Talk:2019 Virginia Beach shooting

Unverifiable quote

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

These are established editors, they don't need warnings, they're already aware when they are edit warring. Anyway, Wikipedia is not news — I think you are exaggerating the encyclopedic significance of these updates. El_C 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

---

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

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)

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)

Consensus, which I am not inclined to decide on here at this time, is not a vote. Reframe it as a proper RfC is you want it to be seen as having been conclusively decided, one way or the other. I will continue to curtail edit warring by applying protection. Feel free to appeal this in any forum you see fit. El_C 17:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 6 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 04:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Virginia Beach shooting → 2019 Virginia Beach shooting – While this is currently the only shooting in Virginia Beach that is notable, and hopefully always will be, it is not the only shooting that has ever taken place in Virginia Beach. Per wp:CONCISE. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support the year qualifier is standard practice with shootings articles. Per WP:NCEVENTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are no other notable shootings in Virginia Beach. The disambiguation is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There's no need for disambiguation, but the year is a useful identifier. Per WP:NCEVENTS, most events (without common, established names) should include "when" in the title. If this shooting had taken place anywhere other than the US, it would probably meet the standards of WP:NOYEAR, but mass shootings are unfortunately common enough here that this one does not qualify as "historic" enough to omit the year. Surachit (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCEVENTS and WP:D (date is unnecessary). The WP:NCEVENTS guidance to include when the event happened in the title presupposes that the event does not have a well-known name. This one does[1], and that's the current title. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I used to argue for removal of years, but it's become mostly a de facto standard recently, and there's no doubt it's helpful for readers in identifying the subject, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE notwithstanding.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I was gonna oppose due to lack of other notable shootings around Virginia Beach. Even so, past shootings, especially routine ones, did occur, like ones in 2018 and another in 2017. The proposed title should help readers hint what the article actually refers to. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't believe "Virginia Beach shooting" rises to the level of "Great Depression" or "Cuban Missile Crisis" to be excepted from the majority of cases where we include the when along with the where and what. Useful disambiguator. CThomas³ (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Good article?

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)

Names of the deceased victims unlisted

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "Any registered editor in good standing may close a discussion". "if you are asserting that there is a policy or guideline limiting the number of RfCs that I should close on a similar topic" "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy...rules are not the purpose of the community". "There are currently 39,873,393 Wikipedia accounts, of which 129,266 are actively editing". "Further, it is a red herring to assert that the first of these four closes was influenced by those which followed". Straw man argument. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)