Jump to content

Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 26 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. I believe Safiel has had the last word figuratively and literally. See the bottom of this discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward → Moneta, Virginia shooting – Current title is overly long as well as insufficient. There was a third victim in the shooting. Also, the names of the murdered are not notable enough. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

But there is a third victim. That victim is relevant to the shooting, and is not covered by the existing title.Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying there is no better name for this article. I just believe it is too early to know all the facts, and therefore too soon to rename it at this point. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Virginia news crew killings, per RioHondo's reasoning. Harmonicsonic (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to "2015 Virginia shootings" - The title "2015 Virginia shootings" (or "August 2015 Virginia shootings") is one that people are likely to search for, and "Virginia shootings" already refers to Virginia Tech shootings. I think that people might not know in which city the shootings took place. The word murder should only be used following a conviction or appropriate plea. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015

(UTC)

  • Wait - Agree with @Michaelh2001:. Calling this the Moneta, Virginia shooting has the potential to unfairly scar the Moneta community without it having anything to do with Moneta or its environment since this was familiar crime. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait- I named it after the victims because I felt naming it after the victims felt less vague. Naming it after a town I feel makes it sound like a huge mass shooting, which it wasn't. I'm okay with naming it something else, like perhaps after the name of the strip mall where it occured, but I feel like naming it after the town makes it sound bigger in size than it was. And yes I know the reporters aren't as famous as Rachel Maddow or whatever but I feel people are going to remember their names after this. Benbuff91 14:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for now, or tentatively, move to "2015 Virginia shooting"; I agree the name of the town hasn't featured in the reporting at all. Most people will only know it happened in Virginia. But again, there's no hurry, and we can wait at least a few days to decide. —Torchiest talkedits 20:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait I came here by searching for the victim's names. I wouldn't have thought about 2015 Virginia shootings. The names seem to be the more direct association in the media. Keep the article as "Murder of". I'd wait to see what the stats are for what people are searching for. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to something simple, encapsulating where, when and what. "2015 Virginia news shootings" sounds about right. The current one is wordy and ignores half of the shootings. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to "2015 Virginia shootings" . Of all the titles proposed thus far, this seems to be the most encyclopedic and the one which most broadly covers the subject. The use of "Murders" or "Killings" in the title overlooks the fact that one of the shooting victims was not killed. Per Fuzheado, the use of the name of the town - which is not widely known to the world at large - in the title has the potential to unfairly "scar" the community. Per Benbuff91, doing so also has the potential to mislead the reader into thinking it was a large-scale mass shooting. And, as others have pointed out, it is the term most likely to be used in web searches.--JayJasper (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"TV shootings" is used in many headlines and most leads, moreso than "journalist" or "news", but something to that effect should certainly factor in. There's broad, and there's too broad. The news aspect is the hook that makes this newsworthy and possibly encyclopedic, rather than just another Virginia shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This incident has little to do with the location of where it happened and, frankly, I don't think many people will even know where Moneta is. The notoriety of this incident is based on the killings, and I think it is fitting that the title reflects that. I agree with consensus that waiting is a good idea though^^. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to "WDBJ live shootings" or something like that, I think what makes it notable is the fact that it happened on live TV, I searched for "virginia live shootings wikipedia" to get here since I didn't know the name of the news station. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait I’m not too sure what the best naming format is at this point. For example, there is a Wiki page on the Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt which seem to follow the same tragic events this shooting did. Knowing that, should this page then be renamed the “Vester Lee Flanagan II shootings” or something similar? It seems there is no clean way to name this kind of article without tainting the innocent or elevating the murderers. Is there any consistent Wiki policy on the naming of such events? I mean look at the 2011 Norway attacks and such. This is all a mess. But a mess that should be discussed. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait but it will eventually need to be renamed as an event which I don't has settled out yet. The shooting includes a victim not in the title and has lengthy information about motive, car chase, suicide, social media, etc, etc. The two people in the title are not particularly notable and we don't list victims like that. The South Carolina church shooting, for example, doesn't have the victims listed. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Two shooting victims are excluded. There's a tendency in news (maybe normal society) to give more weight to the hapless victims than the cowardly heel, but in reality, a three-death event is 50% more significant than a two, even before considering all that other stuff that isn't directly about murder. We should all try to remember that, I think, not you in particular. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WDBJ live shootings I think is the best title. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 2015 WDBJ shooting - "live" is descriptive, but not really relevant, unless the station has had "non-live" shootings (which they have not). The station callsign is a definite descriptor without wider implication, and that should be sufficient differentiation. I would also add that we are always way too quick to jump on these things and create articles, which is why NOTNEWS is cited so often. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 2015 WDBJ shooting - knowing American gun politics, there will likely be other shootings/mass murders in Virginia this year. -- Callinus (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If there are no more mass shootings in Virginia within the next 4.5 days, then we can probably get away with naming this incident "August 2015 Virginia shooting". I don't think that more people will remember the state in which it occurred than will remember the city or television station. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"August 2015 Virginia shooting" seems too time specific, I looked through many other similar events' titles and couldn't find one that uses the month it happened. I also couldn't find a title that uses just the state name. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's still not named "2014 Las Vegas Valley shootings" and that's still not a state name. It seems like most events like this use the city name or another more specific place(like a school). And the population of the place also doesn't seem to have any affect on previous articles, 2015 Houston shooting: Houston est population - 2 million, 2015 Tyrone shooting: maybe a couple hundred folks in Tyrone?, though I'm not sure what you meant by that. On adding August, most events on Wikipedia seem to use just the year. I don't know of any articles that use the year and month to describe an event. And I suggested a different name since most users so far haven't decided or are against using the city name. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree - The shooting has nothing to do with the city of Roanoke and very few people would search for that term in relation to this incident. The TV station is based in Roanoke, that's it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep the title. 98.67.185.209 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Naming options - With some time and perspective on this, here are some possible names:
    2015 Virginia news crew shooting
    2015 Virginia journalists shooting
    2015 Virginia TV news shooting
    2015 Virginia TV news crew shooting
    I would avoid anything more location specific, such as Moneta or Smith Mountain Lake, as these are not things people are likely to look up, and they weren't pertinent to the motive of the shooter. The deranged individual was seeking to harm the individuals or the station, and not those communities per se. Using Roanoke is problematic, as the town is more than 20 miles away from the scene of the incident and is simply the home base of the TV station, and not likely to enter peoples minds. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is the list of names is rather awkward. Unlike those individual shootings, this one is best known for being the one with "news people who were shot on camera" to most of the public. For that reason, the naming should reflect that as with other WP articles. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and removed the bump template, since this proposal is now one week old. The proposed name in the original proposal is a definite no go and clearly no consensus exists for any name at the moment. That pretty much means a default of keeping the article at its current name unless and until a consensus to move ever develops. Safiel (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep present title At this point, I believe we have waited long enough. I believe this article has an appropriate and accurate title. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that the present title is "appropriate and accurate". It excludes the shooting victim (Vicki Gardner) that wasn't killed.--JayJasper (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
And the suicide victim. And the significant gun-related coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Count them up Any that start with "Wait" should be counted on their second choice. If the result is a tie, blend the winners and stop waiting already. Having a good title is timeless, but it's nicer while readers are still interested in reading the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"2015 WDBJ shooting" or something similar should be considered in the next vote/whatever happens next. 160,000+ Google News results for "wdbj shooting". Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Close this discussion as a clear no consensus and don't relist again While there may not necessarily be a consensus for the existing name, there clearly is no consensus for any other name and the the seven day relisting has not resulted in any further input. Close this as a no consensus and redirect all the proposed targets to this article. Safiel (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not a hoax

