Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 26 April 2023

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: 7 days

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.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page 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 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 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. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity 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. 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. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the 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. Politics: American / Gun politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). 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. 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.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, 2023 Covenant School shooting → Covenant School shooting, No consensus, 28 March 2023, Requested move 28 March 2023 RM, 2023 Covenant School shooting → Nashville school shooting, Moved to 2023 Nashville school shooting, 7 April 2023, Requested move 7 April 2023

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.

RFC: Should the perpetrator be subject to WP:BLP extension per WP:BDP?

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 perpetrator of this mass shooting is confirmed dead. However, that death is recent. Should WP:BLP be extended for the perpetrator as allowed by WP:BDP (Support extension, Oppose extension)? And if so, for how long (six months, one year, two years at the outside)? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is very little reason to afford the perpetrator BLP protection as their death and the events immediately leading up to it are the only notable things about them. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• What does that have to do with whether BDP would apply? Being notable for one event doesn't then create an exemption from BLP and subsequent BDP protections for contentious information. Silverseren 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support for three more days, but only as it pertains to the possibility of suicide and the particularities of a gruesome crime, as these parts could (arguably) have implications for living friends and relatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Including the living friends and relatives of the other six victims named here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for perpetrator as well as all other dead in this event. BDP is a subset of BLP, and so I dislike the framing of the RFC as done in a rather confusing manner. At least, it wasn't clear to me at first glance whether we were asking for consensus (which we're doing) or judging between potentially conflicting policies.

As for BLP, this feels like a very clear cut application of "Why BLP should apply to the recently deceased". This is an extremely charged event and understandably high profile. However, our BLP standards are what our standards are, and there's a clear requirement for BLP extension as well (To quote WP:BDP, 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.). There is already enough contentious material (including the gender identity), and there's every expectation there might be more. Apply BLP, and continue on with rest of article.

Soni (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose:There are no privacy concerns here or facts in contention that have not been made quite publicly known. The only reason this persons name is controversial is identity politics, and they're dead, so there is no controversy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  But was it a suicide attack, a suicide mission or a mass murder-suicide? That's a yes/no question and multiple choice. It's highly questionable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  and they're dead, so there is no controversy. I wholly disagree with that sentiment. Soni (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:BDP very clearly applies here and would apply to anyone who died recently when it involves something contentious like that. This really shouldn't even be an RfC question, because BDP would always inherently apply regardless, as the contentiality is directly shown by the article needing to be full protected after a dozen reverts in 24 hours regarding that material. Silverseren 04:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this is very much the wrong RfC question to be asking. It bares no resemblance at all to what is being workshopped in the #Full protection? section above, which when we come to a final phrasing will actually result in a resolution to the reasons for why this article was fully protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain what is contentious? Our sources are nearly unanimous in using both names. I don't see that extending BLP for contentious behavior among editors was the goal of WP:BDP... and what implications for their living relatives and friends is there around the name of the perpetrator? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - this is a very recent death of a person who committed atrocious crimes and there is much contention and questionable content going around. BDP is met. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 04:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure I can support this RFC as worded. My preferred outcome is for the subject's birth name to be mentioned once and once only in this article, indefinitely. As transmasculine person myself I have found visiting this talk page and the related MOS thread increasingly stressful. Based on these discussions thus far, I recognize and am saddened that many contributors do not seem to think that the emotional well-being of Misplaced Pages's trans and non-binary editors is worthy of serious consideration when it comes to making decisions like this. Funcrunch (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - IMO BDP should be the default, not something opted in to. This case has lots of factors and living people directly affected by it, so erring on the side of privacy could only help. Unlike when celebrities Queen Elizabeth II or Betty White died of old age, we have an otherwise unknown person whose manner of death (suicide by school shooting) is part of what makes him notable. Other BLP protections should apply as well (e.g., WP:NPF). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir Do we have a consensus on if BDP is default or opted in, currently? It was very unclear for me from the current reading of the policy, and I'm not well versed on previous community rulings on this matter. We might want to get that sorted out in WP:BLP one way or another Soni (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm honestly not too sure but it seems that it's opted into. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  While I get that some of us might want to consider this a suicide by school shooting, suicide by cop or suicide due to intolerance and misunderstanding, the official manner of death is virtually certainly homicide. These things are determined by facts, not feelings nor final wishes. The fact here is that two police officers (whom we should name eventually) intentionally killed Hale with up to eight bullets. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not sure for exactly how long but, especially because there's a related discussion going on at the talk page of MOS:GENDERID, their birth name definitely should not be mentioned in the article for now. Loki (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - WP:BDP should be default. I see no reason to deviate from it. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Reading the relevant policies, this shouldn't be up for debate. However I echo the concerns of several other editors on this essentially being WP:LAWYERING in order to sidestep the issue of whether or not the deadname gets mentioned in the article. Theheezy (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. What's the context? What part of BLP is the oppose camp interested in not having to follow? I think this RFC could have been worded more narrowly and with more context. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Discussion above suggests that MOS:GENDERID is applicable, even though it explicitly says "living transgender" in various places, because it references WP:BLP. WP:BDP states that WP:BLP can be extended to dead subjects with editorial consensus. This is to ascertain whether such an editorial consensus exists. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then I should be doubleclear that I Oppose locally modified GENDERID application. In this case, where we're not aware that any living friends or relatives give a shit, it's not a comment on any other cases. Only apply to material about suicide and particularities of gruesome crime here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was not aware we applied Misplaced Pages policies dependent on whether or not we are aware of living relatives and their specific stances on the subject. That is such a patently ridiculous assertion. Either WP:BLP and MOS:GENDERID apply, or they do not. The claim that WP:BDP's implications on friends applies only if we're aware of them is a terrible take. Soni (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  We have to stay aware of whether anything exists before we can base a decision upon it. That's not even a Misplaced Pages rule. That's waking life, Soni. Do you have any reason to believe even the mere potential for implications is there? If so, can you describe them somehow? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  And before you dodge that question and throw it back at me, let me be tripleclear: The thing about suicide that hurts the longest for survivors who sincerely buy into some form of Christianity is the implication that their loved one's soul well might be barred from Heaven indeterminately on this one controversial allegation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  That linked piece also illustrates the problem with those some think "committed" suicide. We wouldn't want a possibly transgender person to be remembered as some unholy criminal for choosing to "take" their own double lives. I hate to say it, but we might possibly want to think of the children, in this regard. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  the whole point of WP:BDP is that we are making an assumption to protect the people who knew the person in question. we do not need evidence that every person who ever met the subject has specifically stated that they don't find something offensive.

  what is the relevance of the religion of the people who knew the shooter? even if they were all Christian, Christianity (any religious group) is widely varied, and it is impossible to say that every Christian would be most hurt by one aspect of a situation, especially one that is extremely loaded and not directly related to Christianity in any way (and it's a situation I assume you do not speak to from a place of experience).

  if you're referring to WP:BDP it actually says "such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." I think we can all agree that this was a gruesome crime.

  I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make with your last comment, but we're talking about what name to use for someone. how would that in any way impact "the children," unless we're talking about trans children who will read this and find that wikipedia doesn't think their identities are valid? Tekrmn (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  unless we're talking about trans children who will read this and find that wikipedia doesn't think their identities are valid? Seriously? More of this appeal to emotion? As I'm sure you're aware, since you've alluded to removing me from this article because I have the audacity to disagree with you, InedibleHulk is currently blocked and unable to respond to you. To your points: the whole point of WP:BDP is that we are making an assumption to protect the people who knew the person in question BLP is about being careful about publishing details that aren't correctly sourced; BLP is emphatically not about avoiding publishing things just to avoid offending people. Nobody is suggesting we include details of exactly how the perpetrator died, the route the final bullets took to bring them to death, or any other gory detail. Their name is not such a "gruesome" detail. As to InedibleHulk, you can knock it off with the WP:GRAVEDANCING anytime. You weren't even involved in this subthread, but appear to have gone out of your way to respond nearly a week later. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, since this clearly falls under both a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. This is almost a textbook case of why we have BDP; someone dies in an incredibly controversial way that leads to rapidly-developing coverage where any errors, even about comparatively minor details, could have drastic implications for surviving relatives and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have much background on this subject, but we should be following the relevant policies. I can't see why we shouldn't. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support — per Silverseren, and I agree with others that BDP should be the default. DFlhb (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - BDP applies to all recently deceased people, not just those some people determine to be the subject of it. LilianaUwU 05:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Recently deceased people are almost always afforded BLP protection, and this case, being a particularly gruesome crime, specifically meets BDP. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per Aquillion and FormalDude. XAM2175  18:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: this proposal is too vague and general. Of course the dead should AFA possible be accorded respect, but in this instance what specific issues does this impact? There appears to be a need in this incident to discuss more than we would ordinarily do, the 'trans' status of the perpetrator. This proposal shouldn't by-pass that need. Pincrete (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support, however I think this question is being posed so that you either have precedent now or at some specific point in the future to begin using the deadname of the shooter wherever you want. Tekrmn (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - The entire justification for BLP protections is "privacy" interests....Even in the best of cases, it's debatable to what extent (if any) one has such interests after death....In this particular case though, the shooter only ever became notable due to multiple acts of murder they committed, so I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should be rewarding this. IMO the compelling public interest in gaining as good of an understanding as possible of what motivated this horrible crime, and what potentially might help prevent such future crimes, clearly outweighs any "privacy" interest of a dead murderer. -2003:CA:8708:3F10:A06:7FE8:46B0:8C69 (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: How should the perpetrator be named in the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies History and geography Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should the perpetrator be named in the article?
A. "Aiden Hale" only
B. Use both "Aiden Hale" and "Audrey Elizabeth Hale"

If B, how often should "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" be mentioned?
C. Once (please specify where)
D. More than once (please specify where)

Background: The article is (at the time of this RfC) under full protection, and mentions "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" once, in the perpetrator section. Other mentions of the perpetrator (in the lead and infobox) say "Aiden Hale".

Discussions that lead to this RfC: § Full protection? • § Removal of birth name Audrey Elizabeth Hale • § Deadname.
––FormalDude (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• B and D - Reliable sources already refer to the shooter’s original identity, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, and was initially identified as their original identity by the police before the discovery that they identified as a trans man and went by the name of Aiden Hale. This is notable enough to warrant the inclusion of the shooter’s original name where relevant, and to say that it’s not worthy of being included goes against maintaining a neutral point of view.

Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, our reliable sources use both names seemingly interchangeably. Google results show significantly more coverage for the birth name than for the masculine name which aligns with the previous statement. D, it should be mentioned in the lead, the "Perpetrator" section (see WP:RASTONISH and Audrey Elizabeth Hale), and possibly the infobox (which typically summarizes key points of the article). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• A, for question 1. By a strict reading of MOS:GENDERID, A is the only option that is acceptable. This is to do with how we measure the notability of a subject and person. With respect to names, GENDERID tells us to us include the deadname of the subject only if they were notable, as defined in WP:GNG or a relevant WP:SNG (note, the text of GENDERID wikilinks to GNG in its notability guidance), prior to transitioning. Why is this relevant? Hale had already transitioned at the time he started shooting, and it was Hale's actions on 27 March 2023 that made him notable, as we define it on Misplaced Pages. Regardless of the facts that the initial reporting described Hale as a woman, and used Hale's deadname, I don't think any can dispute that per the information released on 28 March and later, Hale was a trans man and according to CNN's reporting had been in the process of transitioning for about a year. To me, that makes option A, the use of Aiden Hale only, the only version that is WP:PAG compliant (note, GENDERID is part of the MOS and so a guideline). However I also recognise that this is a rather complex case, and that my strict interpretation of GENDERID is not the only one. So with that in mind.C, for question 2. Once in the article lead. If there is a consensus to include Hale's deadname, then once in the lead is in line with the standard practice application of GENDERID across almost every trans and non-binary biographical article that I've edited or read. While I'm sure there are going to be articles that differ on this, in my experience those tend to be in the minority, and are either the case due to transient vandalism, as sadly name and pronoun vandalism is very common across trans and non-binary biographical articles, or due to a good faith consensus respecting the unique circumstances of each article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Expanding on my C rationale. MOS:SURNAME tells us that after the initial mention of a person's name in an article, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. So if there is a consensus to include Hale's deadname, then once in the article lead would be the only option that's compliant with MOS:SURNAME. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hale did refer to themselves using both names in one of their last communications. 2600:8801:9D15:3F00:CEC:9FB1:FF18:2D3 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• A per MOS:GENDERID Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, sort of While we've read that Audrey Hale may have wanted to be called "Aiden" in life, "Aiden Hale" is far less apparent. We should mostly follow the reliable sources and mostly use the birth name. When introduced in the lead and body, a parenthetical or "nickname" style makes sense. Such as, Audrey Hale (who also went by Aiden) or Audrey Elizabeth "Aiden" Hale. Nowhere should it suggest police/authorities changed their minds on the name or pronouns, as it does now with "initially" and "but". That's a delusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D. The perp's birth name is published in numerous reliable sources. It is the name under which he first attained notoriety. Should appear in lead, infobox and perp section. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D - The name should be Aiden Hale primarily, but multiple WP:RS have already called him Audrey so it should be also mentioned in the article. I think mentioning it once in lede and once later on in the article (whe the perpetrator is first discussed) is appropriate. MOS:GENDERID applies, as others have mentioned. Soni (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  While 100% of these nine sources do mention Aiden once (sometimes "like this"), 0% call Audrey Hale "Aiden Hale". If we make that the primary name, it'd be original research, I think. I'm willing to see nine sources that mention "Aiden Hale" at all or as the primary name. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and C. Include birth name in the lead only, with explanation that Hale's transgender status was discovered after the shooting. Funcrunch (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  As someone more knowledgeable of the LGBT(Q+) scene than I, are you sure we didn't actually discover a questioning status? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and D - Hale is primarily identified by reliable sources by his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale. It's fine to include the birth name because Hale was initially identified by authorities exclusively by the birth name. Therefore, it's fine under MOS:DEADNAME because they were notable under the deadname first. That answers the first question. Now I also think that it is appropriate to lead with the name Audrey Elizabeth Hale and explain that he also went by Aiden. That means in the lead it should be Local resident and former student of the school Audrey Elizabeth Hale... and the infobox should follow suit. For the these two placements I would add a note saying he went by Aiden. Then in the perpetrator section we can explain in more detail the situation and place both names. Now this is practically IARing DEADNAME for this article, which is something I'm comfortable doing due to the overwhelming identification of Hale as Audrey. This is the way reliable sources have chosen it to be and it is not my place as a Wikipedian to change that. Of course, this could change if RS begin to primary call him Aiden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(further discussion on this comment moved to Discussion) Soni (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - I'm honestly not as concerned about the shooter's name or DEADNAME concerns as I am about the potential long-term status of the article's full lock. Love of Corey (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B;D - ibox, lead & Perpetrator section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, D. GENDERID is a bit unclear on this (at least to me) because Hale died while seemingly preferring "Aiden", but RSs mostly referred to him as "Audrey". This would seem to indicate that he was "notable under a former name" ("Audrey"), even though his "most recent expressed gender self-identification" would seem to be male (with "Aiden"). Using "Aiden" through the article seems to make the most sense, as it follows Hale's self-identification, but "Audrey" should be mentioned (probably with EFNs or a short inline note) in the lead & infobox and explained in § Perpetrator given its prevalence in RSs. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• A / B and C. I want to split my vote into two distinct questions, because I see both being argued here.

