2023 Nashville school shooter

[Giraffe Stapler]

InedibleHulk has just "quit" Wikipedia after being taken to the Arbitration Enforcement board over his behaviour on the talk page of 2023 Covenant School shooting (T-H-L). On the one hand, I think InedibleHulk deserved to get topic banned from that area based on his comments that people brought up. On the other hand, I don't think his general position was wrong.

The Wikipedia article identifies the perpetrator as "Aiden Hale was identified as the shooter. Police initially identified him as a woman using his birth name, Audrey Elizabeth Hale, but authorities later reported he was a transgender man". It consistently uses the pronoun "he". As far as I can tell, this was someone who was born female but had recently been going by a male name and pronouns online. Does that make them trans, or are they just trying it on to see how it feels, as some young people do? I don't know. I haven't seen anyone say they identified as trans in real life, but I'm not sure that's important. Let's say they were trans for the sake of (non) argument.

This is where it gets interesting. Almost all of the news reports I have read use the name Audrey Hale, while also mentioning the online use of the name Aiden, So you have a trans person who is being widely and generally identified by their birth name and gender. This sets up a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME (T-H-L) and WP:DEADNAME (T-H-L). WP:COMMONNAME is part of Wikipedia:Article titles (T-H-L) which is a policy. WP:DEADNAME is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography (T-H-L) which is a guideline.

Why is the guideline trumping the policy in this case?

[EDIT TO ADD]

This is something that hasn't gone unremarked on by the press that are covering the story. It's a tricky case.
NBC News: Details about the Nashville shooter's gender identity sow confusion and disinformation

[Giraffe Stapler]

I'm replying to myself to ask why WP:DEADNAME/WP:GENDERID is part of the manual of style instead of WP:BLP. I've wondered this before but never got around to doing anything about it. Feel free to split this off into its own thread if anyone has any thoughts they wish to share.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm not saying I agree with their reasoning, but from what I gather WP:COMMONNAME applies mostly (only?) to article titles, not to what name(s) to use within an article in which the person is merely mentioned.

As for why WP:DEADNAME isn't policy, I suppose there might be cases where a trans person who wasn't "notable" prior to transitioning would actually want their original name to be known, and WP should try to at least be sympathetic to their wishes in that regard, even if that means going against convention. Under the current sociopolitical/cultural climate such cases are likely to be extremely rare, but climates can change.

[tarantino]

Anderson Lee Aldrich, the Colorado Springs shooter said after the shootings that they were non-binary and use they/them pronouns. The Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (T-H-L) article studiously avoids pronouns and uses either "the shooter" or Aldrich when referring to him. "He" is used once, but there's no "they/them".

[Giraffe Stapler]

I'm not saying I agree with their reasoning, but from what I gather WP:COMMONNAME applies mostly (only?) to article titles, not to what name(s) to use within an article in which the person is merely mentioned.

That's true, but I have seen it cited in reference to names that are not article titles. If it doesn't apply, then we're down to the very same section as WP:DEADNAME which says "reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". I guess the current situation is more-or-less correct (see below) since that's what the article does. I think the guideline was probably written with the "most common in sources" referring to pre- and post-transition, not a situation where all sources are contemporary and don't agree.

As for why WP:DEADNAME isn't policy, I suppose there might be cases where a trans person who wasn't "notable" prior to transitioning would actually want their original name to be known, and WP should try to at least be sympathetic to their wishes in that regard, even if that means going against convention. Under the current sociopolitical/cultural climate such cases are likely to be extremely rare, but climates can change.

I don't think moving it to the BLP policy means making it a one-size-fits-all rule. That would be a mistake. Could anyone have predicted that we would have a situation like this? Hale wasn't notable under that name before this event so ordinarily we would omit the birth name, but it would be doing Wikipedia readers a disservice to omit the (birth) name most commonly used in news reports.

[Konveyor Belt]

I suppose a good thing to do would be to actually cite that NBC article that you posted to explain the situation. I haven't actually read the relevant policies to know if that would be allowed, but if it wouldn't be then it's far too strict.

[MrErnie]

Yes there is a conflict between a guideline (MOS) and 2 policies (BLP and V). Additionally, the subject is not able to state their preference as they are deceased, and family members have referred to Hale as female. It's absurd to indef Hulk instead of implementing a topic ban.

We've come a long way (or have we?) since this discussion, where you'll note now vanished Berean Hunter commenting

I agree. Further MOS:IDENTITY isn't policy, it is just a guideline which in this case I would IAR as it is poorly derived. Quite frankly, I don't care what he prefers...that is his conflict; not ours (he is the one who is confused). The courts shall be using "he" - so should we. He might also decide that he is royalty and prefer styling such as "Royal Highness" but that too would be succinctly ignored.