There seems to be a lot of reports claiming that this is a hoax. Obviously that is not the case, but shouldn't there be a section on hoax allegations?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere, will always say "it's a hoax". It is drearily predictable, and is covered by WP:DUE and WP:REDFLAG. As it stands, the hoax claims are not worth mentioning if the sourcing is like this random example. Yes, it has green ink AND CAPITAL LETTERS. And it's those pesky Zionists again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That site even fails the number one reliability criteria for "alternative" news and views: No Eye of Providence clipart. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And on a slightly different media angle, here is how the British satirical magazine Private Eye saw it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hadn't even thought about the copyright aspect of his suicide. Does anyone actually own "his" video now? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
According to U.S. law, "A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death."[1] So in theory, Flanagan still owns the copyright on the video. The serious side of this is that if someone wanted to upload a screen grab of Flanagan's video for use in the Wikipedia article (which isn't recommended) it would be under fair use. Contrary to what Private Eye says, the video is not out of copyright simply because Flanagan is dead. See also Happy Birthday to You; all of the people involved in writing it are long dead, but Warner/Chappell Music is still claiming a copyright on it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
So, fair use aside, who can complain about violating a dead man's copyright claim, in the absence of a record/movie label? His estate? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I would think his estate which is controlled by his closest relative willing to step up and say "Hey, that's not yours!". Wikipedia's lawyers will most likely say no matter how unlikely do not risk copyright violations that could result in lawsuits. There will always be some Wikipedian who will defend copyrights, even of the owner doesn't care. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the recording is now evidence in a murder investigation I believe that the state has all rights to it for the time being. What they release as part of the public record will not be covered by copyright, but once they close the investigation Flanagan's family could ask to have it returned to them, but I think any use of the material that comes directly from what is released by investigators is in the public domain. What comes directly from the recording after the investigation is up to whoever owns it. Think Zapruder film. Three copies were made, with two of those going to the government for their investigation, and much of the film was seen in part based on what the government released by commissions that investigated the assassination, though Life magazine had bought the rights to the film. About a decade later there was a hubbub regarding the royalties and the rights were sold back to the family, who I believe donated it to the government, but retained the rights. The difference with the Flanagan case is that there is no degradation between generations, as was the case with the Zapruder film. What is released to the public by investigators will be of identical quality to what comes out of the camera, possibly rendering the original less significant, and of course valuable. I wouldn't be surprised if the family demands it back, then destroys it completely. grifterlake (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the above points that claims that the whole thing as a hoax shouldn't be covered at all until there's such media coverage of the claims that it becomes due weight to mention. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree. The glib "Wikipedia is not a" would be "rumor clearing house". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper"