First, what name and pronouns should we principally use?: MOS:CHANGEDNAME says: A person ... not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. And the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID says that gendered words should "reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." Neither of these provisions rely on numerosity, and one explicitly rejects it! In other words, it does not, in isolation, matter that there are a "mountain" of sources referring to the subject as "Audrey" or "she", as the sources do not say that the subject identified "Audrey" at the time of the shooting or that the subject's "most recent expressed gender self-identification" was female. In fact, the New York Times story that Iamreallygoodatcheckers provided admits to not knowing what the shooter's expressed identity was. The sources that do identify the subject's expressed gender self-identification indicate that identity was male, and they indicate that the subject went by Aiden.Second, should the birth name should be mentioned?: People have debated whether the second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID applies to this case, since the subject is deceased (see debate above). If those portions do apply, then we have to consider whether the shooter was "notable under a former name (a deadname)". I think the answer has to be no: That phrase should be interpreted as only applying to persons who were notable before they transitioned. Under that reading, the fact that a person's deadname was widely reported would not confer notability unless, at the time of that reporting, the person identified as that deadname. Otherwise, the policy, to me, seems to get flipped on its head, allowing a widely reported deadname to be used if the person was not previously notable under their most recent self-expressed identity. If those portions do not apply, then there are still portions of GENDERID to consider—most importantly, "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent." Still, I think the possibility of reader confusion has to weigh on the debate. "Audrey" is still the more commonly reported name, and readers searching for that name might be thrown by its absence. But I have yet to see any argument explaining why a single reference to the shooter's birth name would not sufficiently abate reader confusion.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• • This is a wrong reading of MOS:GENDERID because it confuses gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) with “deadname”. It’s fine to call the subject he/him but this doesn’t refer to the deadname. starship.paint (exalt) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    Gendered names are obviously gendered words. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    The guideline did not state that despite providing three examples. In fact the guideline goes on to discuss former/deadnames in the next two paragraphs, but only in reference to living people. starship.paint (exalt) 15:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    Examples are, by definition, not comprehensive. And yes, it discusses living people's deadnames separately, but that is not an argument for assuming it can't tell us anything about dead people's deadnames. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    The fact that the two paragraphs about deadname specifically mention living people (not mentioning living would make it apply to dead people) while the paragraph about gendered words does not mention names is evidence enough. starship.paint (exalt) 15:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    @Starship.paint: To be honest, I think this point is a bit moot—as even many users who opted for "B,D" have acknowledged, there's essentially a consensus that we should principally use "Aiden Hale" to refer to the shooter. As a side note, I'm also not sure I agree with your interpretation method here: The fact that the two paragraphs about deadname specifically mention living people (not mentioning living would make it apply to dead people) while the paragraph about gendered words does not mention names is evidence enough. That's not at all necessarily true. As I (and, I assume, @Maddy from Celeste: and the majority of users on this page) read the policy, the first paragraph addresses all gendered words, including names, and the second paragraph pertains to a specific subcategory of those words—deadnames—and whether to include them at all. But again, that's really a secondary point—unless the consensus shifts, it's not worth litigating it. I'd also point out that this portion of MOS:GENDERID is not restricted to living subjects: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• A If necessary C in the Perpetrator section once. As noted by Sideswipe9th above, GENDERID only relies on RS coverage of a name if it applies to the person's notability prior to transitioning. In this case, Hale had already been in the process of transitioning, so there is no way for them to have been notable for events prior to that. Hence, per the MOS, Aiden is the name that should be used throughout the article. I am sympathetic to the desire to have a single usage of Audrey in the Perpetrator section as a descriptor of them being trans, but I see absolutely no reason for that name to be in the lede or infobox. Silverseren 23:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D, the birth name and gender of the person is widely used and a point of contention, and I think it would be useful to theh average user to have this mentioned.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C - but only because early reports were under Aiden Hale's deadname. Had reports not mentioned the deadname, it would've been A. The mention of the deadname should be in the second sentence: Local resident and former student of the school Aiden Hale (formerly Audrey Elizabeth Hale) killed three children and three adults. LilianaUwU 05:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C. "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" should be mentioned only once in the lede section per WP:GENDERID, as is was initially reported by reliable sources. We must avoid overemphasis of what reliable sources now show is clearly a deadname. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Either A, or B and C per Jerome, Silverseren and Liliana, purely due to the risk of reader confusion. I think there's a legitimate argument about whether to put "Audrey" in the lead, or in the Perpetrator section, but I'd put it in the lead (using LilianaUwu's specific proposed wording, which I support), because it would allow us to remove Later it was confirmed that Hale was a trans man. from the lead, as unnecessary and redundant. DFlhb (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D The shooter's birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, is widely reported, used, and disseminated by reliable sources, making it a notable birth name and WP:DUE. The name should at least be mentioned in the Perpetrator section, and I would support adding it to the lead and infobox. Some1 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Either A per Sideswipe9th, or B and C per LilianaUwU. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• D in the perpetrator section as context, and in a footnote to be inserted as necessary, but ideally only for first mention of the perp and in the infobox. I would be supportive of a footnote that simply directs readers to the relevant section if that is more amenable to people. — HTGS (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• B, D. Mainly for reasons outlined by Inediblehulk (inc below) and others. We need to be free to reflect RS coverage with a degree of natural-ness though there is no reason why the article would use the fore-name most of the time, it is our practice to use surname anyway. It isn't wholly clear whether the person's gender ID is relevant to the event occurring - in terms of state of mind, or whatever other reason - and nor is it wholly clear how widely used or clearly expressed the preference for the 'trans-name' was - which is part of the background confusion here. Name needs to be handled with care, but I don't favour a rigid interpretation of P & G in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• B;D. The circumstances around Hales death is a tragedy, for everyone. Not only for the victims but for Hales immediate friends and family. It has not passed without notice that they continue using their daughters assigned sex and name from birth. Does BLP suddenly not extend considerations for those in the immediate vicinity of a subject covered on Misplaced Pages, or does MOS:GENDERID simply override it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, D - police identified the subject under deadname, deadname became internationally famous, is how this is relevant to the article and shouldn’t be erased. Next, MOS:GENDERID with regard to deadname doesn’t apply here because the subject is dead. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname) In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name… Other reasons based on sourcing favours deadname, I endorse views of Iamreallygoodatcheckers, InedibleHulk, Some1, and Pincrete. starship.paint (exalt) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I’d like to add on that based on my analysis here, 25 top mainstream news sources do not actually even use the term “Aiden Hale” as of 24 April 2023. The only mentions are false positives. starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• A; if it's necessary to include it once for clarity, then C. This article clearly falls under WP:BDP (see above) which means MOS:GENDERID applies. And GENDERID is crystal-clear; we must reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Therefore, the arguments above citing the number of sources using their birth name are moot. Likewise, policy says that 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 (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Note the tense; a wave of coverage that mentions their pre-transition name does not retroactively mean that they were notable under their former name. People who wish to argue for inclusion must present sources demonstrating notability prior to the transition, which they haven't done - sources that mention their deadname post-transition are meaningless. If those had the significance that some people above imply, MOS:DEADNAME wouldn't be meaningful in the first place. Obviously we would always omit deadnames when the sources do; the entire purpose of DEADNAME is that we also omit or minimize the use of deadnames even when coverage of them is overwhelming, provided the preference of the subject is clear. Finally, some people have argued that we must mention their pre-transition name (sometimes repeatedly) in order to reflect the weight of sources; this is functionally trying to re-litigate all of MOS:GENDERID, which unambiguously instructs us to (under certain circumstances) ignore the weight of the sources in this specific area. --Aquillion (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and D -- I agree with and endorse all the other "B and D" !votes. It is overwhelmingly reliably sourced, verifiable, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, C as per LilianaUwU. Multiple RS have referred to the perp as using his deadname so it needs to be stated (once, in the perpetrator section) to avoid confusion to readers. Satellizer el Bridget 02:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• B, D with she/her pronouns. Aubrey was initially identified as a woman, is consistently referred to as such in reliable sources, and there's no evidence she ever actually identified as "Aiden"--and even if she did, that doesn't change that she reached her apex of notability as Aubrey. Red Slash 05:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's actually "Audrey", not "Aubrey".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oof. Though to be fair, I was operating off my memory, since I can't find any examples of the name she became infamous under here in the article. Red Slash 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Huh! I believe the article currently notes the shooter's birth name in bold text in the Perpetrator section and in a footnote in the template.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, D - If anything, Audrey should be the primary name, as it's the most commonly used name in reliable sources. (This could of course be revisited in the future, if/when the nature of the coverage changes, e.g. if/when the shooter's manifesto is finally released...) At the very least, the birth name should be included in the lede, infobox, and perp sections. -2003:CA:8708:3F10:A06:7FE8:46B0:8C69 (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C. We clearly need to include his birth name, because most sources have reported using that name, but it is only appropriate in the first mention in the perpetrator section. I do not think it belongs in the lead because this article as a whole isn't about the shooter, it's about the shooting. Tekrmn (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  The opening says Aiden Hale. The article simply says Hale throughout. Cwater1 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that's what you prefer? Because I just want to point out that, as it stands, that's not a correct depiction of the article. The perpetrator section currently features both Aiden Hale and Audrey Elizabeth Hale in bold text. The note attached to Aiden Hale in the perpetrator portion of the template also notes his birth name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was stating an existing fact. I agree with it. Cwater1 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  ... My entire point is that's not an existing fact. The article does not "simply say Hale throughout" after the opening.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the person being identified as Aiden Hale. This is a little confusing and with Misplaced Pages you got to make sure you are saying the right thing or else, edit bans may happen. Cwater1 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• A - Simply put, we should not platform an honest mistake by sources in the first day or so of reporting. B clearly is in opposition to MOS:GENDERID. Yes, most of the sources do use the deadname, however it is clear that this occurred due to (i): an honest mistake due to lack of clarity in the first few days, (ii): a desire to maintain continuity between reporting on the actual name and the previous mistake. We as editors can decide what is due and undue weight, and I think reporting on the mistake as fact in wikivoice is undue weight. This is the same reason we have a page called Aluminium even though Aluminum has more ghits and is more widely used in reliable sources. Sheer numbers don't make for due weight. Theheezy (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding this note, "Sheer numbers don't make for due weight", Theheezy, then what would you say does make something WP:DUE? It seems that this definition from the MOS implies that taking the name most widely used in reliable sources is absolutely giving Hale's birth name due weight: "Mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Penguino35 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• B The deadname absolutely has to be mentioned given its widespread usage in multiple sources. I don't care if it's once or multiple times (though I'd prefer D for multiple times, if only once put it in the lede, yes I'm fine mentioning that the shooter was trans in the lede), but the point of Misplaced Pages is to report accurate, notable, and verified information, and choosing to ignore this to satisfy an agenda is frankly absurd. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C. WP policy is pretty clear that in the case of personal identification on gender, the living or recently deceased person's personal preference carries all of the weight. So Aiden's LinkedIn profile takes the cake there: "Aiden Hale, he/him".

But I don't care what gender the shooter is! (WP:NPOV). I care that we give due weight WP:DUE to the circumstances on the day of the shooting and to the victims of the shooting.

Switching back and forth between pronouns and names muddies the waters for readers and puts more attention on the gender of the perpetrator than is due for this article, which is about a shooting, not a biography on the shooter.

Due to the abundance of reliable sources stating "female Audrey Elizabeth Hale", it must be included in the article. WP:GENDERID should not apply in completely sponging out the perpetrator's birth name, as the perp's birth name is what first became notable. (For additional reasons, refer to this contribution by Iamreallygoodatcheckers .)

Put Aiden's birth name and gender in the lead with few words and then don't go back to it, because every time we address it again, we give undue weight to the gender of the criminal WP:CONSISTENCY. In sections where it may be increasingly confusing, opt for removing pronouns entirely and replacing them with "Hale", as suggested by Sideswipe9th here.

Below is my full edit suggestion:

LEAD:

On March 27, 2023, a mass school shooting occurred at The Covenant School, a Presbyterian Church in America parochial elementary school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. Aiden Hale, a transgender man and former student of the school who was originally identified by police and news outlets as female Audrey Elizabeth Hale, killed three nine‑year‑old children and three adults before being shot and killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) officers.

Perpetrator

Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. Hale, a Nashville resident with no criminal record, was a former student of the school, having attended the pre-kindergarten-to-sixth-grade institution when he was at around 10 years of age. MNPD Police Chief John Drake said Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.

Police initially misgendered the 28-year-old as a woman and used his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale. Later on the day of the shooting, MNPD Chief John Drake said that authorities "feel that identifies as trans, but we're still in the initial investigation into all of that". Media sources subsequently reported Hale as a trans man. His former art teacher and a former classmate recalled him coming out as transgender on Facebook in 2022.