That comment today would earn an immediate indef.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Yes there is a conflict between a guideline (MOS) and 2 policies (BLP and V). Additionally, the subject is not able to state their preference as they are deceased, and family members have referred to Hale as female. It's absurd to indef Hulk instead of implementing a topic ban.

We've come a long way (or have we?) since this discussion, where you'll note now vanished Berean Hunter commenting

I agree. Further MOS:IDENTITY isn't policy, it is just a guideline which in this case I would IAR as it is poorly derived. Quite frankly, I don't care what he prefers...that is his conflict; not ours (he is the one who is confused). The courts shall be using "he" - so should we. He might also decide that he is royalty and prefer styling such as "Royal Highness" but that too would be succinctly ignored.

That comment today would earn an immediate indef.

That discussion from before gay marriage was legal across the US? Yeah, we've come a long way.

[MrErnie]

Well I was trying to contrast the progress in the real world (the first phrase) compared to the same type of discussions still occurring on Wiki regarding the MOS guideline vs policy (in parenthesis), but yeah I could have been clearer.

[Provost]

OMG, just seeing this. now. Terrible result for simply stating facts.

[Konveyor Belt]

Well I was trying to contrast the progress in the real world (the first phrase) compared to the same type of discussions still occurring on Wiki regarding the MOS guideline vs policy (in parenthesis), but yeah I could have been clearer.

I don't think you can look at the Chelsea Manning case and the discussions today as part of the same lineage of discussions. Back when the Chelsea Manning thing broke, the main hot button topic on Wikipedia was still American politics, which the Manning case was considered part of. For most of the people editing that page, it was probably the first time they'd ever edited anything about a trans person, and I'm willing to bet many had not even really thought about gender and trans people before. They responded, well, badly, as shown by the quote above. The Chelsea Manning discussion is still the worst incident in Wikipedia's coverage of trans people because of the transphobic vitriol spewed, but a lot of it came not from a "gender critical" or otherwise anti-trans background but from a political background. Take this comment by Baseball Bugs (T-C-L):

The advocates, the zealots don't care. They're using it as an excuse to justify pushing their point of view, just as Manning's lawyer is trying to use "gender identity" as an excuse for committing crimes against the USA.

By comparison, the current GENSEX debates are more directly "about trans people" in the sense that the parties to the debate are all very well versed in gender and trans issues and therefore the POVs that they bring to the table concern the topic of gender identity directly. GENSEX has become the main hot button topic on Wikipedia, not American politics (which was calmed down significantly by subsequent ArbCom cases). Of course, this all mirrors the real world as well. American politics got hot on Wikipedia in the early 10s only because the Tea Party movement got hot, and GENSEX is hot on Wikipedia now because trans people are the latest culture war issue.

[AndyTheGrump]

The Manning case was somewhat complicated by the more enthusiastic trans activists trying to rename the biography to 'Breanna Manning' while Manning's own support team were explicitly stating that Manning still wanted to be addressed as a male. A thoroughly wrong-headed approach that did the cause no favours at all.

[Bezdomni]

Oh, look. Another case of the humour-impaired flexing their digits to ban someone for wit about -ism.

[casualdejekyll]

Oh, look. Another case of the humour-impaired flexing their digits to ban someone for wit about -ism.

Given the last time someone took AndyTheGrump to a dramaboard, it seemed to me like everyone and their mother came out to defend him - I don't think users are really ever banned for being witty or humourous.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I clearly don't understand how anything is supposed to work on Wikipedia anymore. The article lead now reads:

On March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School, a Presbyterian Church in America parochial elementary school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. Aiden Hale, a transgender man and former student of the school,[4][5][6] killed three nine‑year‑old children and three adults before being shot and killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) officers.

Why is it saying "transgender man" in the lead? I could understand if there was a connection established between the perpetrator being trans and the incident itself, but that has not been reported. I read something the other day suggesting that the reported "manifesto" isn't really a manifesto at all (stated by someone who had access to it) and that there was no obvious connection.

Would we identify the race of the shooter if it wasn't related to the incident? Or the religion? Or the ethnicity? Or the sexuality? It just seems irrelevant to me. I mean, maybe it will become relevant, but we don't know that yet. Am I viewing this the wrong way?

[The Blue Newt]

I clearly don't understand how anything is supposed to work on Wikipedia anymore. The article lead now reads:

On March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School, a Presbyterian Church in America parochial elementary school in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. Aiden Hale, a transgender man and former student of the school,[4][5][6] killed three nine‑year‑old children and three adults before being shot and killed by two Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) officers.

Why is it saying "transgender man" in the lead? I could understand if there was a connection established between the perpetrator being trans and the incident itself, but that has not been reported. I read something the other day suggesting that the reported "manifesto" isn't really a manifesto at all (stated by someone who had access to it) and that there was no obvious connection.

