Talk:2019 Virginia Beach shooting

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help! Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Please remove the quotation at the end of the Reactions section as it has no reliable source verifying it, and since the article has been fully protected (!!) most of us can't do anything about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took me mere seconds to find a source for it. El_C 07:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done you. The point was the no-one but the chosen few could actually add it. Give yourself a big pat on the back. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant, as always. El_C 07:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful, as ever. Perhaps you could remove the ridiculous and completely unnecessary full protection now and let us all get on with our day jobs instead of having to make pathetic requests to fix issues with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I'd rather wait until I know the

edit warring has calmed. Feel free to appeal this short protection in any forum you see fit. El_C 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

As I'm certain you can see, the discussion has moved to the talk page and everyone's at 3RR anyway, full protection is being abused here as of now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Let's see what happens next. El_C 07:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Rambling Man. The full protection was indeed a knee jerk reaction by the Administrator. I am glad they rethought their action. Banana Republic (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a knee jerk reaction, I take exception to that characterization. The edit warring approached (and later I found, even exceeded)

3RR, which is exactly what short protections are for. True, I was persuaded the edit war was no longer likely to resume, but that does not mean I lacked justification to apply it, in the first place. El_C 17:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think issuing warnings to the warring editors would have been a preferred path to fully protecting an article that is a current event. Since it's a current event, it needs to be continuously updated.

I'm glad you decided to un-protect the article, and that the warring parties are in discussion on this talk page. Banana Republic (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are established editors, they don't need warnings, they're already aware when they are

encyclopedic significance of these updates. El_C 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In the 14 hours since you unprotected the page, the article has grown in size by 70% (from 11.4 Kbytes to 19.4 Kbytes). Thank you for lifting the protection. Banana Republic (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was short-lived. El_C 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support your re-protect. My preference would be enforcement of widely-accepted process ground rules (which should be firmed up in my opinion), but, if our system doesn't allow that, this is better than rewarding aggressiveness and failure to AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this 2nd protection of the article is a demonstration of poor judgement on the part of the administrator. Consensus has been reached -- 15 editors have voiced their opinion, with 10 supporting inclusion, and 5 opposing inclusion. The editors opposing inclusion were unable to cite policy on why the material should be excluded except to cite the non-policy

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Seems that the better approach is to warn the IPs who have been edit warring than to protect the article for another 48 hours. More information is still coming out about the event, so protecting the article is damaging. Banana Republic (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

edit warring by applying protection. Feel free to appeal this in any forum you see fit. El_C 17:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In hindsight, I should have just gone with my

instincts — sorry about that! There will be no further full-protections, instead, I'm just going to be heavy-handed. In the end, it was a nudge from another admin that reaffirmed to me what had to be done. (Yes, I'm slow!) El_C 03:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Do any editors have a sense of how close this entry may be to meeting Good article criteria, or even care to take the plunge nominating the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am a native of Virginia Beach. My main concern for this page possibly not reaching "Good article" criteria is that the names of the 12 victims who had died in this tragic event are not listed.

I am aware that there is a discussion for that to be left up to the people (even the family members of the deceased). I respect that. I also would like a Poll for a decision for that if Polls are allowed here.

That is all I want to say.

--MJM5219 MJM5219 (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the previous discussion about this subject in the talk archive - Talk:2019 Virginia Beach shooting/Archive 1#RfC: Should the page include the victims' names?--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Hand—the close you are linking to was carried out by Cinderella157 who also closed 3 other similar RfCs to omit victim names: Midland–Odessa shooting, seen here, 2019 Dayton shooting, seen here, 2019 El Paso shooting, seen here, and this one, Virginia Beach shooting, seen here. I think we are supposed to be deciding this question on a case by case basis. But if one editor is closing 4 RfCs on the question, and with the same result, that being to omit a victim list, does that really represent the idea of a case-by-case-basis? I find here that "these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis". Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop - sorry that I missed your comment before. I personally disagree with the removal of the victim list, but I do think it's good for Wikipedia to have a certain amount of consistency about how it deals with these difficult topics. The circumstances of each shooting are different and require some case by case analysis, but it does seem that the slight weight of consensus is against the listing of victims.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, if the participants in each discussion were largely the same editors making essentially the same arguments, is it surprising that each case then resulted in the same outcome when assessed individually on a case-by-case basis? This article was the first of those listed that I closed and I gave a very detailed explanation of the rationale for the close. This RfC was clearly closed on the merits of the case and not otherwise, as you appear to be implying. The subsequent closes note similar arguments that were made that have lead to similar conclusions as to how they should be weighed but also note differences and address these, evidencing that they have been assessed individually. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157—did it not occur to you that perhaps it was not proper for you to close more than one RfC of this nature with the same outcome—to omit the victim list? You should not be closing 4 RfCs on the same subject and with the same outcome. One close of an RfC on this topic and with the same outcome—to omit—should be the maximum that you should close. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, to answer the second part first: if you are asserting that there is a policy or guideline limiting the number of RfCs that I should close on a similar topic, please cite this or acknowledge that it is only your personal opinion. I suggest that you would not be making such an assertion if the situation were reversed, in that you considered the outcomes to be in favour of your position. To your first question: what did occur to me was, having made a thorough review of policy and guideline cited in common between the individual cases, I was well positioned to assess and weigh those comments of each particular case that were substantially the same - a major proportion. I discharged my obligation to assess the closes on a case-by-case basis by additionally weighing that which was new and/or not common - as evidenced in each close. Further, it is a red herring to assert that the first of these four closes was influenced by those which followed. I note that if I were in any way "significantly" in error in my closes, there exists a review process which was not pursued. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Straw man argument. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]