Hale was an illustrator and graphic designer who graduated from the Nossi College of Art & Design in 2022. A neighbor said Hale lived with his parents. An ex-classmate said that Hale had a difficult time dealing with the August 2022 death of a woman who was possibly a romantic partner or close friend. Penguino35 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Penguino35: I think this way of writing the lede is perfect. It still goes by Misplaced Pages policy of first identifying the shooter's chosen name at the time of death, but actually mentions the shooter's name in most other sources in the lede to make it immediately obvious that this isn't talking about a different person. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• C per two previous discussions from 2019 and 2022 and related policies mentioned. Personally, I would say that A is required over B, but this has been a complicated discussion and thus, I am going to focus on the second question which only matters if B is approved. To start, I will focus on the 2022 discussion. The 2022 discussion was to move an article about a person who had passed away twenty year prior and the article had been previously moved in the past. After seven days of discussion, the article was moved in support of her identity rather than her former birth name with the reasoning that MOS:GENDERID applied even after death and that historically, GENDERID has had precedence over COMMONNAME. While COMMONNAME has not been mentioned here (to my knowledge) for the fact that this is not an article about a person, there has been discussion about what is the name that is commonly used in sources. GENDERID not only says to use the pronouns of how they identified regardless of common usage, Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources but it also mentions that it is WP:UNDUE to overemphasis that a person changed what they identify as, Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. For this, I believe that we should only mention the shooter's former name only once if it is to be included at all. I should mention though that the closure of the move discussion was sent to move review by one of the opposed and was only given a 'No consensus to overturn' so I will move forward with the other discussion. The 2019 discussion will sadly look a lot more familiar to editors here because it also involved a school shooting. In that discussion, there was an article about the school shooting involving two shooters and one of the victims died. The discussion initially starts with some confusion about the second shooter, which is made clearer 12 hours later when there is a comment that the shooter identified as male. The discussion then shifts into how policy applies to the article. In the end, it was agreed upon at the time to use male pronouns as the shooter identified as and mention both the preferred and birth names. With time, this shifted slightly and the second shooter is referred to consistently in the article with their preferred name and pronouns with only a brief mention in the Perpetrators section about their transition and without their former birthname. Thus, because of this discussion and the policies mentioned, specifically MOS:GENDERID and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, I again believe that we should only mention the shooter's former name only once if it is to be included at all. If it is included, then it should just be mentioned in the Perpetrator section with the footnote removed. For the text in the Perpetrator section, it should follow MOS:GENDERID and not overemphasis the transition, which I believe should apply regardless of which proposal(s) succeed in this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The shooter went by Aiden Hale at the time of shooting. Later on during investigation, they found it someone transgender. Cwater1 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  So we are in agreement? I don't understand your reply to me nor why you replied to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was trying to express my thoughts. It was late night for me when I replied. What I was saying was the shooter went by the name, Aiden Hale. When the shooting first happened, it was unknown who it was then later on the shooter was identified as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" then found that the person was transgender and went by Aiden Hale. The perpetrator should be named as Aiden Hale in the article. Cwater1 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I somewhat understand now and agree with the last sentence. (Should I take it that this means it isn't clear from what I wrote?) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  You were clear. Cwater1 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  What I did wrong was I click on the reply button instead of using the edit button. Cwater1 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• B and D, Maybe go by Audrey Elizbeth Hale in the opening and in the Investigation section then go by Aiden Hale for the other parts of article since that is what the person went by at the time of the shooting.Cwater1 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• B and C (once in the lead). per @Sideswipe9th who makes very cogent arguments. I think given the notability of this person's identity and DEADNAME controversy etc, it merits mentioning (once) but to repeatedly do so would clearly and unequivocally flaunt MOS:GENDERID and I see no reason why this situation merits that level of style guide violation. — Shibbolethink 00:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note for closers - The previous RFC was now closed with an explicit consensus to apply WP:BDP on this article. Many comments and !votes on this section were made before that close. Soni (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, so I closed that, but I’m not sure how many comments or votes would be affected here. WP:BLP states that Contentious material about … (in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced … should be removed - and here we do not have poor sources (e.g. Reuters is still using the birth name even after the new name emerged). Next, WP:BLPNAME states that When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. - here the name has been widely disseminated, has not been intentionally concealed, and does provide context that the shooter was transgender, as well as context that the police used that name, before and after they thought Hale was transgender. starship.paint (exalt) 06:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• @InedibleHulk Iamreallygoodatcheckers This section might be better suited for longer discussions, since we're starting to have paragraphs of text across multiple !votes in the survey section. Once people reply with their policy explanations and similar, this RFC might become equally unreadable as the rest of this talk page. I would ask both of you to switch your discussions here. Soni (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Going forward, OK, but what's there is there. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Jerome Frank Disciple, I agree with your first step. As for your second step, this is where I admitted that "GENDERID is a bit unclear on this"; your interpretation also makes sense, though. I read "notable under a former name" as 'gaining notable RS coverage under that name', but I could also see the argument that Hale only became notable after he had begun using "Aiden", even though RS coverage was mostly "Audrey". I still disagree strongly with option A, though, for a few reasons (particularly given the prevalence of "Audrey" in RSes):
  • The principle of least astonishment would support mentioning it at least somewhere.
  • The MoS section on gender identity refers only to "living transgender or non-binary ".
  • There's a valid argument that this should be extended to recently-deceased people, similar to BLP. However, the BLP section on recently deceased people says that extending BLP policies in this manner "only appl to contentious or questionable material"; Hale's former name is very widely reported and well sourced.
  • There's a presumption of privacy, especially with regard to names, but Hale's former name is so widely reported (most coverage that uses "Aiden" still mentions "Audrey") that there's not much to keep private; also, the BLP section on recently deceased people applies in the same manner (it's not contentious or questionable).
  Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that this response was written as a reply to this former revision of Jerome Frank Disciple's comment, so some of my response has already been addressed and/or is no longer relevant to the comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Tol:—Sorry about that! I had originally missed the section on this talk page suggesting that GenderID's portions on living subjects wouldn't apply to the recently deceased—when I first wrote my reply I assumed that it would apply (I guess I'm too used to other BLP issues!). Once I noticed that debate, I decided that my already too-long comment would be more constructive if I assumed that those portions of GenderID would not apply, so I tried to change that second paragraph up as quickly as I could—but I see you saw it before I finished up the rewrite. I think you've perfectly summed up my previous paragraph-long argument in a single sentence, and, assuming GenderID does not apply, I'd agree with you as to your remaining points, particularly the least astonishment point. I do think that a single reference would satisfy that concern, so I would stand by C. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  No problem, @Jerome Frank Disciple! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why are we even having a RfC? WP:BLP applies to recently deceased subjects, and Aiden Hale is, in fact, a recently deceased subject. Are we supposed to ignore all rules just because the subject is transgender? LilianaUwU 05:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem (as some see it) is that the rule against using (what some consider) a deadname doesn't apply to the dead, recently or otherwise. I think we all agree we should be careful about the sort of material BDP mentions. To give a dead transgender (as some see) person special privacy rights every other kind of dead person doesn't have would be unfair, in my opinion. Anyway, the discussion to remove the "living" qualifier is at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It's not short, maybe bring a lunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see now you've already voted. A fine choice, though not yet in effect. Maybe later! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  And if I may reply to your strongly worded vote here rather than there, there's nothing respectable nor decent about this dead trans person, regardless of whether she was transitioning, had transitioned or had given the idea some thought. She had certainly given a lot of thought to her planning of a school shooting and manifesto of excuses and justification. And her actions in those rooms and hallways spoke louder than her words online. Way louder. Even had she survived her own truly justifiable homicide, do you think we'd be calling her a made-up name at her trial, just because she wanted to? Dead people and transgender people are not some homogenous hive to be treated one way or the other. Case-by-case, brother. In this case, it's more a matter of acknowledging that 100% of sources call the mass shooter Audrey Hale than feeling that by any name or pronoun, Audrey Hale was a person known primarily for doing six very bad things (and several pretty bad things, like assaulting a police officer and maliciously destroying property), not for wishing to be thought of one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're being blinded by your animosity for this particular person. To say that transitioning is just adopting a "made-up name" is preposterous. It's not merely "disrespectful" to use the wrong gender pronouns to describe a person (as you repeatedly do), it's just wrong. Do you refer to Osama bin Laden as "she" in order to avoid showing respect to him? My guess is no, meaning your policy of "we should respect gender identities only on a case-by-case basis" is really a policy that only targets trans people. And, for the record, there's absolutely many courts that do respect trans defendants (or even convicted trans persons).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's no more "animosity" than I have against the last four dozen high-profile mass shooters. "Made-up" might be a bit dickish, but self-chosen. I'm not blinded by anything here. In Patton's interviews, Hale's a she. In police statements, same deal. Visually, looks traditionally feminine, in hair and gait. If I'd heard Osama wanted to be Fatima instead, I'd still call him a male terrorist I don't respect, based on the long beard and height, especially if he signed his last message "Osama". Again, this case has nothing to do with trans people or their rights in general, at least to me; I think she was a Q (among many more pertinent labels). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Except, it does have to do with trans people, because, again, your "we should respect gender identities on a case by case basis" policy would only apply to trans people. Your Osama comment concedes this: Under your system, cis people get their identities respected no matter what they do—Osama gets called a he; but if Osama were trans, you'd say that his identity doesn't deserve respect.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone looks like a shitty person if you misquote them. I didn't mean I'd only disrespect a trans bin Laden, but would still disrespect him (for his murders). And I never said anything like this bullshit "policy" you've ascribed to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your exact words were "case-by-case, brother." And my point is that you'd only "direspect" bin Laden's gender identity if bin Laden were trans; for you, cis people get to have their gender identity respected regardless of their actions.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those are my actual words. There, they meant every dead and every trans person has a unique set of circumstances and should be treated as individuals. I believe the same about living and cis people. Or Spanish and old people. Or x and y people. Whether or not the leader of al Qaeda even had a gender, I'd still disrespect that person for the deeds. You seem intent on painting me however you want, regardless of what I say, so I don't want to talk with you anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a painfully obvious deflection. But hey, easy way to prove me wrong: Feel free to let me know of a single cis person whose gender identity you refuse to acknowledge.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between acknowledgement and encyclopedic documentation. We can wax philosophy on the policies that govern wikipedia all day (which is what we're doing here), but do you genuinely believe that we should disregard what a significant majority of sources reported on in the first 24 hours of this event because of how strongly editors feel with regards to identity politics? I don't dispute that Adrian/Aiden quite likely felt that he was a male, but that doesn't change the fact this tragedy happened and the controversy that erupted due to that reality. We can only go on what a significant number of reliable sources have reported and I don't see how there is any injustice in documenting what has transpired. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, as I indicated in my above vote—I don't think we have to wax philosophy on Misplaced Pages policy to figure out how the shooter should principally be addressed. On that subject, WP:GENDERID is pretty clear—and it explicitly says "what is most common" reported does not matter. The only question is whether his deadname should be mentioned at all—on that point, I do think GENDERID is a bit ambiguous (for the reasons I noted above), but, if the portion that applies to living people doesn't apply, I would favor a single mention as to address potential reader confusion. I haven't really seen any argument that multiple references to "Audrey" are needed to avoid reader confusion. I have to admit there are portions of your comment I don't really understand. "I don't dispute that Adrian/Aiden quite likely felt that he was a male, but that doesn't change the fact this tragedy happened"—no one is saying it didn't?—"and the controversy that erupted due to that reality"—once "Audrey" is identified in the lede, I'm not actually sure why that controversy requires mentioning "Audrey" to be explained.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• The made up name thing especially irks me. I didn't make up my name... people at Wizards of the Coast did when they created Liliana Vess. (Oh, and the fact InedibleHulk constantly misgendered Aiden Hale through the whole message, that's revolting.) LilianaUwU 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't consider it misgendering, I honestly believe she was a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly believe you're not here to build an encyclopedia. So much for making peace when you say shit like that. LilianaUwU 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Because I choose to believe police, the killer's friends, her last signature and my own eyes? That makes me a liar and invalidates over 100,000 edits to you? Whatever, at least my "shit" is verifiable, unlike this "Aiden Hale" cobblejob of "Aiden" and "Audrey Hale". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Should we not also consider their grave marker? https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/251424988/audrey-elizabeth-hale Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity: Is that what the grave says, or is that just the name selected by a random "FindAGrave" page owner? There's no photographs of the grave. (Also: no, I don't think much weight goes to grave markers.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk: Police have said that Hale was transgender, yet you choose to refer to that as "made-up". Reliable sources say Hale identified as male and used he/him pronouns, yet you choose to ignore that and misgender them. Not a good look at all, especially in a contentious topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Drake said she identified as transgender. I said "Aiden" was made-up, should have said self-chosen. Despite all that, police continue to use the same pronouns and name they always have, as did these four who knew her. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  How cops choose to address a person has no bearing on Misplaced Pages policy. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you seriously gonna believe cops' words as fact? LilianaUwU 14:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not in every case, of course. But when what they say lines up with what I see and what her closest friends remember, yeah. Especially when the only thing even approaching a valid counterclaim is from an emotionally disturbed loner with a history of lying and premeditating murder. Don't tell me you're going to make her, of all people, the poster child for police shooting "victims" now on top of inexplicably casting any slight on her as a slight on normal and uninvolved trans people. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  There's also her mother's opinion to consider, who told ABC News: "I think I lost my daughter today.” InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The opinions of Hale's parents on their son's gender identity are highly suspect, given that both of them refused to respect his name, pronouns, and even choice of clothing. This is also not an unusual thing for trans or non-binary people of any age to experience, and many LGBT rights organisations and charities have produced support guides and documentation for handling unsupportive family members. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've mentioned this accusation against living relatives of a BDP subject at your Arbitration Enforcement Request against me, consider yourself notified. Also, an anonymous source speaking to The Daily Mail is highly suspect by Misplaced Pages standards. See WP:DAILYMAIL. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Which RS say Audrey is a deadname? I tried Googling. Found Tik-Tok, Twitter or worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Literally all the sources that say Hale was a trans man who went by "Aiden". That makes "Audrey Elizabeth" a deadname by definition. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange how no reliable sources say so, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Lol, the sky is blue, but here's one. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"Hale’s LinkedIn profile was still listed under their dead name." That's so contradictory. Is HITC even reliable? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking for a source that specifically calls it a deadname, or are you just looking for a source to see if the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID applies? Since this page is for discussion of the Wikiepedia article and not general debate about the subject, I assume the latter:

• The Tennessean source in the article is pretty squarely on point for the latter (says she identified as a man a used male pronouns, which settles the question of whether male or female pronouns should be used per the first paragraph of GENDERID);
• Further supporting that, as you've noted, the police have said the shooter identified as transgender (and of course GENDERID concerns itself with "self-identification".
• This Dallas Express article, in addition to the also supporting the aforementioned, notes she preferred the name Aiden
• This CNN article, relying on a teacher source, said that, within the last year, the shooter publicly made a request on FB to be referred to as Aiden and use male pronouns.
• And of course there are the other sources that documented Hale's use of male pronouns on LinkedIn and Facebook.

Hope that helps. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Preferring one name or set of pronouns isn't the same as not using or tolerating the other. Does any source say she stopped using "Audrey"? Because plenty say she used both the last time anyone heard from her. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that she still used female pronouns? If so, by all means share! Otherwise, it would seem to be speculation that contradicts declarative statements like "He was a transgender man who used male pronouns." (Tennessean)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

When I said she used "both", I meant both names, so no. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, so we're on the same page in the sense that we both agree that GENDERID requires use of "he/him" pronouns when referring to the shooter. Glad we're making progress!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already used them in the article about fifty times before it was locked. Enough about pronouns. I was trying to verify whether RS identified "Audrey" as a deadname, by that word or otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(moved from Iamreallygoodatcheckers's !vote above)

• Despite this locked article's claim, Hale's still identified by authorities exclusively by the birth name. And birth gender. Not saying that makes them transphobic or relatively well-informed, just another fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  In case there is doubt I'm going to show the mountain of RS that say Audrey Elizabeth Hale. These don't even mention Aiden: CNN, AP, NPR, CNN, NBC, NY Times, WaPo. These primarily identify as Audrey then mention Aiden:Independent, CNN. I did a search for Aiden Hale and found nothing exclusively referring to him as Aiden, but found these that use both where it's hard to see what's being primarily used: Medium, HOLR Magazine. As you can see, this is not even a close call when it comes to weight of reliable sourcing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Reminder that the New York Times posted an article called "In Defense Of J.K. Rowling" after Brianna Ghey was murdered. Are we really gonna use them as an example? LilianaUwU 05:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The New York Times is a greenlit source; it's also not the only source being cited. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  What matters is that RS have identified "Audrey" as a deadname, meaning we must follow our policy on WP:DEADNAMEs. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Our "policy" (a guideline, actually) on deadnames explicitly says it applies to "living transgender" people. Want to take another run at that? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Only the second paragraph, correct? I mean, in terms of how we principally refer to the shooter, it seems to me that the first paragraph applies squarely.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Only the first paragraph appears to apply to living and dead transgender individuals. The remainder explicitly calls out "living" repeatedly, and a discussion on the talk page there is leaning, charitably, towards no consensus to change that to include living or dead. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Locke Cole: See your RfC above which is clearly leaning towards an exception for the recently deceased. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That RFC is asking about WP:BDP, we're talking about MOS:GENDERID here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  If BDP applies, WP:BLP applies, and so those parts of MOS:GENDERID apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That connection is not obvious to me. And the current discussion at the talk page for MOS:GENDERID does not support expanding it to include the dead as you proposed. Other than GENDERID mentioning BLP as a way of indicating how important something should be, there is no backwards connection from BLP to GENDERID. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @FormalDude:, typically we would follow DEADNAME, but this is an unusual case. When it comes to transgender/nonbinary people, RS almost always will use the new name throughout and not mention the deadname or like mention it once. However, this is not what RS is doing for Hale; RS is primarily using the deadname. I don't really know why RS has chosen to use the deadname, but I'm not in the position to question or contest that. DEADNAME can be somewhat IARed in this case because we should be more concerned with conforming to reliable sources.

  In response to the whole BLP, BDP, GENDERID, and whatever debacle that' going on this discussion and in the RfC above, we need to stop being so rigid with how we are viewing these guidelines and policies. It's becoming wikilawyering. All we need to do is conform this article to be consistent with the predominance of reliable sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's one thing to say that there's too much wikilawyering in terms of pedantically discussing the meaning of policies, it's another thing to complain of wikilawyering while attempting to directly contradict those policies. GENDERID does squarely say we should use the "most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". You saying "well we should make the article consistent with the predominance of reliable sources" directly contradicts that. I'd also note, frankly, that your opinion seems to be a distinct minority one on this RFC—even many of the editors who suggested B & D have specified that they think the birth name should only be "mentioned" in a few areas. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  From my understanding of the line even if it does not match what is most common in sources, it was put into place because there were arguments that people like Caitlyn Jenner should still be referred to as Bruce Jenner and use he/him pronouns because of the amount of sourcing historically that referred to her as he/him before she came out as transgender, even though the more recent one's use Caitlyn and she/her; hence, why it says "most recent." At least that's what someone told me that a while back. Yes, I'm aware I appear to be in the minority, specifically regarding primarily using Audrey. I think this RfC is lining up to meet somewhere in the middle, and I don't plan to lose any sleep over that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  What about pronouns? Cwater1 (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  The majority of RS are avoiding any pronouns for Hale and saying that Hale preferred he/him. I think those two things together means either avoiding pronouns all together or using he/him would be acceptable, and former discussion and GENDERID have leaned toward using he/him for this article. That's good with me. Using she/her would be inappropriate from what I've gathered. When it comes to pronouns, there isn't the recognizability issue either. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers It is confusing and when editing article, if you use the wrong thing then there are problems and you can get banned from editing from what I understand. That's the downside of Misplaced Pages. Cwater1 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, but the difference between C and D is not important to me (see my official vote above in the voting section) as long as Audrey also appears in the lead along with the principal name selected by consensus. I understand the argument for WP:GENDERID, but I echo Iamreallygoodatcheckers's points that the solution is probably found somewhere in the middle. To take us back to the basics, I offer WP:5P5: "Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making exceptions."

Personally, I thought IncredibleHulk made some compelling arguments about reliable sources despite his/her wildly innappropriate tone to convey his/her POV. And I think if we set aside ideoligies and stringent interpretations of policies in the face of neutral POV and improving the encyclopedic nature of the article, we can see past any editor's potentially biased limitations and take away the value they add with their research and desire to improve Misplaced Pages WP:GOODFAITH. Banning passionate editors runs the risk of creating an echo chamber, and that concerns me. Of course I don't know what happened off our talk page in this particular case, so I certainly won't judge. I hope we can continue to be kind, work together, and listen to (even respect) opposing ideas. Penguino35 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Penguino35: Overall I found your !vote reasonable, but I have to say I'm not sure I agree with the "don't use pronouns" portion. Using pronouns gives undue weight to gender? Is that true of every person or just trans persons? That said, I agree that the article isn't a biography of Hale (and thus, from my perspective, this portion of MOS:GENDERID applies: "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent."). And I agree that the birth name probably should be mentioned, mostly because it's how most sources refer to the shooter and we want to avoid reader confusion. (I also agree that confusion can be avoided by a single reference to the name.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Mmm I am glad you asked for clarification; I can see how what I said could be misconstrued. I do not think using pronouns give undue weight to gender. I think inconsistency (switching back and forth between pronouns with parenthetical remarks couching the gender we're using) gives undue weight to gender. In the name of consistency and ], I say pick a gender using WP policy as our guide and then stick to it.

To satisfy those who would argue using he/him could be confusing for readers, I suggest replacing the pronoun with "Hale" or working around it. Like in the paragraph about Hale attending school there as a child, I removed the pronoun, since as far as we know (or don't know), Hale identified as a female in childhood and only came out in 2022. Aside from that instance, I don't see how clarifying Hale's gender misidentification by police and news upfront in the lead and then keeping consistency throughout could cause any confusion to readers.

There were also a few instances where I thought "he" could grammatically suffer ambiguous pronoun antecedent as well because the article talks about both the police and Hale as "he" and using Hale's surname might have been clearer. I do not believe this is specific to trans persons. Penguino35 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! Thanks for elaborating. I'm still not totally sure I agree on the pronoun point (I think the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID makes clear that we should use the most recent gender self-expression throughout the whole article, not switch up depending on whether the person used that gender self-expression based on a specific time), but I also understand that you're responding to some arguments that have been made here.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. And I'm new to the WP policies on gender identification, so I can stand to be corrected. However, I'm not arguing for switching to "she," I'm arguing for switching to passive voice, which editors come across on the daily regardless of cis or trans. Penguino35 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the NPOV tag appropriate?

