Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

RfC notice: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles

An RfC relevant to this project may be interested in has been opened at

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles

Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Usage differences between articles and categories for the term survivor

@WikiVirusC: agreed with me in Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Survivor_classification that this would be a good place to have this discussion. I imagine WP:Wikiproject Death and WP:WikiProject Firearms would also be related, should they be looped in?

The issue is the descriptions of categories:

1. Category:American shooting survivors These are people of American nationality who survived injury from a shooting.
2. Category:Shooting survivors These are people who have survived serious injury from a shooting. For those who did not survive, see Category:Deaths by firearm.
3. Category:Shooting victims This category is for victims who sustained gunshot injuries.

Three articles David Hogg (activist) and Emma González and Cameron Kasky all refer to their subjects as "survivors" and cite sources which refer to them as survivors. However because none of the 3 were actually injured during the Stoneman shooting, they do not fall within the parameters of the descriptions of the 'American' category or the 2 above it in the chain.

I am looking for opinions regarding whether or not we should change the descriptions of these categories to include people who did not sustain gunshot injuries.

If so, I would like us to create new categories reflecting the old definitions, so we can set apart those who survived gunshot injuries vs those who survived being in a place where a shooting occurred but who were not actually touched by a bullet. Perhaps category:shooting victims who were shot or a briefer Category:shot shooting victims ?

If not, then perhaps we should create a subcategory of Category:Crime witnesses (where I have placed the 3, as I removed the 'survivors' categories from their pages until the discrepency with their definitions is resolved) like Category:Shooting witnesses more specific to them?

@James James Morrison Morrison: given that you reverted my changes to these 2 of these 3 pages just now, perhaps you could provide some input regarding this? The categories you added to these 2 pages have descriptions which mislead readers as to what happened to these people.

@MrX: since in special:diff/828491044 you did also (I have to award JJMM the "better summary" award here) I'd also like your input regarding this issue. What is the better solution? Changing the category descriptions, or leaving as-is and creating different categories to reflect non-injured witnesses present in the general area a crime occurred? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We have to go by what the sources say. The media is using “survivor” in the sense that the students survived the trauma of the school shooting. Those that hid, but weren’t wounded, are referred to as survivors as well. For example (copied from Cameron Kasky and Emma González references):

• "How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement"
• "Students Who Survived Florida Shooting Want Politicians To Know They're Angry"
• "Parkland-Shooting Survivor Logs Off Facebook After Death Threats"
• "School Shooting Survivor Allegedly Getting Death Threats From NRA Supporters"
• "Survivors of the Florida School Shooting Are Planning to March on Washington"
• "Florida survivors to march on Washington"
• In addition, an article by a “survivor” from a different school shooting is titled "I Am a School Shooting Survivor." She hid but wasn’t wounded.

-JJMM (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't add the category American shooting survivors for Cameron Kasky or Emma González, and it shouldn't be changed to the category Crime witnesses (@ScratchMarshall-as you had done) because these kids were more than witnesses. -JJMM (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best (and simplest) to change the description of the category American shooting survivors to reflect the way the media is using the term "survivor." For example something like, "These are people of American nationality who survived direct trauma from a shooting, by hiding and/or being wounded." -JJMM (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the TIME piece by Devorah Heitner, I'm not sure if we should include self-ascribed survivors when weighing this, probably a conflict of interest. Better to rely on uninvolved journalists.

@James James Morrison Morrison: regardless of what conclusions we reach on whether to describe them as survivors, they were certainly witnesses too... or is it possibly to survive a hazard without witnessing it? The only case I can think is where someone is asleep/unconcious prior to the hazard beginning and I don't know if that applying to anyone here. I suppose it could qualify to someone who is shot in their sleep.

The first 6 all appear to apply to the recent case. Looking more broadly though, has no distinction been made between survivors of "X" v "attempted X"? Or basically, does being a victim of a shooting primarily mean that you were shot, or shot AT ? If we adopt the inclusive 2nd usage and not the 1st exclusive usage, I think it'd be useful to have a category which specifies people who actually got hit by bullets.

If we look at people who populate the category (50 Cent, Reagen, etc) these are people who were actually hit by bullets. I believe there are people interested in that (what the category is currently defined as including) without bloating the category with people who were not hit by bullets.

Aside from these 3, are there other people in this category not hit by bullets? I think we should split it in the hit / not-hit aspect.

I'm not even sure if 'shot at' even applies here, because I don't know if any of these 3 were in Building 12 or not. If they were not, then media appears to be using a broad sort of...

even if you were not shot, even if you were not shot at, if you were on a school campus with a shooter, even if they were in an entirely different building, you are a victim and a survivor because the idea of other people getting shot in nearby buildings is traumatic

meaning?

Makes me wonder which portion of New York City is a 9/11 survivor, if it extends beyond those who escaped the towers to those in adjacent buildings?

I can submit to a broadened 'survivor' definition than what category definitions use, but in this case I believe in applying a new definition, to deal with a potential new influx of additions, we should create subcategories with the old definitions with names that reflect the old definitions. Thus the Category:shot survivors idea.

We could then move any who apply (probably most of them, since they would be pre-redefine) into the new subcategory on a case-by-case basis. People actually hit by bullets, actually injured by shooting, deserve a special distinction. Distinguishing physically injured from psychologically injured is obviously the intention of the present definitions, and also conforms to Sheriff's department victim tallies.

I'm not sure whether or not "direct trauma" wound be appropriate for hiders. Do we have any reliable sources referring to hiding-based trauma as "direct" trauma? Being wounded seems a lot more direct than hiding to me. For example the direct "victims of murder" would be the people actually murdered, while "indirect victims of murder" I think would refer to people traumatized by witnessing the murder or hearing about it.

JJMM what do you think would be an appropriate name for the proposed subcategories specific only to physical wounds? Did some redlinks above. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If editors want to add a new category to differentiate and reflect the way the media is referring to the Parkland survivors, it should be named "American school shooting survivors." The description should align with the way that well-established, notable, reliable media is using the term “survivor,” as a survivor of a school shooting trauma. The only people currently affected by this discussion are the three prominent Parkland survivors with Wikipedia pages: Kasky, González, and Hogg. I have nothing further to add at this point. Thank you for asking for my input. -JJMM (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point that those who were never injured should not be called incident "survivors." It begs the question: were ALL hundreds of students there "survivors"? What of those outside say during lunch? How about neighbors who might have taken in theory a stray bullet? Does "survivor" extend to the whole evacuation/shelter-in-place zone? "Involved person" or "associated-person" could imply guilt. Maybe "shooting witness" or "incident witness" for those reasonably close enough to qualify. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A classic case of overthinking. The Parkland kids ain't dead. They were hunted down but survived. Case closed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD comments for Operation Brand please

Right after being made, the article Operation Brand (which has come under this project) got a deletion nomination. The AfD discussion is 2-3 so far --not enough feedback for a real quorum. Please, editors, take a peek at the AfD and maybe weigh in. Best wishes, Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

New article on Relisha Rudd (8yr old who disappeared in Washington DC)

The Rudd case has been upheld as an example of media and authorities failing to respond to the disappearance of a poor African-American child, contrasted with missing white woman syndrome. I have started a short article on Rudd, but there are a lot of details that can be filled in. Posting here in case anyone wants to contribute. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)