Re this edit: Please DON'T put capital letters in edit summaries, as it looks silly. The reason for this revert is that I believed that the previous wording was better. What do other editors think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The status quo version is a bit cumbersome, which usually results from trying to cram too much information into one sentence. But I don't have a problem with short sentences, and, in fact, a combination of different sentence lengths is said by the experts to improve readability and flow. I'd avoid the repetition of the "age" word. I'd suggest the following:

Parker, age 24, and Ward, 27, died at the scene. Gardner was wounded but survived.

―Mandruss ☎ 07:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The current wording looks OK. There is no obvious reason to remove the ages from the lead section. One of the key features of the case is that Parker and Ward were young and had their lives and careers ahead of them. Flanagan's career in TV news was over at the age of 41.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't strongly object, although I prefer my version. As for your editsum, we all have our individual editorial judgment, but please don't assert a "Wikipedia way" that is not embodied in guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It was [[User:] who wrote the edit summary mentioned. I don't claim to know the "Wikipedia way" and try to get consensus for edits.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, apologies. Must get new glasses! This is looking like EW to me, and I'd suggest more discussing and less editing on this issue, but I don't consider myself involved and I'll leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I restored the status quo ante until consensus is reached for a change. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wording of this edit by Darx9url. Any objections to putting it back again?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, several problems. I don't think the ages rise to the level of importance required for the first sentence of the article, the two uses of x-year-old are repetitive, and that would encourage, validate, and reinforce editing behavior that is completely unacceptable to me. The user couldn't be bothered to make a single comment here, let alone participate in constructive discussion per the Wikipedia policy WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

Re this edit: it is not an improvement because

  • Infoboxes do not usually name the victims, only the number of victims is given.
  • It isn't really necessary to say in the WP:LEAD to say "on the morning of" as a detailed timing of the event is given later.
  • The edit removed the job descriptions of Parker and Ward.
  • The edit removed the ages of the victims.
  • "Team" is singular, not plural.
  • "Police later identified the gunman" is redundant wording. The previous wording is sufficient.
  • Saying that he was fired in 2013 is simpler and more accurate, no need to force a calculation on the reader.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Your bullet 5 isn't as clear-cut as that, as described here. I'd go with the plural verb in that case, but a case could be made for the singular and I don't feel strongly about it. Otherwise agree with all points and it irks me when a disruptive editor dumps the discussion burden on a collaborative one out of pure laziness. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The media is claiming that the gunman in the Umpqua Community College shooting was inspired by the Virginia live TV shooting.[2] This is speculative at the moment, and it is based on something that was written as a comment on KickassTorrents.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There's discussion of this at WP:PUMP/POLICY#Expand BLP policy around coverage of mass shootings?
The article Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings argues that media coverage of a shooter increases the possibility of future school shootings.
He killed his three cats during EEOC proceedings due to anger at being fired - a dead giveaway that he was violent and took out violence on innocent people to appease his anger. This is, in my opinion, much more relevant than which states he lived in.
  • Cullen, Dave. "Inside the Warped Mind of Vester Flanagan and Other Shooters". The New Republic. Retrieved 2015-09-23.
  • "A Life of Listing Grievances, and Then Virginia Gunman's Final Homicidal Explosion". The New York Times. 27 Aug 2015.
  • "Vester Flanagan, Virginia News Crew Shooter, Killed Two Cats Before Murders". Newsweek. 28 Aug 2015.
He also bore a grudge from being removed from a high school football team - at age 41 to write about his high school football team in a suicide note probably means that he doesn't deal with grievances.
He sent details of a reference to a news studio, that called the reference and were told he was hard to deal with. The New Republic article says he had
The New Republic article says that suicide notes of mass shooters read like an unreliable narrator talking about their own life.
I think a lot of the stuff under the "perp" section can be condensed or removed as it fails the 10 year test compared to material on his violence, and history of obsessing over grievances and perceived slights. -- Callinus (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This needs a consensus. I don't think the argument that Wikipedia is promoting further shootings is at all convincing. Also, it is not a BLP issue and comes down to giving information that is relevant to understanding what sort of a person the shooter was. In the case of this article, it gives the impression that he was a grade A jackass. If anyone reads the article and thinks otherwise, that is their problem and not ours.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reverted a lot of today's changes as they removed too much sourced material without getting a consensus first. For example, they removed the fact that Flanagan uploaded a video of the murder to the Internet soon after the shooting, a key feature of the case. Wikipedia articles are not written on the principle attributed to Oliver Cromwell of "not what they want, but what is good for them." The new version of the article was too disjointed and seemed to be a bowdlerized version designed to fit in with the currently fashionable theory that censoring coverage will help to prevent future mass shootings. Let's get a consensus first.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"See also" for Bud Dwyer