We've been asked to come to a consensus, and I'm sure we're all tired of back-and-forths. Please add your !vote to the subsection below, and keep replies in the discussion section so that a clear consensus can be developed from this thread. Also, as this has been hashed already multiple times, probably keep !votes shorter. Soni (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

!Votes

• No. Template:NPOV is reserved for articles that seriously lack a neutral point of view, and that is not at all the case here. The issue being discussed in the RfC that the NPOV template links to is at its core a style issue–MOS:GENDERID is part of our manual of style (obviously). Readers will see this NPOV banner and assume there is something seriously wrong with the article, when in fact the issue it was placed for has zero impact on the article's factual accuracy. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  no Dissagreements with MOS is not a reason to apply an NPOV tag that follow that guidance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  No Dissareement with MOS is not a reason to apply an NPOV tag to articles that follow that MOS' guidance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes -- Neutrality concerns whether or not the content of an article is written neutrally (WP:NPOV), and the disagreements that editors have had above demonstrate that some do not believe the article is written from a neutral perspective. That is the reason anyone would add an NPOV tag; they don't need to demonstrate whether it's 100% correct or not. The neutrality is simply "disputed", which is true. They claim it is written from a non-neutral perspective, and at the moment, the "How should the perpetrator be named in the article?" RfC will likely be the RfC to introduce neutrality, similarly to other discussions. Let it run its course and then remove the tag; I don't see any need to hurry the tag's removal. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Maybe I should have throughly searched the article before !voting... Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. If I squint hard enough, I suppose I can understand the due weight arguments I've seen made, but I just don't think this tag is ultimately the appropriate one—very few people seem to be willing to identify what POV, exactly, the article is biased towards. I'm fine with some indication that there's a style debate happening and disagreement over how to identify the shooter (although even there the dispute seems to be "how often should the shooter be referred to by his birth name?" rather than anything really substantive), but I think NPOV just gives the wrong impression.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• No What we've been discussing in the RfC, and the multiple discussions prior to it is not an NPOV issue. It's a mixed MOS:BIO and WP:BLP issue, as using the correct name, gender, and pronouns to refer to a person based on their own self-declaration is based in that policy and guideline, not NPOV. {{Disputed inline}} is probably the closest match for a suitable article maintenance tag to link to the RfC from the article, but even that implies something that the discussion isn't actually focusing on. Sadly none of the other article space tags really fit the underlying dispute without implying something that the RfC isn't actually about. {{Under discussion inline}} would be a perfect fit, as it only implies the presence of a discussion without really categorising the nature of the discussion, but according to that template's docs it's for the project space only. Though I suppose we could make an IAR case for using {{under discussion inline}}. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. I've already spent enough time justifying it above, but TL;dr, it's clear from the instructions that this template is appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, WP:NPOV clearly states representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The dispute is largely around Hales name, which has significant coverage, being fairly and proportionately included. Until which time there is consensus on this matter, the template belongs, imho. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. I've explained it above. A content dispute is not the same as an NPOV tag, and latter requires serious breaches of policy or similar. Just the opinion of some editors does not make it so, since the threshold is that it can be reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. Based on WP:RS, this is not an issue. Soni (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The current article does not acknowledge the perp name reported in many reliable sources. The article is not neutral. WWGB (talk)<
• Yes - We are currently seeing some conflict between our guidelines regarding gender and our core policy of NPOV that says we should be critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias and that it cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines. The banner should remain till a consensus is obtained. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. Following MOS:DEADNAME isn't a POV issue. LilianaUwU 04:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• No - this is a clear misuse of the template. Tekrmn (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per Kcmastrpc’s reasoning. Yasslaywikia (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per Kcmastrpc and Iamreallygoodatcheckers. In addition MOS:DEADNAME (with regard to deadname) does not apply because the subject is dead. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name … In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name… starship.paint (exalt) 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. Not every editorial dispute is an NPOV issue; in this case, nobody has given a satisfactory explanation for how including or excluding the name would be a POV issue specifically. People can disagree over whether it ought to be included or not, but that doesn't make the article non-neutral; is usage is therefore essentially as a "badge of shame", which is forbidden for NPOV templates. Beyond that, this is a textbook example of where WP:BDP applies, being both a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime, which means that WP:BLP and therefore MOS:DEADNAME apply. --Aquillion (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• No MOS is not an NPOV issue. Otherwise every content dispute would warrant the NPOV tag which is clearly not what it is designed for. Why was Template:Content disputed not used instead - its clearly the far more relevant tag. Satellizer el Bridget 03:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this template makes more sense, but it doesn't entirely fit either because the disputed information is and always has been in the article, just not in the way Locke Cole thinks it should be. Tekrmn (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Tekrmn: just not in the way Locke Cole thinks it should be I see. It's just me, no other editor has supported the NPOV tag or the underlying issue at the RFC above. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• No even though my argument above regarding how we should resolve Hale's name is based on the NPOV subcategory WP:UNDUE, I still don't believe the article is so swept up in bias that it requires the tag alerting visitors to the page. The resolution as it currently stands is not what I believe is best for the article or for the user experience, but all of the pertinent information is in there and represented neutrally even if eliminating Hale's birth name in the lead gives undue weight to Hale's preferred name that is far less prominent in Reliable Sources. Penguino35 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (NPOV tag)

Any replies, replies to replies, and so on, go here. Soni (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Open question to editors who think this is a NPOV issue. How and why is it so? How is using the name that Hale chose, the name that Hale had been using and had been requesting that people use for about a year a NPOV issue?

As a counter perspective, I would tentatively agree that it would be an NPOV issue if the dispute were over a controversial descriptor or label that we were applying to Hale. But using his name doesn't seem to rise to that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th It's not inherently an NPOV issue. I'm just referring to the fact that some are arguing that not including the shooter's former name (deadname) will not render the article neutral in perspective (especially when considering the fact that it isn't even mentioned once), possibly meaning that a neutral article wouldn't entirely exclude the deadname. I'm not saying I agree; I personally don't care. Yet if someone feels this isn't neutral, the inclusion of that tag is then justified. The tag itself simply states "The neutrality of this article is disputed", which is indeed a fact. And this won't be solved simply by adding {{Disputed inline}}, as it is clearly obvious that this possibly involves more than just one or two mentions, depending on the results of the RfC. The NPOV tag is rather technical, really. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

especially when considering the fact that it isn't even mentioned once: That strikes me as a slightly strange argument since the shooter's birth name is currently included? So the NPOV tag is there because a hypothetical future version of the article might be objected to on NPOV grounds?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Struck that mistake, sorry.) Well, you do have a point there. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV. Our sources do not support the trans name to the degree editors here are pushing it, and omitting or censoring the birth name is likewise pushing the needle on neutrality against our sources. It's NPOV 101. But I see we're still doing the deck chairs thing, so on we go... —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Respecting dead trans people, as much of a murderer as Aiden Hale was, is not a matter of NPOV. Will you start deadnaming me once I die in 60-70 years? LilianaUwU 04:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the core three policies on content. The others are Verifiability and No Original Research. The specific concern about naming here is WP:DUE. At present, our article deviates significantly from the breadth of WP:RS. I will not engage your attempts to make this a personal attack against you, as this article has absolutely nothing to do with you personally. You are not Aiden Hale. Please stop taking what should be a collegial discussion about process and trying to make it personal. once I die in 60-70 years I will be dead long before you, and regardless, if there were an article on you I assure you I would steer far away from it. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Before I continue, I’d like to preface this by saying that this is the first comment (or reply, take your pick) to an article’s discussion page, and I’ll be more than happy to learn more about Misplaced Pages’s policies!

Now, without further ado:

I think that this comment sums up why some editors here are in favour of using the shooter’s former name, in that they don’t want to respect school shooters, nor should they. The shooter’s preferred name and pronouns should be used through most of the article to maintain a neutral point of view and consistency with Misplaced Pages’s policies, and when relevant, i.e. the initial identification by police in Nashville, by their former name. To say that respecting respecting the shooter’s preferred identity is not a matter of neutrality is absolutely inappropriate - they must earn that respect, and if that person in question has murdered 6 people, including 3 children, then I don’t think that person is entirely deserving of respect.

Before I conclude this reply, I’ll say that, unless you’ve committed something as heinous as the Nashville shooter did, it’s unlikely that you’ll be misgendered, and if knowledge of your trans identity is lost as time goes on, then you’ll probably be misgendered, but this isn’t relevant to the shooting. This is not intended to be a personal attack, by the way - apologies if it comes off as one!

Also, I’ve referred to Audrey Elizabeth/Aiden Hale as a shooter throughout the reply to maintain a neutral stance on the matter and to avoid conflict in regards to their identity. This issue seems to be unresolved despite extensive edit warring and discussion on the issue, and consensus much be reached soon before everyone collapses of exhaustion. Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This feels like using our editing as a punitive measure against individuals mentioned in articles. I dont think this is really appropriate in any circumstance. Filiforme1312 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I would second this. And, as I've pointed out in other discussions, even though masked in neutral language, the idea that we should use a person's former identity in order to avoid "respecting" them is, transparently, an anti-trans idea. How do I know this? Simple: Would the policy ever affect cis people? Would anyone support referring to Osama bin Laden as "she" in order to avoid respecting his gender identity? No, of course not. So the policy would only "punish" trans people.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say that we shouldn’t refer to Hale by their preferred identity, I said that the idea of respecting a shooter put some users off (me, for example) of referring to Hale by their preferred identity when editing. I only think that Hale should be referred to be their former identity when relevant - see my reply to Filiforme1312. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Consider this alternate phrasal. It's not about "respecting the shooter" but about using principles equally on everyone, including shooters. We apply the legal system and justice regardless of if we respect the people involved. All laws apply to all people, including mass murderers.

Even outside law... Even if someone is a mass murderer, I would not make up falsehoods about them. That is also not about respect, but more about the general principles applied on myself (and kindof, all of Misplaced Pages editors). Not only is your concept flawed (because it invokes respect towards specific people as opposed to the principles on "ourselves"), it is also discriminatory (because it would affect only trans people you do not respect, not all people you do not respect).

So, as much as editor are put off by this idea, I'd respectfully say they need to get over it and focus on our policies at hand instead. Soni (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate this alternate phrasing greatly. It was incredibly inappropriate to demand respect for a shooter, and this is what I was trying to say, however I got carried away because of how it phrased. Thank you for the more appropriate explanation. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say so. While I think that Hale’s preferred identity should be used throughout the article as a matter of neutrality, I don’t see the reason why we need respect a shooter because of their identity. By punitive, what do you mean exactly? I don’t think this would be punishing as Hale’s former name would only be used where relevant, such as in the lead to establish that they identify as trans and anywhere else that’s appropriate, such as initial misidentification of Hale by the police. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We dont weigh how often to use a name based on how often it is used by RS Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is literally the opposite of what WP:DUE says about proportionality (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery). So, yes, we actually do. And right now our article deviates substantially from how sources cover the perpetrator's name. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: even if you're of the opinion that the deadname provisions of MOS:GENDERID does not apply, as Hale had changed his name months prior to the shooting MOS:CHANGEDNAME would apply. An argument could also be successfully made that because this is not a biographical article about Hale, the paragraph beginning A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. from CHANGEDNAME would also apply here, which would require us to use Aiden as the primary name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Also MOS:SURNAME tells us that once we've initially stated the name, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No offense to the MOS, but WP:NPOV still sits far above that in the order of things I get concerned about (and WP:CONLEVEL applies here too). I do agree this is not a biographical article on the perpetrator, but as they aren't notable enough on their own, we tend to effectively have a mini-biography in these types of articles on these subjects. The last name is fine by me, I've never said otherwise: my concern has been the removal of the birth name from all but one part of the article; as this article is dealing with the event and a mini-bio of the perpetrator, IMO it's appropriate to include his birth name in all three locations (lead, "Perpetrator" section, and the infobox) as this both satisfies WP:DUE and doesn't leave our readers confused by the name swapping if they come in via a redirect.

