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

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance). 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 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). Michigan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Two out of 3 deceased students have been named. Brian Fraser and Alexandria Verner. Third students family wishes for the victims name to remain anonymous. Mouse3226 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't name them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not up to you. That's up to our WP:RS. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took some pictures of campus today. If anyone finds them useful there's at c:Category:Michigan State University shooting. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the cited article indicating anyone who survived the Oxford School Shooting was a survivor of the MSU shooting. The women profiled transferred out before the Oxford shooting and there’s no mention of her “Oxford friends” who were at MSU surviving the Oxford Shooting. CovertCat5 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno which source you're looking at, but CNN has an article on this entire issue: [2] —Locke Cole • t • c 22:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at the citation currently in the article. It doesn’t support what it is being used to cite. CovertCat5 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? What about the CNN article? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It’s not in the Wikipedia article. As of now, the current citation doesn’t support the claim made in the article. CovertCat5 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If additional citations are needed, I do have some: New York Times, Hill, Washington Post, Detroit Free Press, ClickOnDetroit, BBC. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section is just a media beatup. Neither student was ever at the scene of a previous shooting. One left Oxford before the shooting, the other was just in lockdown at a different school to Sandy Hook. Neither student was ever in danger of a previous attack, let alone being a "survivir". WWGB (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the CNN source says I linked to above says: “(Fourteen) months ago I had to evacuate from Oxford High School when a fifteen year old opened fire and killed four of my classmates and injured seven more. Tonight, I am sitting under my desk at Michigan State University, once again texting everyone ‘I love you,’” Emma Riddle, a freshman studying history at the university tweeted overnight Monday. “When will this end?” and Emma Riddle survived the first shooting in Oxford by hiding in the band hall where others had barricaded the door before eventually fleeing to a store in the area, her father said, recalling the phone call he got as she ran away.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I failed to subscribe to the section. Anyways, I do want to add that I have never seen a definition of a school shooting survivor exclude those present in the area, but not encountered by a gunman. The CNN source that has been mentioned earlier also says, :::Some Michigan State University students who survived Monday’s mass shooting – and their parents – had already been through a similar, horrific experience. A seperate ClickOnDetroit article, A Sandy Hook survivor has lived through a second school shooting after three students were shot and killed on Michigan State University’s campus Monday. A separate Detroit Free Press article, More than a decade has passed since Jackie Matthews survived the Sandy Hook shooting, crouched down in her sixth grade class in a different school in the district as students were directed to shelter in place. (In all cases, emphasis mine.) Thus, by our reliable sources, those that were present on campus would be fair to describe as survivors. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the loose-with-the-truth media, Jackie Matthews was never a "Sandy Hook survivor". She was in lockdown in a different school, miles away from Sandy Hook. WWGB (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the section has clarified that for a while now. Love of Corey (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current section reads like this:

Some students who were on campus at the time of the shooting were impacted by other mass shootings; one had been at Oxford High School during the 2021 shooting, while another had facetimed with friends in Oxford High School while at another school, and another student had been put on lockdown at a different school in Newtown, Connecticut, during the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Is there a reason we're using tortured English to avoid using names here? The way it's worded (without names) makes it unnecessarily (as there's no policy against naming people) confusing for our readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, sure. While I disagree with your viewpoint, even if everything I said gets discounted there is still the point that Locke Cole made regarding the CNN source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree that Emma Riddle was on-campus at two different shootings, and worth a mention in this article. I don't buy the "survivor" angle as she was never anywhere near the shooting; you cannot survive a threat that did not exist. The other two were never previously present at an active shooter attack, they just knew people who were. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lived through, experienced, something that captures the trauma of going through an experience like that twice. Modern American language is "therapy-informed" (for want of a better way to say it) and I understand why people gravitate towards "survivor". But plain English is better, especially when so much of our readership isn't going to be Americans.

The students and professor in Room 114 in Berkey are clearly "survivors" of the shooting, as are any others who encountered McRae in Berkey or the Union. But I don't mean to minimise the trauma everyone else experienced when I say they don't fit the plain English meaning of "survivor". Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the places where phrase "gunshot wound to the head" (the lead and the bottom of the "shooting" section) has a source that supports that it was a head wound. Does anyone know a source that supports this? The only thing I can find this this WSJ reporting which quotes McRae's neighbour as saying "The cops pulled up and he shot himself in the head" (which isn't a solid-enough reference). Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this was information that was reported on the scanner and not from an official, attributable statement. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Booking photo Anthony Dwayne McRae 2019 Michigan arrest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the leading theories as to why mass shootings still occur is because of infamy that comes from it. I think it is best that we remove all mentions of the perpetrators name outside of the section specifically stating who they are, because we should care more about the victims and hero’s who either saved lives or protected others. 2604:2D80:DE04:4600:7C1F:E7DE:56A2:AE07 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a reasonable sentiment, this isn't how we do things in articles. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. Love of Corey (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings don't just "occur" out of the blue, so I think using the passive a mass shooting occurred isn't the best option here. We should describe what happened - three people were murdered, five injured - by a gunman. It was a mass shooting, but it didn't just occur out of the blue - it was carried out by McRae. Guettarda (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event, not the victims, so the first sentence should mention a mass shooting occurred. Not that people were killed. Love of Corey (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey I opened this discussion so we could come to a consensus here - please don't post-and-revert, that's unconstructive. I agree the article is about the shooting, but the shooting was done by people and happened to people. Guettarda (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the opening of the Sandy Hook shooting, it says The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people. That's much more in keeping with the normal structure of the lead of a Wikipedia article.

If you look at Parkland, it says On February 14, 2018, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz opened fire on students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the Miami suburban town of Parkland, Florida, murdering 17 people and injuring 17 others. That one is less to my liking, and less standard, but it's still identifies the shooting as an action.

I disagree with the extent to which both of them feature the shooter. But I think they are closer to where we should be headed. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying something different based on the Sandy Hook lead. It gets most of the article title into the first few words of the opening sentence. How does that look? Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most mass shooting articles begin with "On [date], a mass shooting occurred at ...". I prefer that format for consistency. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it still has the issue that it isn't fully accurate. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the one survivor who was named was removed with the edit summary There is no consensus to name surviving victims. I'm not quite sure how there can be "no consensus" when there was no discussion, so I'm starting the discussion. Why shouldn't be name the survivors, at least the ones whose families have talked to the press about them? Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support following what our sources provide. I find this helps the neutrality of these articles, which often drift into excruciating detail on the assailant and the event itself, while trying to omit any and all details about those affected by the incident. "Dehumanizing" is the word I'd use to describe how these articles sometimes end up. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I accept that recent discussions have supported the naming of fatalities. But naming survivors? Really? That contradicts so many policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have no problem naming survivors like Brandon Tsay who were actively involved in defending an attack, but there is no benefit to the reader in naming survivors who are otherwise not noteworthy and happened to be in the wrong place. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it genuinely necessary to turn every discussion into a !vote? I'll come back to give a proper response to the various policies, but it's wholly unnecessary to vote at this point. See what I did above? I just replied to the conversation without feeling compelled to bold a "support" or "oppose". —Locke Cole • t • c 01:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's my business how I choose to express myself. No harm in making oneself clear. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a fair point, WWGB, but I think that applies as much to the people who died as those who were injured. Huapilla-Perez has received a fair amount of news coverage, I think in part because of her GoFundMe campaign which has raised a remarkable amount of money, and to a lesser extent because she is part of the College Assistance Migrant Program.

  Articles like these accrete content in the immediate aftermath, and then are pruned. Right now, I think we should cover what the media is covering. What's important and what isn't can really only be decided retrospectively. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As promised, a rebuttal: But naming survivors? Really? Is this so shocking, given that our articles are written summary-style, with an eye towards giving our readers an overview of a topic or subject? Proportionally speaking, the victims (inclusive of survivors) are covered widely, from their conditions for those injured to those who simply speak out using the platform being involved in such an incident provides. You mention Brandon Tsay, and as I said on the talk page there, I'd be a "Weak keep" for the separate article (mostly owing to his State of the Union appearance and continued presence in the media), but not because he defended himself. Look at X González and David Hogg, both people who merely survived a similar school shooting, but they now stand on their own with their own articles. Are we there yet for some of these survivors? No, but omitting them completely from an incident with which they were involved (and about which they have chosen to speak publicly and advocate on) seems like a violation of the Five Ws of writing.

  As to the policies: WP:NOTNEWS– a reading of this policy makes clear it is inapplicable, this article is not "original reporting" (our editors here are following what our sources are reporting, there is no original content at play), it is not "news report[ing]" as the subject (the mass shooting) is clearly notable per our standards, and this seems to be concerned with articles on news events in general, and "who's who" is relevant, but as noted there our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. We aren't writing a complete biography for them, and our coverage is proportional (I'd say we're actually too conservative in describing the trauma survivors of these events go through). Their "importance to the overall topic" is likewise decided by our sources.

  WP:UNDUE– I think this is self explanatory from the previous, but again, our coverage is actually very conservative in our article compared to what our sources are doing. For example, take this NBC Nightly News broadcast from tonight (here– link will skip to the time segment; 9:51), an assistant professor, Marco Díaz-Muñoz is still discussing and doing interviews about his experience. We mention him in the Shooting section, but despite his repeated media appearances and interviews (he also appeared on CNN, see [3] here), we don't mention him anywhere else. As @Guettarda notes below, we can prune information that doesn't stand up over time, but we shouldn't be using personal preference to overrule our sources.

  WP:NOTDIRECTORY– Not even sure what part you think applies here, as none of it seems relevant to this discussion.

  no benefit to the reader in naming survivors who are otherwise not noteworthy and happened to be in the wrong place. That is not for you to decide. If we follow our sources, respect neutrality (WP:NPOV, which WP:DUE is part of), and provide a balanced view of these people proportional to the overall coverage of this event, then we're doing it right. Suggesting some invisible/undiscussed scheme that deviates from our sources for inclusion/exclusion is original research. The only policy concern I'll express is WP:BLP, and only in so much as our coverage of survivors needs to be very well sourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We have named survivors before, but it has depended on their actions or someone's actions to them during the incident. For one incident, the person was shot, but was able to call 911 and helped tell the 911 operators where the shooter was which was apparently relayed to first responders. For another incident, the person was named not because of her actions, but because of others. She was shot while pregnant and she survived, but the shot was fatal to the child. A person took a photograph of her in grief after being shot and it became a notable picture of the incident in reports. Unfortunately, all I am aware of about her is that she is a student who graduated from a Florida high school, that she attended MSU and was shot in this incident, and that her family has started a GoFundMe due to the extensive injuries that she received in the shooting. Based on other articles, it seems like this would not normally be included in the article based on an old policy called WP:NOTMEMORIAL that only was to apply to the subjects of articles that was also misapplied to exclude naming victims from shootings in the past. (As referenced above, editors would give a significant amount of coverage on the shooter while trying to keep those killed or injured nameless and downplay their actions when possible.) Given recent changes though, I do think that we could include a mention of the names of injured students, though I would recommend having the sentence also say that she was critically injured in the shooting and a mention of the GoFundMe because of the shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WWGB's argument. Love of Corey (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's more support than opposition to inclusion here. Please don't remove them again while this discussion is ongoing - we can find consensus in a reasonable, constructive fashion. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change. School districts close to the university also canceled their classes the day after the shooting; they included the Webberville Community Schools, Lansing Public Schools, Haslett, and East Lansing Public schools.[53

To. School districts close to the university also canceled their classes the day after the shooting; they included the Webberville Community Schools, Lansing Public Schools, Haslett, Okemos Public Schools,and East Lansing Public schools.[53 Nameismyname (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I should be added. Okemos has a very personal connection with msu if we include Weberville which is farther away from campus than Okemos. Okemos is very close to campus so I think it should be included Nameismyname (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N Duplicated request - This request is similar or the same as your prior request above. Please discuss this topic at your prior request rather than making a new one. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to just trim the entire list. EL is where the shooting occurred, so it's worth mentioning, along with "surrounding" school districts. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an edit about how this tragedy is now being used as part of a Biore ad campaign that in effect normalized the shooting into just another stress that will work itself out. I would like to know why this edit was removed. It is an accurate reporting of an actual occurrence. if needed reference a Biore ad created by cecilleemax on TikTok. Please advise or restore the edit 70.178.94.98 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that it is part of an "ad campaign"? Looks to me like a Tik Tok creation without merit or significance by a bored kid. No reason for inclusion here. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove your head from the sand here:

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/biore-tiktok-slammed-school-shooting-survivor/ 70.178.94.98 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it appears that source 52 is not properly cited. 138.43.84.132 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]