Talk:Perry High School shooting

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

Death: Suicide 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. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Iowa 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 is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Mid-importance). Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms 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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/live-updates-active-shooting-perry-high-school-rcna132235. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Does anyone know the guideline for naming school shootings? It's really all over the place. Some include the year (2021 Oxford High School shooting) but some don't (Robb Elementary School shooting). Is there a standard for this? Why do some articles have the year in front and some don't? And should we have the year in front for this example? I find this example to be quite similar to the Oxford High School shooting (non-unique school name, not in a famous big city), yet we don't have "2024" in front. Please ping btw. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCWWW is the primary naming convention for this sort of article, and specifies a When, Where, What format for the name. Per the guideline only a minority of articles should not have the year, which is primarily for shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook.

I'd suggest opening a move request to something like 2024 Perry High School shooting. I'd do it myself, but am currently replying on my phone and can't get to my laptop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be the case, but there is also WP:NOYEAR which says it is a judgement call. Robb Elementary School shooting was moved from a title that included the year on the basis that only one shooting had ever occurred there, so the year was unnecessary, and that move has stuck. On the other hand, 2021 Oxford High School shooting was moved to a title that included the year on the basis of NCWWW's "When/Where/What", and that move also stuck. I didn't find any discussions about either move on the talk pages. (Ping Paul Vaurie per request). ––FormalDude (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to know if this case was a copycat (another) from Columbine, due to its connections to Eric Harris. Thank you. 190.246.97.81 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source which says it's a copycat of Columbine to do that. Currently it can at most be linked under See also. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is although it is hard to prove. Theres already some evidence such as him using 'Stray Bullet' by KMFDM, the same song Eric Harris posted on his website, in his final tiktok as well as a reddit post of him replying to someone who posted pictures of Eric and Dylan. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need a reliable source that says that. Part of the reason why is the well-known prowess of internet sleuths. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that @Aaron Liu and @FormalDude have reverted/removed my edits to the article flows and organization, and to make it follow a similar pattern of other mass shootings. In past article such as 1989 Stockton schoolyard shooting, 2023 Dadeville shooting, 2019 Jersey City shooting, Perm State University shooting etc have the shooting at the top with maybe a Background section above it, as it is the main point of the article. The Perpetrator/Suspect/Assailant section is not normally above unless it is primarily about that individual such as is the case for mass murder Howard Unruh. As it stands the article reads wonky to me but am open to others thoughts – Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it this way as it's chronological. This perpetrator section is not that long here, and suddenly interrupting the chronological flow for a short section does not flow nice to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky.Solar: I don't think I reverted or removed any of your edits, but please provide a diff if I am mistaken. I agree with you that the perpetrator section should follow the shooting section as is typical with these types of articles. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were confused about your copyvio revert, during which they made the edit.
In my opinion, usual doesn't necessarily equal the best, especially in this article which has a relatively short perpetrator section which is entirely made up of past information. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was recently created and it will expand as it is developed, so I don't see length of the section to be a reason to deviate from the norm. I think the flow is better with the perpetrator section following the shooting section because the shooting is the primary topic of the article as well as the reason we go into detail on the perpetrator in the first place. It makes more sense to explain what the perpetrator did before giving a description of them. Also, chronologically the shooting happened first, and then others subsequently gave their descriptions of the shooter. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't feel like there'd be much more to add to the perpetrator section. It's not chronology of reporting, it's chronology of happening. The background is often before the main incident is covered, so I don't think that the primary topic argument really works. To me, it makes more sense to describe the perpetrator's speculated reasons before what they did, which especially gives context in the confrontation with the principal. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we follow up on this? AFAIK inactivity in an unresolved discussion doesn’t really count. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my piece. It's currently 2-1 in favor of the typical format, we should stick with that for now. Please self-revert. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just overriding everything based on numbers is not how you build towards a consensus AFAIK. Maybe revert it, but we still need to discuss it or get someone else. (not to mention the original status quo of the article seemed to have perpetrator before incident) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is now, does a disservice to the victims and those that lived through the event. Just because @Aaron Liu you personally like how the article was laid out does not mean it should be the only way. The lack of clear sections doesn't allow for the reader to be able to go to a specific point and needlessly lumps together information.

The perpetrator is named in the intro, his actions before the shooting can be indicated in the background section. For him to be highlighted above his attack when it is not an article about him, highlights his actions something which Wikipedia tries to avoid. (On mobile and not sure exactly which policy it is but there have been discussions about not even naming the shooter to not give them media attention). Maybe @FormalDude would know more about it.