Re this edit: R. Bud Dwyer did not kill himself on live television, as the incident was filmed and shown later. The incident was similar to the death of Nguyễn Văn Lém which was filmed by a news crew and broadcast later. I removed Bud Dwyer because it appears to perpetuate the myth that this incident occurred on live television when it did not. The TV stations that showed the death of Dwyer knew what was in the film and took a decision to broadcast it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"See also" for 2014 killings of NYPD officers

Re this edit: The primary motive for the murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward is that Vester Flanagan was a grade A jackass who took offense over virtually everything. He did not have legitimate racial grievance for the murders, and the article should not give this impression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Um ... all other considerations aside, I fail to see the connection between the murders of two journalists and that of two police officers. Commonality: murder and the number two. Black Lives Matter is about the unjustified killings of blacks; Parker and Ward were white. Regardless, a BLM connection for anything is not for editors to make, it must be made by reliable sources, and I seriously doubt any reliable source has made a BLM connection here. Has there been a documented BLM protest of these killings? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I found this, this and, this, which all seem like WP:UNDUE to me. There is no evidence that the shooter was motivated by BLM; only speculations. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that effort. We're certainly not going to show a BLM connection based on opinion sources that say there is no BLM connection (1 and 3, as I read them). If there were more RS coverage like 2, it might warrant a sentence or two in prose, but not a contextless See also link. But one article is not enough for any weight at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, Flanagan left behind a wacky fax ranting about his motives for the shooting, and BLM was not in it. There needs to be clear sourcing on this to avoid giving a misleading impression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
If that relation doesn't warrant a simple "see also", then neither does the current ones like Christine Chubbuck and R. Budd Dwyer, which are not related at all except for being news reporters who publicly commited suicide. Alison Parker and Adam Ward were so-called "murdered" and did not want die. Now I am not accusing Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley or Vester Flanagan of being "racists" or whether or not BLM is about the "unjustified" killings of blacks or not- I don't care. I'm only saying that both incidents were done in retaliation to events connected to BLM. Otherwise I suggest we remove two of the current "see also's" as they are even more unrelated. Sinstar14 (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

why no picture

of murderer Flanagan????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.205.52 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Because no suitable image has been found. There used to be a photo of him, but it was deleted in March because it was deemed to fail the inclusion criteria for non-free content. That discussion is at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 7#File:Vester Lee Flanagan II.jpg. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
A previous image of Flanagan in the article was deleted because it was copyrighted (it looked like this and was his official work portrait from 2012). Several perpetrator images were deleted at around this time and Adam Lanza was also deleted from the Sandy Hook article. Some people have said that there shouldn't be images of the killer in the article because it glorifies them and gives them the fame that they wanted. This is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED since the main issue is whether the material is relevant to a reader's understanding. The real problem has been finding free images, and the lack of them often leads to the image being nominated for deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Racially Motivated?

Do people really have any significant evidence that these shooting were racially motivated because it's in the the category of racially motivated violence in the USA. Not every crime involving perpetrators and victims of different races is racially motivated, so why jump to that conclusion? Marideth1996 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing suggests that Flanagan was a crank, flake, looney tune or whatever you want to call it. He had developed various ideas about race that were a factor in the shooting, but his fax also suggests that he had a range of grudges.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Release date of survivor?

The survivor of the attacks, Vicki Gardner, was said to be released from the hospital on September 8. Was this September 8, 2015 or September 8, 2016? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarified the article, she was released after about two weeks in hospital.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead section

Image aside, the lead section needs some rewrite to summarize the whole article. It summarizes just the events, but media coverage should also be mentioned in the lead. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Why?

I see the screenshot has been moved to another section of the article. Why does it need to be in the article period? I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but in my opinion, the screenshot just makes the article and Wikipedia looks like a Tabloid. Why not leave the screenshot out, and if readers are interested they can google Alison Parker shot, or whatever and find the video that way? I still feel like this screenshot is in the article for shock value, not to educate readers. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've already said, I think that the article could live without this image. Although it is possible to find far worse photos and videos on the Internet, I think that the reaction shot is tasteless and makes the same mistake that some newspapers made after the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