Would we identify the race of the shooter if it wasn't related to the incident? Or the religion? Or the ethnicity? Or the sexuality? It just seems irrelevant to me. I mean, maybe it will become relevant, but we don't know that yet. Am I viewing this the wrong way?

The good reason for doing all that is that the news coverage might make a point which is absent on Wiki, or because a name might be suggestive of something which is not true. The bad reasons are obvious.

[orangepi]

It would be a tragedy of history to not capture the excesses of the contemporaneous era.

[Bezdomni]

Oh, look. Another case of the humour-impaired flexing their digits to ban someone for wit about -ism.

Given the last time someone took AndyTheGrump to a dramaboard, it seemed to me like everyone and their mother came out to defend him - I don't think users are really ever banned for being witty or humourous.

Yeah, I suppose here it would be more accurately called the use of sarkazm when dealing with the pushy.

[MrErnie]

IH has posted an unblock request. SPECIFICO popped in to throw some shade in their usual manner, alluding to past discussions without linking any diffs.

SPECIFICO, ironically, was also "warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings" after repeatedly referring to another editor as "it.' SPECIFICO had boldly opened that AE with the sentence "This editor has recently begun to disregard its partial AP2 topic ban," despite having been asked previously not to use that pronoun.

Personally I don't understand the standard applied here. How is misgendering a child murderer who reliable sources are not consistent about worth a strict block, but misgendering an editor (at AE!) after they ask you to stop worth only a warning?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Personally I don't understand the standard applied here. How is misgendering a child murderer who reliable sources are not consistent about worth a strict block, but misgendering an editor (at AE!) after they ask you to stop worth only a warning?

I think there's a pretty obvious answer to that question - opinions have evolved since the 2020 incident that you cite. If someone did the same thing today, it would be dealt with differently. And it has to be said, calling a trans or non-binary person "it" was never not insulting.

[MrErnie]

I think it has more to do with some editors being more equal than others.

[Konveyor Belt]

Personally I don't understand the standard applied here. How is misgendering a child murderer who reliable sources are not consistent about worth a strict block, but misgendering an editor (at AE!) after they ask you to stop worth only a warning?

I think there's a pretty obvious answer to that question - opinions have evolved since the 2020 incident that you cite. If someone did the same thing today, it would be dealt with differently. And it has to be said, calling a trans or non-binary person "it" was never not insulting.

I don't think opinions (if misgendering someone counts as an "opinion") have evolved that much in just three years. If anything, they've gone backwards as of late.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I don't think opinions (if misgendering someone counts as an "opinion") have evolved that much in just three years. If anything, they've gone backwards as of late.

There is a very vocal anti-trans minority, but polls in the US show that they really are a minority. Most people support trans rights, but there are concerns about trans people participating in sports and about giving puberty-blockers to children. Personally, I don't think those are unreasonable things to be concerned about, but it is difficult to have productive discussions about them when people on both sides of the issue are taking such polarizing positions.

[Lurking]

I think another factor in the different treatment between the AE incident three years ago and the school shooter article incident recently has been overlooked: mainspace vs wiki's internal spaces.

It's hardly the first time people get blocked over saying something about a living or recently deceased person in mainspace they would probably get away with saying about another editor, or people get away with saying something about another editor that would rapidly see them blocked if they said it about a BLP subject. Not just trans issues and similar, either. Goes for plain old insults too.

Calling someone an asshole in Wikipedia's voice is liable to get you a block stat (at least as soon as it gets pointed out on one of the drama boards or otherwise comes to an admin's attention), with a decent chance of it being indef or at least fairly lengthy.

Calling a fellow editor an asshole might get the same, but is just as likely to merely result in being given admonishments, final warnings, final final warnings, and/or a request to strike the personal attack or else you'll get a block. (Which will in addition probably be a short-term one unless you've got a history of that kind of behaviour, or are new) Or it might even just be plain shrugged off if enough folks figure "well yeah [other party] was indeed behaving like an asshole" and/or "that's just how [editor] is, but they otherwise do good work so we don't want to lose them".

[Konveyor Belt]

I don't think opinions (if misgendering someone counts as an "opinion") have evolved that much in just three years. If anything, they've gone backwards as of late.

There is a very vocal anti-trans minority, but polls in the US show that they really are a minority. Most people support trans rights, but there are concerns about trans people participating in sports and about giving puberty-blockers to children. Personally, I don't think those are unreasonable things to be concerned about, but it is difficult to have productive discussions about them when people on both sides of the issue are taking such polarizing positions.

I agree in general that the vocal anti-trans minority is just a minority, but they're also a very online minority. Though Wikipedia is more insulated from online trends than social media, it can still feel their influence. For example, Athaenara thought at least some people might agree with what she posted at Isabelle Belato's RFA. This assumption was wrong, but I suspect whatever online bubble she was in made her think it would not be and emboldened her to post it. I'd argue she would not have been so confident in posting it 3 or even 5 years ago.