At this point it would also be remiss to not include an Investigation section, but to instead lump it into another. Again based on readability and for readers to quickly find information without having to dig through the article. Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how giving victims a section header magically gives them more service. There is wide agreement that MOS:OVERSECTION applies to most cases, and I don't see why we should make an exception for it here. On finding information, Ctrl+F is widely available, and so are its mobile equivalents, not to mention being at the bottom of a section makes it easy to find since it makes sense according to chronological order.
There is much less of a case to add a section for Investigation as there isn't much of an investigation here. From what I can see, there is only one sentence about it in the article.
I wouldn't object to solely removing the "Perpetrator" subheading. Would that solve the problem? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SNO says that The usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles. I'm not aware of any article that has the perpetrator section preceding the shooting section, they all seem to do the reverse. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any other articles with a separate background and perpetrator section, both of which are short. Most of them have a lengthy perpetrator (or even “accused”) section after the investigation section, which was necessary to uncover the perpetrator. Here, that wasn’t the case. There’s also some articles where there is only a background section, so I think removing the “Perpetrator” subsection heading would be apt. Thoughts on that? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude All good I think, I figured it out, there was an image that had copyright concerns. I think it was just an unfortunate timing issue that my edit got caught up in a large number of changes. Leaky.Solar (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdeblois19 In my opinion, the link to the specific gun section of Suicide shouldn't be obfuscated per MOS:EASTEREGG. The reader being likely to guess that he committed suicide by gun isn't much of a problem either; I don't really understand why this information needs to be invisible. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should just say "suicide" with no wikilink. Suicide is an everyday word that does not need a link (MOS:OL, MOS:CONTEXTLINK). Any further detail can go in the article body. Wracking ^talk! 00:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say information about suicides by gun are a good navigation opportunity, but I'd also agree to just removing it. However, I think "by gun" should be kept as it's just two more words. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "by gun" should be removed for concision as it is generally redundant and can be covered in the main body. Wracking ^talk! 00:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being redundant isn't necessarily that bad, and it's not out-of-tone (for lack of a better word) here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad to include it, it's just not necessary. If I was scrolling by and I saw it in an article I would probably remove it as a basic copy edit, but I don't feel that strongly about it that I need to keep discussing it. Wracking ^talk! 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have added images from the shooter's TikTok account to this page. Please stop doing this. There is no evidence these images are freely licensed, and thus they are not eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons; see Commons:Licensing for details. For the specific, narrow criteria on permissible hosting of non-free images on the English Wikipedia (not Commons), please review WP:NFCCP. Funcrunch (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude Isn't "died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound" basically the same as suicide and enough to verify the categories? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As WWGB said in their edit summary, the sources used in the article do not mention suicide; we follow reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify on the difference? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an Iowa government report that deems it a suicide, though I'm not sure if it is secondary enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be enough. I've added that source to the article and restored the cats. Thanks for finding that! ––FormalDude (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For the future, could you clarify on the difference between "suicide" and "dead from a self-inflicted gunshot"? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-inflicted fatal gunshots can be accidental (however unlikely in this particular case). Funcrunch (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should information about the perpetrator from this source be added to the article? https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/iowa-school-starts-arming-its-teachers/amp/ Startrain844 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TTAG. Also see Special:Permalink/1195126299#Add that the person is trans Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are mainstream sources mentioning the shooter's possible LGBTQ identity. These should be added, such as this one. 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the perpetrator was possibly LGBT+, that information should not be used against them or any member of the LGBT+ community. WiinterU (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's honestly a damn shame no mainstream media will run this story anymore after it was unveiled the perpetrator was LGBTQ. Like come on, we should be allowed to discuss these sort of things. Who cares if radical right-wingers are in glee that Butler was transgender. It's an objective fact about the perpetrator. Kinda reminds me how Wikipedia refused to say Adam Lanza used a .22 rifle to kill his mom because the earliest sources, which are on the same level as the ones claiming he used body armor, said otherwise. Now I know most of the editors here are in good faith, but Wikipedia needs to broaden its sources to include those that actually speak on these issues. Again, not the editor's faults but it's a mess that we can't say as little as "Dylan Butler preferred he/they pronouns." MountainJew6150 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Butler was not LGBTQ. No later sources have claimed that either. There's absolutely no evidence of this other than some internet sleuthing that is on the same quality as "We did it Reddit". I also don't see your claimed exclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]