New infobox image

Re this edit: although Wikipedia is not censored, I think that this is tasteless and making the same mistake that various social media posts made immediately after the shooting. What do others think? There are also obvious problems with the non-free status. Does it really meet WP:NFCC#8? I'm surprised that this was added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion anywhere in the Archives. Where is it, Ianmacm? Also, how is the image inappropriate or something? WP:offensive content says the image can be used if encyclopedic. --George Ho (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, can you revert the removal, so others can see the image and then discuss it? --George Ho (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
People can see it in this diff, but it is too "in your face" and unsuitable for the infobox image. Various newspaper front pages in the USA and the UK were criticized for showing similar images. Given that we had a long discussion about the Vester Flanagan image and WP:NFCC, it looks like this is also a highly questionable use of NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Would the article still be as "informative, relevant, or accurate" without the image as with it? Or would it be less without than with? --George Ho (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Frankly yes. The still frame seems to have been chosen for its maximum shock value, and there is an ample text description of what happened. Wikipedia is not LiveLeak. If people want to see the full video it is easy enough to find it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I found one least shocking image of the anchor, where she was still alive smiling and interviewing with the woman. Would that help? George Ho (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGE#Offensive images also says that, though it normally discourages offensive images. But then we can treat it encyclopedically, right? George Ho (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I've also been thinking about WP:ASTONISH. Most mainstream media news organizations took a deliberate decision not to show the live video or stills from it. I could foresee Wikipedia being criticized if this was the infobox image. Also, WP:NFCC has to be looked at strictly here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
However, why would the media show surveillance videos of shooting of Tamir Rice, death of Eric Garner, and shooting of John Crawford III? Mainstream media appear sensitive about anchors but very less on ordinary citizen? George Ho (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Ian, CBS News republished the perpetrator's cam viewpoint but in frame-to-frame, not in full video; it also posted a screenshot of the cam. The NBC News page that I gave you earlier had the live broadcast version. USA Today posted a few or less frames of the killer's cam. News.com.au (Aussie one) posted some frames of the broadcast. WQRF via One News Page rebroadcasted some glimpses of it. Yahoo did that as well. Even if that's not enough for you, the image will help readers understand what "Media reactions" section says, i.e. why discretion of republishing makes the scene "shocking", "disturbing", or "offensive". If I posted a video file, that would have been way out of line. However, without the screenshot that I captured, readers would not see why the mainstream media were too cautious and why the social media beat the limits. George Ho (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sky reposted the killer's cam but not the full video. ITV had a screenshot of the gun on the killer's hand pointing at Parker. Sydney Morning Herald has both the broadcast and the cam, but just has the frame of the gun on the hand. Euronews has the killer's cam. CBC posted the broadcast. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

George and I have been having this discussion in regard to some other articles as well. Basically, the question is, should an article about the death of a person non-notable in life have as its infobox image a picture of the dead person? George feels that a picture of the event is more relevant than one of the person, and that we can always use a picture of the person in the section of the article that gives brief biographical information.