I honestly think MOS:GENDERID should be taken out of the MOS and made a part of WP:BLP. I do think the wording can be simplified to consider WP:DUE better as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

On your last paragraph, feel free to suggest that at WT:BIO. The former might find some support, though I'm not so sure about the later. Though a discussion for that other venue, there are valid reasons for why DUE cannot wholly apply to the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals, particularly for those who were notable prior to transitioning but who transitioned either later in life or who transitioned after they "left the limelight" for lack of a better term, hence why there is the proviso that we always follow the person's most recently expressed identity, not their most commonly expressed one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the trick is making WP:DUE a temporal concern: e.g. for trans individuals, greater weight would be given to recent sources in so far as their gender identification and names are concerned. Obviously this would be reliable sources, so no consideration would be given to generally unreliable sources. Might be something to consider at WP:VPI and see if we can get these policies to stop fighting each other. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

On your point of NPOV taking precedence over MOS:BIO, I would direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays#Policy pages outrank guidelines, which in turn outrank essays. While that is an essay, it is one that is prominently linked on WP:PAG as an explainer for the differences between policies and guidelines. On this specific point, MOS:SURNAME, CHANGEDNAME, and GENDERID would be the most relevant advice that would apply to the content under discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• @WWGB: As pointed out above, the article does include the name. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• @WWGB: I, of all people, put the deadname in a hatnote right before the page was fully protected. So it is there. @Kcmastrpc: Do you seriously think following MOS:DEADNAME is NPOV? LilianaUwU 04:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh so that's why. So the tag isn't justified. I did not notice that. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

An explanatory note in tiny font at the end of the article is a token inclusion that would be missed by most casual readers. Balance would suggest the birth name be included at least once in the main content of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@WWGB:, unless I'm missing something, Hale's birth name is in the main content of the article. It is included in the Perpetrator section, where it is bolded, and it is also included as a note appended to the perpetrator parameter in the template.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is how the article looked for quite some time, then repeated edit warring got us to where it is currently. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how that pertains to what I said. WWGB said that the article only features the perpetrators birth name in a note—I pointed out that the article features the birth name in bolded text in the main content and in a note.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading through the previous revision and comparing it to the latest revision at the time this reply was written, there has been a noticeable degradation in the writing style used throughout the article - proseline, although not against the policies of Misplaced Pages, is often found throughout the article (especially in the aftermath section) and significantly degrades both the quality and readability of the article - surely the information where proseline is used can be condensed and formatted better? For instance, the lead could be rewritten to something to the effect of ‘The 2023 Covenant School shooting took place in Nashville, Tennessee on 24 March 2023, and was perpetuated by Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who identified as Aiden Hale at the time of the shooting. Hale, aged 28, was a local resident and former student of the school, and killed 3 adults and 3 children during the shooting, which started at 10:11 a.m. CDT. He was killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officers at 10:27 a.m. CDT, which ended the shooting.

The details regarding the school, such as it being a PCA school, can be included in the background section of the article. I’m definitely unsure as to how effective this rewrite of the lead would be, but I’m sure it’s a good starting to improve the quality of the article. The most glaring issues as I’ve mentioned are the proseline paragraphs present throughout the article, which can be addressed in a similar manner - should a new tab be created for such a discussion? Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean at least part of your proposal directly relates to the debate above—in your version of the article, the shooter's birth name is given primary and first reference. As @Locke Cole identified above, there's essentially a consensus that Aiden Hale should be the primary name that we use to identify the shooter, but the remaining debate concerns how often to include the shooter's birth name.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t mind either way - Aiden or Audrey Elizabeth Hale would sufficed as both are names Hale is known by, however I chose Audrey for the propose because it has had more coverage in reliable sources so far and is more notable than the shooter’s preferred name - I’m pretty sure a Ngram or Trends graph showed this and was posted here sometime ago on this talk page.

In terms of inclusion, I think Hale’s former name should be included when relevant, such as in the lead paragraph. Because of what @Locke Cole said, I’m now interested into seeing how the article’s quality should be improved - suggestions on what to do next, such as creating a new tab for this, can be discussed here or at my talk page. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

My point is this relates directly to the debate being have above. If you can't isolate your edits from that issue, then we should wait until a consensus is established.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I’ll have to agree with this - there’s no clear consensus on the issue and we should wait it out for now before we start thinking about improving the article. Thanks! Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU I seriously think the circumstances surrounding Hales demise warrant the discussion we're having now. Furthermore, using do you seriously... in the manner you did could be considered as a form of ad hominem attack, specifically a type of insult or ridicule fallacy. This type of fallacy attacks the person's character or intelligence rather than addressing the actual argument made. This isn't the first time I've seen it either , and I recommend you seriously consider how you address other editors in the future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity—what's the status of this discussion? The NPOV tag was replaced a long time ago by {{Content}}. There's been no effort to revert that replacement. Is there a consensus that {{Content}} is sufficient? Do the editors who opposed the NPOV tag also oppose the Content tag?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Blank links

How do we fix links that are blank? 97.124.236.235 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you give a couple of example links that are blank in the article? If it's a citation, could you give the citation number? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I have gone through all of the sources in Chrome and they are fine. My only suggestion at the moment outside of browser compatibility is that they were clicking on the archive links which doesn't work for some sources like The Tennessean. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal name

This article is quite confusing for the reader. Can you simply use the legal name of the perpetrator at the time of their death? This name should be a hard fact which can be determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.222.97 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read over the numerous discussions on this talk page on that subject if you haven't already. Funcrunch (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

These discussions all seem very academic. Can someone help and check what the perpetrator's legal name was? That seems the most fair and logical approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.222.97 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be original research and something we don't do on Misplaced Pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be original research, however, it would be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which we tend to prefer secondary sources (published works, news reports, etc). See the footnote, specifically: Further examples of primary sources include: ; tomb plaques and gravestones; . For definitions of primary sources: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, and poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, and pottery. (underlines added) We can use primary sources, but given the number of secondary sources we have, we shouldn't need to. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We could find a reliable source that said his legal name at the time of death, but Misplaced Pages editors have collectively decided not to make a legal name change the deciding factor in choosing whether or not to respect a trans person's chosen identity. See MOS:GENDERID. If you'd like to suggest changing Misplaced Pages policy in that regard, the appropriate place to have that conversation would probably be there.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as names are concerned MOS:GENDERID only applies to living transgender people. That being said, we already have a solution in policy here without adding more instruction creep, it's called WP:DUE. In this instance, I'd support giving more weight to recent sources as an interpretation of WP:DUE. I've been meaning to go through all our sources and make a table of how they identify the perpetrator so we can make an informed, logical decision, but between tax season and work obligations I haven't done that yet. I'd just make a table with these columns: URL, date of publishing, names used, gender used. For each row, list the number of times a name is used. I know from looking over some of the sources they seem to use both names or the birth name more consistently, but such a table would provide a more concrete idea of how the sources are really addressing this. The only issue becomes then, are people cherry picking sources (I feel as long as they're WP:RS, that should be enough to dispel that notion). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's weird I don't see "living transgender" in this sentence: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. And, as other have discussed, it seems very likely that "gendered words" in the first paragraph of MOS:IDENTITY includes names. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but no one is denying that "Audrey" is the more commonly reported name. The IP's proposal seems to be that Misplaced Pages use the legal name of every person; your proposal seems to be that we predominantly use the most commonly reported name. In terms of determining how current Misplaced Pages policy should apply to this page, it appears there's a pretty clear consensus rejecting those approaches. I think the place for both them to be made is probably a policy page, but, hey, if you want to make a table in your free time, enjoy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I have two possibilities to your quoted portion: They likely didn't want to be repetitive with the "living transgender" call-out (which seems reasonable to me as the first two call-outs immediately precede the portion you quoted). The other, is that even if we suppose it applies to dead transgender as well, the utside the main biographical article restriction still comes into play: this article is effectively the main biographical article for the subject, as they aren't notable enough for their own article. gendered words does not include names, or the following paragraphs (which go into painstaking detail on names) would be pointless. it appears there's a pretty clear consensus rejecting those approaches Are you just trying to ignore the RFC above? Because that's the only way that claim makes any sense. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"This article is effectively the main biographical article"—I disagree that a nonbiography is supposed to be considered a biography if no true biography exists; that strikes me as a fanciful stretching of the text that also isn't consistent with other portions of the MOS ("A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article." ... is your logic that "since there is not article where Hale is the true subject, he's the subject of this article"?) And what are you talking about w/r/t the RFC above? If there's one consensus in the RFC above, it's that the perpetrator should principally be referred to as Aiden—I thought you'd acknowledged that on this page, but even if not you can refer to survey—only a small percentage of "D" votes have said "Audrey" should be the principal way by which we identify the shooter.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that a nonbiography is supposed to be considered a biography if no true biography exists That's typically how these articles end up for non-notable perpetrators, see for example: 2023 Monterey Park shooting#Perpetrator. only a small percentage of "D" votes have said "Audrey" should be the principal way by which we identify the shooter. For your reference, here's the breakdown at the top of the RFC: How should the perpetrator be named in the article? A. "Aiden Hale" only B. Use both "Aiden Hale" and "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" If B, how often should "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" be mentioned? C. Once (please specify where) D. More than once (please specify where). At present, B/D (to me anyways) clearly has more support. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to use the table I made above documenting the votes so far, if you'd find it helpful :) And I'm not sure what you mean "typically how these articles end up"—can you cite any portion of guideline or policy that supports your interpretation? You also didn't address the "subject" line, which also applies.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You've already had this debate mostly point for point with @Starship.paint above. I gave you an example for "typically how these articles end up". Did you not understand the section there? I'm surprised I need to link a WP:PAG for this, but WP:SUMMARYSTYLE may be helpful to you. As to the "subject" line, they are the subject of this article. That's why they're listed in the Perpetrator section, after all, and discussed there. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mention MOS:CHANGEDNAME above, so I'm not sure who you're confusing me for. "They are the subject"—again, this is stretching things. The shooting is the subject, and this is an article about the shooting. It is not a biography of the perpetrator nor the victims nor the cops nor anyone else. (Would you say that all of them count as the subjects? So many subjects! Or wait maybe only those who get sections are subjects—in which case I guess it's the perpetrator, the victims, and ... the reactors. Awesome.). From my perspective, it truly feels like you're purposefully giving these strained interpretations to achieve the result you want, so I suppose that just means you and I don't need to discuss it any further. Best of luck with your table--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is still there. Our sources all discuss the victims, the perpetrator, and some go into details on each. It's weird, after challenging the exclusion of victims for so long and finally making progress on that front to see someone actively suggesting we shouldn't cover the perpetrator. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the good-faith interpretation of my point: I'm actually saying that we shouldn't cover the perpetrator. I guess why stop at strained readings of Misplaced Pages guidelines when you can make strained readings of talk-page comments? If we weren't done before, we're clearly done now.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, when you say he shooting is the subject, and this is an article about the shooting. It is not a biography of the perpetrator nor the victims nor the cops nor anyone else and clearly that runs counter to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the example I provided you of an incident from a few months ago, that is what it appears you are saying. To say you have a novel interpretation of the issue though is an understatement. Words have meaning, and they don't mean what you seem to think they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It plainly doesn't, but once again, I'm not interested in discussing this with an editor who's stuck on assuming bad faith. I actually think I've made more substantive edits to the article, including adding information to the perpetrator section, than you have, but good luck with your table.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sections

