional disorder. Cwater1 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox, under Weapons it currently reads:

The cited source only specifies the Kel-Tec gun; the other two are not specified. The other guns can be deduced based on the images and videos put out by police, but the only sources I can find that actually specify them are Newsweek (not listed as reliable in the WP:RSP) and the Gun Violence Archive (whose reliability does not appear to have been previously discussed).

If either of those two sources is considered reliable for these purposes, then the citation should be moved to the Kel-Tec and appropriate citations should be added next to the other two.

If not, as I assume is the case for now, the citation should be moved and the other two guns made generic as per sources in the article text:

2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: The infobox has been updated using this CNN source. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change using Hale's name to avoid pronoun usage to he/him pronouns. Avoiding the use of gender pronouns for a person who we know the preferred pronouns of is a form of misgendering. In the talk page there is a discussion about the use of they/them pronouns being a form of misgendering and this is the same premise. If you know someone's pronouns and avoid using those pronouns in any way you are misgendering them, whether you are using she/her, they/them, or no pronouns. Derekeaaron1 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will add that the changes to remove all he/him pronouns were done by two editors (who I pinged above) that have not posted on this talk page at all, and thus may have been unaware that current editorial consensus on this page is to use he/him pronouns instead of avoiding all pronouns together — as the majority of sources now report that the shooter was a trans man who used he/him pronouns. This should be changed back to how it was. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: "A neighbor of Hale's said that he/she lived with his/her parents." — this isn't better, it's even worse. (Additionally "he-she" is a common anti-trans slur, which I know this isn't, but it's uncomfortably close.) Please look at the many discussions about pronouns on this talk page! Consensus is to use he/him pronouns. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest, is some form of improvement as opposed to "A neighbor of Hale's said that Hale lived with Hale's parents."--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That form of improvement should be reverting back to he/him pronouns, as per extensive discussions on this talk page. Two editors who have not posted on this talk page at all were responsible for removing all instances of them, against consensus. A majority of sources now concur that the shooter was a trans man who used he/him pronouns. There is no reason to use any differently. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done: The article appears to currently use he/him pronouns for Hale. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2023 (2)

This edit request to 2023 Covenant School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to suggest to have the word "suggested" reworded to "speculated" in the *=== Around perpetrator's identity ===* section. From what I've seen by reading the source attached to the article, it turns out that there is no current public information on whether the perpetrator was taking testosterone and medications for mental illness or not. Although indeed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Fox News host Laura Ingraham did suggest these drugs as a cause, the lack of information about whether the shooter actually took them or not makes these suggestions, to me, nothing more but speculation. Due to how recent this shooting is and the current lack of information, I feel that adding a clarification mentioning the current lack of info on whether the shooter took drugs or not, or changing the word "suggested" to "speculated" will help make readers more aware that these suggestions are currently just speculation, due to the lack of public information as of right now. B3251 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

👍 B3251 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator's identity

Should the quotes in this section, particularly the last one by Donald Trump, stand as just quotes with no clarification when the reference used for them itself states "There have been dozens of mass shootings this year, and researchers have found that 98% of such attacks are carried out by men"? Silverseren 02:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the sentence quoting Trump Jr. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Good it was baseless bullshit anyway EvergreenFir (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm the guy that put in the actual quote. I see no problems with removing anything he said, unless Misplaced Pages starts deeming socio-political commentary by children of former Presidents to be somehow significant, which I dearly hope not. Or his comments somehow result in something tangible other than re-tweets. The article that was used as a reference seems to have misquoted his tweet, but I suppose that's immaterial now. Oathed (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Add timeline

I was thinking about maybe add a timeline of the event. This source may help. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/03/us/timeline-covenant-school-shooting-nashville/index.html Cwater1 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Biden ice cream criticism

It's been added and removed a couple of times now. A consensus for inclusion needs to be established on this, so starting this discussion. Per WP:ONUS, could editors in favour of including it please state your reasoning for inclusion. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see in any sort of world where that addition would be DUE and not just a random POV WP:COATRACK violation. Silverseren 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

These rationales against a "blue side" are expected. I do strive to overcome public misconception of bias regarding Wiki. with everything I do on here, but with politics.. WP:WEIGHT, selectively, continuously skews one way.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Especially "his supporters claimed that his jokes were taken out of context" — numerous reliable sources that neither support nor oppose Biden have stated that it was taken out of context, because it objectively was. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. Some sources don't mention it as I didn't hear or read about it on National Desk news or ABC news. CNN has no mention of that. This is my first-time hearing about that part. A source here does. https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-bidens-gaffe-about-ice-cream-and-nashville/a-65159845 Cwater1 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Obscure does not mean not notable Silent-Rains (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep in article - I am in favor of keeping this controversy within the article. Every time a major mass shooting in the United States happens, the president usually reacts in the same way, & that same reaction is added to the articles on the shootings every time. Here are some examples since Biden has been president:

• 2021 Oxford High School shooting: "President Joe Biden and U.S. Representative Elissa Slotkin, whose district includes Oxford High School, expressed their condolences over the shooting."
• 2022 Sacramento shooting: "President Joe Biden called on the United States Congress to work on new gun control measures."
• 2022 Buffalo shooting: "President Joe Biden offered his prayers for the victims and their families."
• Robb Elementary School shooting: "Biden highlighted that other countries have "mental health problems", "domestic disputes", and "people who are lost, but these kinds of mass shootings never happen with the kind of frequency they happen in America. Why? Why are we willing to live with this carnage?" Biden said that he was "sick and tired" of mass shootings, declaring "we have to act", and calling for "common sense" gun laws."
• Highland Park parade shooting: "President Joe Biden stated that he was shocked by the "senseless" gun violence and has offered the "full support of the Federal government" to the affected communities. He also called for gun control measures."
• 2022 Raleigh shooting: " U.S. President Joe Biden said he and his wife Jill were grieving with the victims' families."
• 2022 Central Visual and Performing Arts High School shooting: "President Joe Biden posted on Twitter, writing "Jill and I are thinking of everyone impacted by the senseless shooting in St. Louis – especially those killed and injured, their families, and the first responders. As we mourn with Central Visual and Performing Arts, we must take action – starting by banning assault weapons."
• 2022 University of Virginia shooting: "US President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden issued a joint statement about the shooting, which offered their condolences to the families of the victims, thanked first responders for their swift response, and condemned gun violence."
• 2022 Chesapeake shooting: "President Joe Biden shared his condolences and called for gun reform in the U.S."
• 2023 Monterey Park shooting: "He later offered condolences and ordered flags at the White House to be flown at half-staff."
• 2023 Michigan State University shooting: " Joe Biden expressed condolences, and called for gun control."

As you can see, all of Joe Biden's reactions to shootings consist of him feeling sorry for the victims & advocating for gun control. This differs from the norm, so I believe it is notable & should be included. Many media outlets, such as Snopes, USA Today, Politico, & others have mentioned this. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That's some nice original research. Let us know when a reliable source says the same thing. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to say that my reply is original research? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The lack of reliable sources in your reply implies that it's original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your reply sounds like original research to me unless you have a reliable source to support that claim. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not trying to put in a Misplaced Pages article that Silent-Rains is guilty of original research, so we don't need an RS. We can use our brains and Misplaced Pages's definition of original research. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You must have copied the statement from the articles. If you add the sources, then it is legit. These are tips, see Misplaced Pages:No original research for more. Cwater1 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources for statements: Oxford, Sacramento, Buffalo, Uvalde (there's something wacky with that source), Highland Park, Raleigh, Missouri high school, Virginia, Chesapeake, Monterey Park, & Michigan. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silent-Rains: None of those suggest that Biden's reaction to this event differs from the norm, as you originally claimed. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to say that none of those sources suggest that Biden's reaction to this event differs from the norm, as I originally claimed? Silent-Rains (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don't need one, because I'm not trying to put that into a Misplaced Pages article. Sources are open to interpretation, but you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a source verifies something it explicitly doesn't say, as anyone can read the sources for themselves and see that. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source says you don't need a source unless you want to put it into a Misplaced Pages article? What reliable source backs up anything you say?

If you need to violate a policy (being unable to provide a reliable source) to explain the policy & how it applies, you are likely using the policy incorrectly. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit anymore you could just voluntarily stop editing rather than being silly in an effort to get banned. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. The "ice cream-gate" is no more than a conservative beatup to attempt to smear Biden. He was speaking at a business forum, where he made a light-hearted comment to the audience. He addressed the shooting with appropriate commentary and demeanour. It has been demonstrated that his ice cream comments were taken out of context. WWGB (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

While I do have my suspicions of bias (in that I think that there would be significantly more support for including it if say DeSantis or Trump did the same), I don't this this should be included per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 04:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. The ice cream comment and reactions to it have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The political affiliation of Biden is (or should be) irrelevant to whether or not to include this pointless trivia. Funcrunch (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Tucker Carlson’s response

Tucker Carlson portrayed the shooting as evidence of a supposed transgender war against Christians, see: . 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)

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,

Hello!

My name's LightNightLights. Feel free to contact me in my Talk page – I will try to answer as soon as possible.

Userboxes

, 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)

Can someone fix this; irritating minor grammar issue

"Five Metro Nashville Police officers went upstairs and encountered him, who"

This isn't about gender or pronouns just bad sentence structure. I would suggest in lieu of "him" either "the shooter" or " Hale". That would fix the bad structure and dodge any pronoun issues serendipitously. FranMichael (talk)FranMichael FranMichael (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How about this? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to wade into the pronouns issue; your edit would fix the grammar issue. FranMichael (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I left the pronoun alone, that time. I called Joe Biden a "he" on the "half-staff" issue later. Not sure if that should be "halfstaff". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Half-staff

Can someone add that President Biden ordered all federal buildings flags to be flown at half-staff, because the article doesn't mention it right now. The sources I've found that say this are: ] and ]. I think flags being at half-staff was mentioned in One of the other shooting articles and would therefore be fine to include here as well. I think this should be in the 'Reactions' section. 77.219.2.6 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I'm not the best at adding sources. I tried my best, but someone will fix it up. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Start-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class Tennessee articles
• Low-importance Tennessee articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Requested moves