However, I have pointed out, pictures of the person are almost always available only as fair use, and that use becomes much more problematic when the picture is moved into the text from the infobox (See active FFD on this issue, in another article) as the fair-use criteria stipulate that a fair-use image that is not a lead image be the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The whitelist, essentially reproduced here, allows fair-use images of deceased persons (where, I presume, no free one can be found and it is unlikely that one will be) but limits that to "articles about that person". It is perhaps arguable that that language could be stretched to include an article about an otherwise non-notable person's death, but I'm not going to do that without consensus (It would be better, frankly, to formally debate amending the wording to allow that, assuming no free images more relevant to the person's death are available or likely to be; but anyone who knows about amending anything related to the NFCC, especially in ways that would permit ever-so-slightly more fair use ... well, you've been warned). Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Daniel, what about the File:Alison Parker shot on live TV.png, which I uploaded? George Ho (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I have no problem with that. But obviously I can only speak for myself. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but why is there a screenshot that states "screenshot of Parker reacting to the gunman."? I feel like this screenshot is being used for shock value, because honestly would the article really suffer and be less informative without a picture? The screenshot makes the Wikipedia article look like a TMZ article. 2601:483:100:CB54:1016:7E69:AFB8:2075 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  • For me the image is inappropriate. Simply because an image exists doens't mean it needs to be used, and in this case it appears to a (with apologies to George, whose intentions are good) a rather ghoulish decoration. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: What about the image of the shooter at the event? Is it just as ghoulish as the image of Parker at the incident? George Ho (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the need for either, to be honest. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I replaced the Parker reaction image with File:Camera drops at the moment of shooting.PNG, Acroterion. How is it? --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I read MOS:PERTINENCE, linked by WP:NOTCENSORED, and then WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. How would any screenshot of the incident lack encyclopedic value per rules... besides looking obviously offensive and ghoulish? --George Ho (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Since the image has the potential to be offensive and upsetting, it should be essential to a reader's understanding of the shooting. The text of the article is already clear that the incident was shown on live television. This, combined with the non-free status, tips the argument against using it. One of the features of the case is the criticism of tasteless media coverage, and Wikipedia should not be drawn into this. It isn't difficult to find the video of the incident, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to show it, or screenshots from it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I put the bio image of the victim at the "murder of Sherri Rasmussen" page because no other images would help readers than a bio image by default. Maybe we should do the same to the Parker/Ward images, so the screenshot shall be unnecessary. What do you think? George Ho (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Was asked to comment. In this specific event, the fact that the shooting (save a few seconds) was actually caught on film, and that footage was tied strongly to the story, makes it reasonable to consider using a still frame just before the murder as a reasonable image. Maybe not as the infobox image (principle of least surprise) but in the body would seem reasonable when talking about the media coverage of this. In this situation, I would simply not have a special infobox image but instead have the map serve as that; the use of the image in the body where there is more context to explain how the situation was would be fine. (And within NFC as well, again due to the media attention on the footage). WP:NOT#CENSORED definitely applies that we shouldn't worry about offending anyone, but per principle of least surprise, just shouldn't be a lede image. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Masem, Ian, Daniel, and Acroterin: I reinserted the image of the reacting Parker running away as the body image, not the lead image anymore. I put it to "Media coverage" section for readers to understand what the section says. George Ho (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC); re-pinging Daniel and Acroterion. 07:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that the image meets NFCC #8 and am tempted to nominated it for deletion for this reason. The article has lived without it since August 2015, but all of a sudden it has become essential for a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Readers would be manipulated by mere text of opinions. The image should lessen, if not dispel, opinions of the media, so the readers can judge the image for themselves and see the contrast between the text and the image. --George Ho (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It definitely is not an immediate NFCC violation, and associating it with the media's response (the complaints several stations got for airing this scene) is at least a much stronger argument for inclusion than just putting it in the infobox. I can agree with some arguments that it could be unnecessary but I'm not entirely convinced, I do strongly agree that where it is now is much more appropriate and has a better chance of meeting NFCC --MASEM (t) 14:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, Ian. The "Media response" section encourages bias against the footage already. I added some portions of it; I still want to add prose of those favoring broadcasting it. Where else can I find sources describing the media coverage of the footage and the footage itself? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Found NY Daily News and Breitbart discussing double standards. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Update: I added more text about the double standards of the media. I would hope that such addition makes the image useful. Pinging Masem, Ianmacm, Acroterion. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is definitely helpful towards NFCC. When I spot-checked google, there is a lot of commentary on criticism towards the media for showing the footage, and while this is not a assured allowance for NFCC, one's clearly past the fundamentals for at least demonstrating a fair rationale. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the NFCC issue for now, I prefer the image's placement in the body of the article under the principle of least surprise. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Link.

I don't know how to change a link on Wikipedia, but I noticed this, and want to know can someone fix it? Under the section Murders, it reads- " WDBJ production master control operators then switched back to Mornin' anchor Kimberly McBroom at the station's news studio, seemingly confused by what had just happened". If you click on the link in the sentence, the link production master control, it takes you to the Wikipedia page for production control. While that is ok, it would be better if it linked to the Wikipedia entry for Master control. I think it would be better and correct because master control operators actually do the job of Master control, which there is a Wikipedia article about. (My father was a Master control for an ABC affiliate, that's the only reason I know what Master control is) I brought the link issue up with George Ho on his user page, and he said he would let me choose between production control, or Master control. I'm choosing Master control, but I don't know how to change a link, and George Ho isn't comfortable changing the link because "That latter is tagged as unsourced since 2008. Linking to a poorly managed article is too risky for me". Thanks to whomever can change the link. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is Help:Link. Or I'll tell you this: [[Example]]. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks George. I was just asking on this talk page in case someone has it on their watchlist. Paige Matheson (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward → Killings of Alison Parker and Adam Ward – Besides the picture issue, I think the article needs to be renamed.

As noted in countless other discussions, "Murders of ..." is inaccurate in this instance. Its colloquial use to refer to any homicidal act notwithstanding, the deliberate killing of one person or persons by another or others cannot be called a murder by Wikipedia (outside of certain historical cases where the common name for the crime includes the word "murder", e.g. Black Dahlia murder) unless a trier of fact has convicted them of that crime specifically or they have pled guilty to it.

That never happened in this case ... the perpetrator took his own life before he could be apprehended, much less prosecuted.

Now, I know this was long enough back that BLP no longer applies. But it was recent enough a crime that I think we should stick with this rule.