I have some concerns about the sections—particularly the "Aftermath" vs. "Reactions" section. I'm not sure the distinction is really tenable as it's used. For example, this line: On March 30, thousands of protestors gathered at the Tennessee State Capitol to call for stricter gun control laws. That's currently in the aftermath section. But isn't it just as true that it's a reaction? In regards to the chant led by Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson ... does that belong more with Biden's call for gun control, or the discussion of the reunification center that was set up so that parents could find their kids?

I've tried to make the aftermath section into an "immediate aftermath" update: school-response section (without changing the section name—instead, I think making it a subsection would do the trick), and to fit the policy discussion into the reaction section. This was the best I could do for now, and I realize it's not perfect, but I hope most people see it as slightly better (and can improve it more than I could!). --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (Updated--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC))

I think it’d be best to remove the reactions section entirely and group it together with the aftermath section per what you said. I don’t think subsections for what happened in the aftermath are necessary unless it’s to describe a particularly important event, i.e. the controversy surrounding the dismissal of two black senators over their opinions on gun control whereas a white senator wasn’t, which, in my view, meets the notability guidelines for having its own subsection. Yasslaywikia (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'll be honest—the reunification center portion strikes me as something that legitimately belongs in the article and, I think, should be separate from the reactions—I currently grouped it in "Aftermath" under shooting since it was a same-day occurrence that really involved the event in a way that the "reactions" did not. Is there anything you think doesn't currently meet the notability guidelines? I'm also not sure I'd agree on the dismissal of senators, since that was in direct response to this event—to be clear, I'm not any expert on the "notability guidelines for having ... subsection"—but I would point out that the dismissal doesn't currently get its own subsection.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, strike everything I said. I realized that the reunification center was a police response, not a school response, so it didn't make sense to put it in a school-response section. Instead, I've added the reunification center detail to the end of the shooting section, and I put the school statement and vigils in the reaction section.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Police references to Hale

@Starship.paint—with some hesitation, I removed the claim you added as to how the police refer to Hale.

Aside from the initial identification—which was covered and noted (including by the New York Times), I'm just not sure there's any relevance to how law enforcement refers to the shooter in various media statements. Implicitly, you might argue, as some on here have, that the fact that the cops continue to refer to Hale as "Audrey" suggests that they determined he was not trans, but, on the other hand, you might just argue that the cops are choosing to refer to Hale as "Audrey" because they've elected not to respect Hale's trans identity—certainly wouldn't be the first time! And it'd be one thing if the articles you cited were specifically on how police continue to refer to the shooter as "Audrey", but they're not not—they're just examples of police statements that happen to refer to Hale as Audrey.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• You're reading too much into it. I'm not arguing anything of the sort you suggested. starship.paint (exalt) 13:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't mean to suggest you were arguing anything at all! I was only saying that I didn't see the relevance, and suggesting (though ultimately discounting) possible ways it might be relevant (to show I had thought about the issue and wasn't reverting lightly)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Or it could be that they're respecting the wishes of the family. However, would it even matter? Let's suppose a source interviews the family of Hale and shares that's how they'd prefer their daughter/son to be named, does BDP not apply here? 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. Perhaps I'm just misreading this, but could continuing to refer to Aiden as a male not have serious impact to the health and well being to the remaining family members? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • See above response to starship. : ) . In terms of your BDP argument, that strikes me as beyond the scope of this section. If you're arguing that Hale's pre-death choice of pronouns, given prominence by MOS:GENDERID, should be, on the basis of WP:BDP, subverted to her family's decision as to whether to recognize he was trans, I think that's been considered and rejected many times in other articles. (Why? Well, I'd imagine it'd be like a devoutly Christian family saying that a recently deceased family member was really a Christian and not a Muslim, even though that family member had, prior to his death, publicly converted.) But, here, I'm just talking about the relevance of how police refer to Hale in various media statements (when (1) reliable sources aren't noting the significance of those statements referring to Hale as "Audrey" or (2) those statements aren't themselves making clear why that practice is continuing) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

    I might argue the situation here is quite unique compared to the other articles, but I believe you're right. This isn't the right place for that argument. I agree with you on the rationale behind removing the prose, unless sources explicitly cover why the police keep referring to Hale the way they do it would seem UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

    Fair enough, and I appreciate that!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter", and the rarity/absence of "Aiden Hale" in top mainstream sources

Our article body says Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. There is no source cited for that. The police identified Hale as "Audrey Elizabeth Hale" on March 27 and "Audrey Hale" on April 3.

Furthermore, our most popular mainstream sources have zero mentions of "Aiden Hale" in relation to this incident. Here is a combined search of sources that as of this post does not produce false positives and here is a combined search of sources that turns up false positives. . Splitting it individually:

1. Reuters - (no results)
2. Associated Press - (one false positive referring to someone else)
3. France 24, which commonly runs news agency Agence France-Presse - (no results)
4. The New York Times - (no results)
5. The Washington Post - (no results)
6. The Wall Street Journal - (no results)
7. Los Angeles Times - (no results)
8. USA Today - (six false positives referring to someone else)
9. The Tennessean - (six false positives referring to someone else)
10. CNN - (no results)
11. ABC News - (no results)
12. CNBC - (no results)
13. NBC News - (one false positive, "Aiden" is the end of one sentence and "Hale" is the start of the next sentence.)
14. MSNBC - (no results)
15. Fox News - (no results)
16. Univision, significant Spanish broadcaster in the U.S. - (no results)
17. Telemundo, significant Spanish broadcaster in the U.S. - (no results)
18. United Press International - (no results)
19. Bloomberg News - (no results)
20. Time (magazine) - (no results)
21. Forbes (magazine) - (no results)
22. National Public Radio - (no results)
23. PBS - (no results)
24. BBC News - (no results)
25. Al Jazeera - (no results)

With such extensive non-sourcing, I hope there will be no accusations of cherry-picking. These include the top news agencies of the world, the websites of the top U.S. television news, the websites of the top newspapers in the U.S. It's been nearly a month since the shooting. To have no mentions of "Aiden Hale" is really suspect. How can we say that Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter when the police did not do so, and the top news sources do not do so either?

I’m pretty sure the same sources did actually report “Aiden” (not “Aiden Hale”). I would suggest that we report “Aiden” similarly. starship.paint (exalt) 13:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like two different issues.

1. An ambiguous use of "identified"—was "X, the person, identified" or was "the person identified as X". Frankly, I thought this was already handled in the article text, as in the next paragraph it's explicitly said that "Police referred to the 28-year-old as a woman and used his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale." But, since the "was identified" line wasn't actually needed (we had already said Hale was the shooter several times, and there was basically no delay in "X, the person" being identified), I took it out in response to your concerns.
2. A discussion of how Hale should be referred, which I think is covered by the RFC above. I take it that you're arguing that "Aiden" could have been a mononym. Without any explicit source for that claim, I'd say we probably shouldn't act on that information right now. To some degree, that's made out of practical consideration: To the extent they've revealed any preference, I'd say the contributors to the above discussion commentators have generally supported using the gender-neutral "Hale" when possible. If we decide to treat Aiden as a mononym, that will mean that we will replace every bare reference to "Hale" with "Aiden".

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• I take it that you're arguing that "Aiden" could have been a mononym. - I don’t think I’m arguing that? I’m just saying, follow the top sources. They say “Hale”, which is fine, so we can use that. I’m pretty sure they say “Aiden”, so that’s also fine. What I’m saying is, they’re not using “Aiden Hale”, and we are. I’m pretty sure it’s a conscious choice on the top sources part to mention “Aiden” without using “Aiden Hale”, as to why I don’t know. starship.paint (exalt) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  If "Aiden" was the chosen name, and you're saying it's significant that we don't have sources saying "Aiden Hale", then how do you suggest the shooter should be referenced on first reference? "Aiden (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale)"? If so, how would it be justified to switch to Hale on subsequent references, in light of the fact that, as documented above, there's a pretty strong consensus we should principally rely on his chosen name?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  If “Aiden” is the price for removing “Aiden Hale” then I’m fine with it. As for how to word it, I’d have to check the sources above. From what I’ve seen the wording may be “The shooter was identified as Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who later adopted the first name Aiden”. starship.paint (exalt) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Except he took the name Aiden before this incident. Months before. So "later adopted" doesn't really work. The police identifying the person by the wrong name isn't really relevant to anything else in the article. Silverseren 06:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I'd second this issue: If the "identified" language is problematic, so is language that suggests that the shooter somehow adopted his name after police identified him.

  I really think we can just take out the "identified as" line. It's passive voice and it doesn't add anything to the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: @Ficaia: has reverted my effort to address what I saw as the first concern you raised (that "identified" was ambiguous and potentially misleading). That user only indicated lack of consensus as a basis for reversal, so I'm not quite sure why it was done yet, but perhaps Ficaia can elaborate here.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There has been no evidence provided that the shooter changed their last name at all in any of the past discussions that have mentioned or suggested this. There is only evidence that the shooter changed his first name. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Low-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Law enforcement articles
• Low-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• C-Class gun politics articles
• Low-importance gun politics articles
• Gun politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Tennessee articles
• Low-importance Tennessee articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment