A news item involving Sutherland Springs church shooting was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 November 2017.
Wikipedia
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
It's known that the suspect was in the Air Force and yet the article says the Navy didn't report the suspects violent information for background checks. The Navy has nothing to do with the reporting of the violations this suspect had while in the Air Force. 47.185.77.48 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever user(s) keep trying to emphasize his motivation as being anti religious. Please stop it. The sources are not that strong, it's only speculation. We'll never know, he his dead and the evidence is circumstantial ie. the circumstances were that he shot people who were in a church and made a few comments online. The official motivation is a domestic dispute, and this needs to be maintained as the primary motive, for that reason. Everything else is just opinion/speculation. Feel free to discuss here, but stop editing the article until there is consensus to change. -- GreenC 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "motive" field of the infobox in mass shooting articles is traditionally a bit of a disaster area. It should contain only uncontroversial statements by the investigators, not speculation by journalists, blogs, YouTube videos, what John Doe thought etc, etc.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 16:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 (primary) or Option 2 (secondary): The word "gratuitous" means "lacking good reason", and it's often paired with offensive content - 'gratuitous violence' - because people will include offense content for the sake of it. That is the case here. What purpose does it serve, for this article, what is the reason for inclusion. It is distracting from the primary reason the quote was chosen, "Everyone dies", which demonstrates that his purpose for being there is to kill everyone in the church. The gratuitous "motherfuckers" is excessively emotive to the point of distracting why the quote was chosen for inclusion in the first place. -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 is preferrable and I do think may provide information about the state of mind of the perpetrator. More gratuitous, in my view, is the excessively detailed minute by minute account the shooting. It is arousing/titillating. Perhaps might be viewed as a risk for 'contagion' ie a 'how to'. Not sure, but that is my reaction. Hope those thought are helpful. Birdephant (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – it is neither gratuitous or offensive, it is what he said, it's sourced, and readers won't even remember that minute detail from this article. However, what will really invoke an emotive response to content in this article, and readers will actually remember, is the fact he "should not have been allowed to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition because of a prior domestic violence conviction", and he murdered 26 people, which included multiple children. We're talking about one word here that our readers will not simply care about, in light of the senseless and horrific tragedy this actually was.Isaidnoway(talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend participants stay focused on the content of this article, and not turn it into a general discussion about censorship, to only make a point that Wikipedia is not censored. It lacks reason for inclusion in this article for this quote and sentence. -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a discussion among you all on the Talk page about this. Am I missing it somehow? Is it not a bit early for a RfC? WP:RFCBEFOREPathawi (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history of the article shows it unlikely to be resolved in a talk discussion. The purpose of RFCBEFORE is to avoid wasting time, that discussion would only lead back to an RfC. -- GreenC 17:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're approaching that the right way. You've had a very brief exchange of reversions with MrsKoma (talk·contribs), & you can't extrapolate from interactions with other editors to how they will engage a Talk page discussion. WP:RFCBEFORE suggests multiple options before an RfC, a conversation on the Talk page is only the first of which. None of these have happened. I really think you guys are jumping the gun on this. Pathawi (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this RfC seems a tad tendentious. And "per the source" next to one of the options preferred by the RfC opener is non-neutral. And personally as someone who reverted GreenC on this matter it would have been nice to have been notified. BoldGnome (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