I have normally preferred to use "... homicide" in naming articles about apparent deliberate killings. But since this one has two named victims, I think, we'd be better off going to the less awkward Killings of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you do the {{subst:requested move}} then, Daniel? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose. In the 'countless other discussions', there was a suspect who was on trial and not convicted yet. When the perpetrator is killed afterward before they can be prosecuted, referring to it as a 'murder' is fine, as we can safely assume they would have been convicted of murder had the trial happened. Yes, you can split hairs, but that doesn't matter. (And since BLP isn't an issue, Wikipedia can use normal English, so 'colloquial use of the word murder' is actually just 'use of the word murder'). SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
" ...as we can safely assume they would have been convicted of murder had the trial happened." No, we can't. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
From the article: "was found not to be criminally responsible for murder." That's quite different, an explicit case where legally murder did not happen AND it's BLP.
This is not actual "legal murder" that is being alleged because that point is wholly moot since the killer is dead. It is merely "normal English murder". This case obviously qualifies for that sense of murder. To use fancy legal jargon, we do not need "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. We just need "preponderance of evidence". SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a jury. We cannot call it a murder, no matter what the media does. Most journalistic stylebooks maintain the recommendation that homicides not be described as murders absent a verdict regardless of whether the perpetrator lived to face trial: "Do not say that a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court." That is what the AP Stylebook has said for three years now. I don't see an exception for when the alleged perpetrator died before that could happen. Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You are preaching to the choir. I agree that 'murder' should not be thrown about lightly, although citing style guides is problematic (there are a zillion style guides, how many don't have such a prohibition). However, this "exception" is obvious common sense. There is not going to be trial of a corpse (barring something weird). So there is no "until" to wait for. You can use whatever term you like. You can call it treason! You can call it piracy! Whatever English term works. It's fully understood that you are not describing that the corpse was actually convicted of the crime, you are merely describing the late suspect's activities with whatever colorful language you desire. Now, restraint might well lead to not casually using whatever term enters your head, and if you want to make a WP:COMMONNAME argument that "killings" is used more than "murder" in this case, fine, maybe. But it is incorrect to claim that Wikipedia uses 'murder' always to mean 'convicted in a court of law of the crime murder'. It doesn't. Sometimes it just means "killed someone." SnowFire (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
If this had been a crime that occurred years ago, which might have acquired a popular sobriquet that includes the word "murder" despite no conviction for the crime, I would agree with you and let this one pass (a position I stated above). For instance, no one's seeking to rename Oklahoma Girl Scout murders even though the only trial resulted in an acquittal. It's been almost 40 years, anyway.

But this one happened just last year, and has not gained some sort of common name. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"citing style guides is problematic (there are a zillion style guides, how many don't have such a prohibition" All the more reason for us to. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
"If Mr. Flanagan had been caught, he would have been charged with murder" And you can state this with what degree of certainty, Mr. Crystal? The question anyway is not whether he would have been charged with it, it's that he hadn't been convicted. If he were alive and awaiting trial, we would not hesitate to rename this article ... I don't think it should even be listed for discussion at RM in those circumstances. I don't see why we make an exception because he's dead. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's an opinion; had he chosen to live and face trial, Flanagan might have credibly mounted an insanity defense and gotten convicted of some lesser homicide charge. It is undeniably a homicide caught on film; that does not automatically make a it a murder. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Maybe, Daniel, you can withdraw the proposal. I started the discussion at #Current title about the current title itself. Regarding the proposal, best not to rely too much on legal definition and just use common definition of a "murder" instead. However, reading the article makes the title... less suitable anymore. George Ho (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Daniel, maybe you can move your responses to this subsection. Also, slightly modify your responses by adding names of whom you respond to. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Snowfire and Daniel Case, I fear that the discussion is getting longer. Would either or both of you move all of your responses to each other into this subsection, so the discussion flows better? George Ho (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC); re-pinging SnowFire. 08:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No. It's fine as is. You don't need to micromanage other people's discussions. Daniel Case replying in-line is perfectly common for discussions like this. SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I hate to admit that it's a common practice. However, doing the standard way would sometimes make the discussion less organized and messy. What about helping other editors efficiently edit this thread? George Ho (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. SnowFire (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of "Category:Racially motivated violence against European Americans in the United States"

Re this edit: categories should be clearly supported by the text and citations within the article, and this category is not. It is not a question of "simple logic lets you infer this category" because this is a form of WP:OR. The main motive here was that Flanagan was a crank who held grudges that led to him being fired from his job at WDBJ. I don't think that this was clearly a racially motivated incident. What do other editors think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • ABC News, [4] ...He writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting ...He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” [ABC censored the profanity not moi.] He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act. ...He says he has been attacked by black men and white females. He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man. He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work. A source with direct knowledge of his complaints against the station said a pair of tweets sent today and attributed to him accurately reflect previous complaints he lodged against the two people he killed today. These are the two Tweets: “Alison made racist comments,” and, “Adam went to hr on me after working with me one time!!!” Nowhere in the document does he make specific threats against anyone from WDBJ. In his manifesto, he says he encountered "nasty racist things" while working at WDBJ-7 in Roanoke, and that drove him to sue the station. "I marched down to the courthouse and sued WDBJ7 by myself and they settled! HA!"
  • CBS News#2, [5] ...In the 23-page document, the writer reportedly identified himself as Bryce Williams and wrote that Wednesday's shooting was triggered by his reaction to the Charleston church shooting. "Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15...," the faxed document said, according to ABC News. On June 17, 2015, 21-year-old Dylann Roof allegedly opened fire at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., killing nine people. Police have called the massacre a racially motivated hate crime. "What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims' initials on them." The fax reportedly went on to say that Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act... The writer said he suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work -- stemming from him being a gay, black man, ABC News reports. "The church shooting was the tipping point... but my anger has been building steadily.. I've been a human powder keg for a while.. just waiting to go BOOM!!!!," the fax reportedly said. In the hours after the shooting, Flanagan posted chilling video of the incident on his Twitter account, along with several messages indicating a personal grudge against the victims. "Alison made racist comments," Flanagan wrote on Twitter, apparently referencing shooting victim Alison Parker. "EEOC report filed." Another post made an apparent reference to shooting victim Adam Ward: "Adam went to hr on me after working with me one time!!!" ...Just days before the Wednesday shooting that left Parker and Ward dead, Flanagan tweeted a photo of a portion of a newspaper article with the headline: "News anchor sues." The article is accompanied by a photo of what appears to be Flanagan. The article begins by saying, "A year ago when Vester Flanagan came to Tallahassee excited about his new career as anchor-reporter at NBC News Channel 40, he said he never thought he would be fighting racism in the workplace." ...The Roanoke Times reports Flanagan was hired by WDBJ-TV in the spring of 2012 and was let go in February 2013. In May 2014, Flanagan filed a lawsuit against WDBJ claiming unpaid overtime, wrongful termination, retaliation, hostile work environment, racial harassment and discrimination. ...when Flanagan was told he was being fired... went on to berate staff members - including Adam Ward - who was present and recording the incident.
  • CBS News#1, [6] ...Tweets posted on Williams' [Flanagan's] Twitter account Wednesday described workplace conflicts with both victims. They say Williams [Flanagan] filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Parker, and that Ward had reported Williams [Flanagan] to human resources. ... Marks said Williams [Flanagan] alleged that other employees made racially tinged comments to him, but said his EEOC claim was dismissed and none of his allegations could be corroborated. ...saying he was motivated to kill his former co-workers after the recent Charleston church shootings. The document says Williams bought a gun June 19, two days after authorities say Dylann Roof killed nine people inside a black church. Police have called the Charleston massacre a racially motivated hate crime. According to the network, the man claiming to be Flanagan says in the "suicide note" that he was seeking revenge for racial discrimination, sexual harassment and workplace bullying he said he suffered as a gay black man.
The current text of the article is fairly clear-cut: the 'grudge' you mention, in this case was specifically motivated by perceived racism (Flanagan the shooter believed that Parker the deceased held a racial animosity towards him -- and in fact filed a lawsuit with the EEOC claiming exactly that after Flanagan was fired by WDJB). The animus against Ward was from the same exact incident: Ward filmed while Flanagan was fired && escorted out of the building. The article also states, in the infobox and the body-prose, that one of the motivations for the homicide was revenge for the Charleston shooting, and I don't consider it WP:OR to therefore add the category that this particular Deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward article is in the Category:Racially motivated violence. Per WP:COMMONSENSE methinks. However, although 'in the United States' is definitely true, I would disagree with the 'against European Americans' because that has nothing to do with *this* incident, Flanagan was motivated by skin-color and possibly by gender-and-or-sexual-orientation, not by continent-of-ancestral-descent. The sources that I found in a one-minute googling (above) do not specifically say "flanagan was racially motivated" but they do specifically say that perceived racism was (partially) the motive.
So the category-question, is a judgement call, per WP:CATDEF. Maybe somebody with more experience on this particular article's sourcing can say, but I didn't find any definitive statement that "racially motivated" is a defining characteristic of this event, although pretty clearly "perceived-racism-motivated" definitely applies here. By contrast, I don't think the sources would support Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States, because although plenty of sources note in passing the Jehovah-told-me-to-do-it claim, there is no in-depth analysis of any religious aspects of the homicides, but there is a bulky and significant analysis in the sources of the race-related claims. Currently the article is in Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States (eliding the 'European American' bit) which I think is the correct place, until and unless we have Category:Perceived-racism motivated violence in the United States. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It's still getting into WP:OR territory to use "Category:Racially motivated violence against European Americans in the United States" as the sources do not describe the victims as European Americans, other than that they where obviously white. Perceived racism in Flanagan's crazy world was the main motive here, along with various other ramblings which suggest that he was not playing from a full deck, like many shooters. Since the article already has the category "Racially motivated violence in the United States" I'm not sure if the proposed category is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. But it took me more words to say it. Definitely no addition of RMVAEAITUS. Definitely retain RMVITUS. Sources do support the latter, more or less, but do not support the former well enough, in my book. And it looks like there is no such category as RMVAEAITUS at the moment, since it is a redlink? There was definitely racially-motivated violence against Irish/German/Italian/etc immigrants, back in the 1800s, if movies are any compass to some kind of historical truth. So I expected there would be such a category, but at present there is not one, apparently. And in any case, *this* article methinks does not belong in the RMVAEAITUS category. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward/Archive_3&oldid=1137027388"