Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reaction section

Re "reaction" section and this material - reaction sections are always kind of tough, especially on very recent events where a full perspective haven't emerged yet. I would agree that we don't want to overwhelm the article with trivial reactions (many "International reactions of" articles are plagued with long, repetitive lists).

Nevertheless, the political and media reactions to the shooting (whether we consider them appropriate, inappropriate, distasteful, whatever), are part of the story, and so we can't simply ignore them; rather, we should summarize them. My view is that the few sentences on it (see the diff above) are appropriate because they are in the summary style, are supported by multiple high-quality sources (Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN, etc.) and because they make up a small % of the article. Neutrality^talk 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the content in question until a consensus is reached via this thread. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• It shouldn't say Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws and Republicans sending "tweets of thoughts and prayers." Also not say "some". Mention an exact number and list what they all said. Democrats Name1 and Name2 called for stronger gun-control laws would be fine. As for who sent their "thoughts and prayers", that's meaningless nonsense that all candidates on any political party would do. Dream Focus 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't often hear it from the Libertarian Party. But yes, any of the two we typically cite in these sort of articles would. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Tea Party jumped in with "Dead Shooter ID'd: Devout Muslim Syed Farook" and "Before Shooting, Calif. Killer Talked On Phone With Terrifying Person… And Obama’s FBI Knew It".^[1][2] --Marc Kupper|talk 21:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:summary style concerns the case where another article exists, cited as the main article for the section. It's not summary style if there isn't a page being summarized. Also, I reject the notion that whoever wants to delete something should be a "majority one one" until everyone agrees (which he never will). Wnt (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. Neutrality^talk 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Reactions" section was very much POV and agenda pushing. I have deleted it from the article. A quick check shows that the conservative response does not seem to be "tweets and prayers".

• http://www.foxnews.com/
  • "REMEMBERING VICTIMS: Vigils, prayer sessions spring up following San Bernardino massacre"^[3]
  • "Alveda King on rampage: 'We have to pray and get direction'"^[4]
  • "Obama: Thoughts and prayers are with San Bernardino victims"^[5]
  • No mention of the word "tweet" and so it does not seem to be a headline thought.
• https://www.gop.com/platform/ - no mention of this incident
• http://www.teaparty.org/
  • No mention of "pray" and the word "tweet" appears once and was by Guy Benson who is a conservative journalist and pundit.^[6]

I'd summarize the conservative response as blaming Obama, radical Islam, liberals, immigrants, and leftist California. Here's the text I deleted in case someone someone wants to figure out how to make it WP:NPOV and to see if it gets consensus here.

Some 2016 presidential candidates reacted to the attack, with Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws and Republicans sending "tweets of thoughts and prayers". The latter reaction was critiqued by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who wrote "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing—again". The New York Daily News' front-page headline, "God isn't fixing this", was accompanied by "images of tweets from leading Republicans who shared their 'thoughts' and 'prayers' for the shooting victims".

--Marc Kupper|talk 01:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Marc, with respect you are mistaken on all counts. The section is NPOV and there is a consensus for inclusion.

On the use of sources, I think you have it backwards on policy. The official party website ("gop.com") is not the exclusive source for the stance of the group or any individuals. In fact, it's often not the best source - the best source is usually a reliable, well-respected independent source (the AP, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, etc.). See WP:PRIMARY. It is these sources that can best summarize stance, and we usually cite to them. As to the tea party website, the same logic applies, except the tea party official website is doubly irrelevant, since our section never purported to sum up Tea Party views.

As to the rest of the section, every proposition is directly supported by a reliable, high-quality source (Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN), and every opinion is framed in terms of the voice of the person expressing the opinion. No opinion is framed in Wikipedia's voice. Neutrality^talk 14:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The section was an attempt to belittle Republicans using emphasis framing. It was very much POV wording and was balanced at all.

A more neutral summary would be that Democrats and Republicans both immediately introduced legislation that pushed their traditional agenda with Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws (need specifics and a citation about 'traditional agenda'). Republican Senator Paul Rand introduced legislation to loosen gun control laws^[7] and to suspend the U.S. visa program for countries that pose a high-risk to the U.S.A.^[8] Both of Senator Rand's proposals were defeated.^[9] None of Paul Rand's press releases include dates. Use this page to get the dates. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, so your idea of a "more neutral" version is to cite three times to Rand Paul's press releases on his campaign website? It beggars belief. Neutrality^talk 20:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

With every respect to Neutrality, I stand by this edit. Wikipedia is neither newspaper nor crystal ball; to have a paragraph that says, essentially, "the president will be giving an address soon" is completely irrelevant. What he says during the address will almost certainly include something worthy of inclusion—after he says it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the speech is complete now, so it's all a moot point. But it is certainly not crystal-balling (which implies speculation) - the White House had announced the speech ahead of time and it was well-covered by the media. Nor is it "just news" in my opinion - the imminent speech was part of a complete discussion of the shooting incident. It is no different than having an article on the Paris climate talks and saying "Prime Minister X, Chancellor Y, and President Z have all confirmed that they will be attending." With great respect --Neutrality^talk 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply; I continue to respectfully disagree. You are quite right about one thing, though: it's now moot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree; in retrospect I would have waited the 5 minutes and then put up the speech details upon the end of the speech. Cheers --Neutrality^talk 01:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Most kind. May I ask a favor? It would really help a lot if you'd employ one of the {{cite}} tags in your references. With thanks. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Thalasinos

User:WWGB removed this because he said "no evidence that a two-week-old argument had any bearing on this incident". However, the timing of this incident might have occurred sooner because of the argument between the co-worker.

Prior to the shooting, there was heated argument at the Inland Regional Center involving one of the victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, a “born again” Messianic Jew who worshipped Jesus. Thalasinos was a restaurant inspector who worked with Farook. Thalasinos' wife argued that this argument was likely between Thalasinos and Farook. According to Thalasinos' friend, there was a previous incident where Thalasinos and Farook argued whether Islam is a peaceful religion. Being critical of Islam, Thalasinos maintains a Facebook page denouncing it, with one of his posts blaming Islam for the September 11 attacks and another accusing U.S. President Barack Obama of being a Muslim. However, Thalasinos' wife believed that Farook was radicalized "behind the scenes" and was not due to the dispute between them.[10] 3D Face Analysis (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems your position is based entirely on original research and supposition. WWGB (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was it original research? The statements were summaries referring to direct messages and the quotes taken from the article.

"Prior to the shooting, there was heated argument at the Inland Regional Center involving one of the victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, a “born again” Messianic Jew who worshipped Jesus." -> "Nicholas Thalasinos, a devout Zionist, became furious with Syed Rizwan Farook, a fellow restaurant inspector, during work, declaring that the Muslim man “doesn’t agree that Islam is not a peaceful religion.” & "“He knew Syed. He worked with him,” Jennifer Thalasinos, 41, told The Post outside her home in Colton, Calif. “And he never had anything bad to say about [Syed],” she said."

"Thalasinos was a restaurant inspector who worked with Farook. Thalasinos' wife argued that this argument was likely between Thalasinos and Farook." -> "As for initial reports that Farook argued with an unidentfied co-worker at an office holiday party moments before returning with his wife and weapons, Jennifer said that worker could well have been her husband."

"According to Thalasinos' friend, there was a previous incident where Thalasinos and Farook argued whether Islam is a peaceful religion." -> "Farook shot back that Americans don’t understand Islam, to which Thalasinos responded by saying, “I don’t know how to talk with him,” according to Kuuleme Stephens, a friend of Thalasinos’ who told The Associated Press that she heard the exchange while talking with him on the phone."

"Being critical of Islam, Thalasinos maintains a Facebook page denouncing it, with one of his posts blaming Islam for the September 11 attacks" -> "“On behalf of this guy . . . You can stick your Million Muslim March up your asses,” Nicholas posted on Sept. 11, 2013, with a photo of an office worker plummeting to his death from the blazing World Trade Center on 9/11."

"and another accusing U.S. President Barack Obama of being a Muslim." -> "A post from October 2013 also included a photo of a man falling to his death from the trade center. Above it, Nicholas posted the quote and attribution: “ ‘The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer’ — Barack Hussein Obama.”"

"However, Thalasinos' wife believed that Farook was radicalized "behind the scenes" and was not due to the dispute between them.[1]" -> "But Jennifer also said she believed Farook may have been radicalized “behind the scenes” in the years before Wednesday’s mass shooting but wasn’t showing “that part of himself” at work."

I left out irrelevant stuff about Thalasinos' online activities unrelated to Farook, including him arguing with other Muslims on his Facebook page.

3D Face Analysis (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It also seems to violate WP:SYNTH as it is connecting two seperate events without a reliable source. ,ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it SYNTH? All of the statements (including the Facebook statements) come from the same article. I did not synthesize two different sources.3D Face Analysis (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just newspaper blah blah gooky goo. We can't include every possible detail and argument that cemented Farook's faith...Bod (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, hopefully LE is following up, but does seem like SYNTH, as ParkH.Davis pointed out, without RS stating the same conclusion Velojareal (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it SYNTH? All of the statements (including the Facebook statements) come from the same article. I did not synthesize two different sources. 3D Face Analysis (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems pretty tenuous. Here's the edit [11]. One thinks it was a heated conversation with Farook, the other apparently said there was a dispute ... but neither really has any data to prove a direct link. We're talking about people who had been in Saudi Arabia, the wife with a hard fundamentalist background, the husband practicing target shooting for years, both with lots of equipment and a plan... it seems really far-fetched to suppose they threw it all together in two weeks on account of an argument. I'm not saying the argument can't be mentioned somehow, but be careful not to exaggerate its meaning. Wnt (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the ISIL article in the NYT below from earlier in the year, they recommended that lone wolfs attack during events (like a holiday party), presumably to maximize damage. I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this. Anyone who thinks this was a simple case of workplace violence needs to remove themselves from this topic. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: That's true, but it doesn't make these issues totally meaningless. The killers may well have veered this way and that looking for higher-value targets like the guy with the rainbow gay pride earring and the one they argued with a few weeks back. I would imagine that there is a certain psychological comfort one could take if that's true -- more people would have died if everyone was equal, whereas if they pursued these targets out of proportion to the tactical situation, the deaths of those particular victims may have saved a larger number of lives of those who escaped in the meanwhile. Of course, that part we cannot say in the article unless a source says it, but I think we can allow a little leeway to mention that certain victims had particular traits that might have annoyed radical Muslims. As long as we don't make it sound like they planned the whole rampage around it, since we don't have any such indication. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: Again, I'm not getting this line of reasoning. This had nothing to do with workplace violence. They dropped the baby off because they planned the attack. There are indications, according to various victim reports, that there was at least two weeks prior planning involved. Although it's a terrible source, I'm referring to the victim testimony published by Hannity. I'm generally considered a libby's libtard around here, but conservatives do have a point that there seems to be an attempt to downplay this incident as a terrorist attack. I'm sympathetic to the reasons why officials would want to keep this quiet. First, they don't want to panic people. Second, they don't want to endanger mainstream Muslims who are law abiding and good citizens. Third, the number of people killed since 9/11 is quite small. And fourth, any reaction is bound to endanger civil liberties. However, they cannot expect the public to feel safe unless they start enforcing restrictions on people who come from the countries that are causing these problems. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't believe I just read this on an encyclopedia talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything I've mentioned has been discussed in RS related to this incident. "In the aftermath of the recent scourge of mass shootings—from San Bernardino to Colorado Springs to Charleston—as well as attacks aimed at Black Lives Matter protesters, many have asked why the media and public officials have been hesitant to call the suspects 'terrorists.'"[12] Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There was hesitancy in the beginning (out of caution, I would argue), but that is no longer the case, now that more information has been gleaned by the investigation. Obama will address the nation on Sunday: The President will also discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. "He will reiterate his firm conviction that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values -- our unwavering commitment to justice, equality and freedom -- to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology."[13] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And therein lies one of the problems in relying on the government to affirm motive in situations like this. President Obama still says that the 2009 Fort Hood attack is workplace violence, and not terrorism. He also refuses to say incidents like the San Bernardino attack is "Islamic" terrorism, claiming that the perpetrators aren't acting within the tenants of Islam. To the extent that an Administration can order those who report to him to follow his lead this kind of propaganda permeates the public statements and is gladly reported by media who are only too willing to comply. Virtually every terrorism expert I heard was calling it Islamic terrorism from the first day. grifterlake (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it gets better. Cwobeel is claiming below that we can't call this "Islamic terrorism", only "terrorism". Have I entered the Twilight Zone? Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, no twilight zone. WP:V zone. Please WP:AGF. What I am saying is that in WP we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See for example 2014 Las Vegas shootings described as domestic terrorism, and not as right-wing terrorism, white supremacy terrorism, or patriot movement terrorism. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel, WP:V, and it's been "verified". Verified by the two "P"s. By both the PRESS and the POLICE. That this attack was inspired, moved, and motivated, by radical Islamic ideology and sentiments. It's been "verified" sufficiently at this point, otherwise they would not be investigating this as Islamic terrorism at this point. Not just "terrorism", but ISIS-inspired stuff. Redzemp (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It describes it at "domestic terrorism" because you can't logically derive "right wing", "white supremacy" or "patriot movement" (other than that they "supported the Patriot movement", but didn't belong to it) leanings from the WP article. But you can logically derive "anti-government" leanings from the article, so that's why the motive is "anti-government beliefs". They were primarily anti-authority, and specifically anti-police. Based on their membership in Cop Block you could logically conclude they might have been supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. When a devout Muslim commits acts of terrorism it is specifically to advance the cause of Islam--restoring the Caliphate, spreading Sharia law, making Islam the dominant world religion, striking at the infidels for Allah, etc. That's why you can put the word "Islamic" in in front of terrorism in this case. grifterlake (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

they might have been supporters. Exactly. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet the big difference is that the "patriot movement" isn't a terrorist group or terrorist related. ISIS is an Islamic terrorist organization. You can be in the patriot movement and not be a terrorist. Likewise, you could be in the patriot movement and be a terrorist. The two operate independently of each other. But if you are in ISIS, or support ISIS through illegal actions you are by definition, an Islamic terrorist. Come on, people. It's not like we are debating whether some discovery by the Mars rover means there is life on Mars. When people support a terrorist organization whose mission statement is built around advancing a religion it's perfectly legitimate, if not preferred to put the name of that religion in front of the word "terrorist". grifterlake (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does the info box in the article have the word "possible" in "possible Islamic terrorism"? Why is the word "possible" there, when it's already pretty been confirmed? This was not a shooting by disgruntled employees over a pay raise or promotion or some tiff of personalities. And the type of place that was shot up was not a controversial one at all. Helping infirm and disabled people. No, it as a neutral soft target, that just happened to be where they worked, conveniently, from Islamic State ideology to shoot up. Is this still a matter of "possible" Islamic terrorism, as the info box conveys it (no doubt due to the minimizer editors getting in there with that)? Also, as I said in another part of this talk page, let's take a vote already on name change of the article to "2015 San Bernardino terrorist shooting". Thanks. Redzemp (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Anyway, I see that the info box wording was changed to "investigated as...Islamic terrorism"...which is better. Redzemp (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I can live with that. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent travel to the Middle East

The lede reads that "the couple's recent travel to the Middle East", but I can only find references to Farrok traveling to Saudi Arabia to get married. Did they travel to other countries as well? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any either. That language should come out. Good catch. Neutrality^talk 00:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon re-read of the cited sources, I'm in full agreement. It's gone. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast, somehow this cite was lost. It's later in the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html. It contains almost this exact phrase. All the best, Bod (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Still, given a vague one and a specific one, we'd go with the latter. Like how we don't say they lived in North America. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This 3 December article contains early information that later was clarified. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then say he went to Saudi Arabia in 2014 somewhere in the lead? Bod (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that the travel was apparently for the hajj and to meet and marry Malik, it's in the body and not lead-worthy, in (admittedly) my own estimation. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So would I, but Cwobeel is a killjoy ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, folks - Cwobeel (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have now is that the original sentence was a direct paraphrase of the NYT. Three reasons were given for the decision to investigate the shooting as an act of terrorism.

• extensive arsenal
• Middle East travel
• one in touch with people with "Islamic extremist views" Bod (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

yes, but that has evolved. Now we know that they only traveled to Saud Arabia. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

He to, she from, if I read the more recent sources correctly. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

She to, too, but back in the day. When does "recent" end? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"The F.B.I. uncovered evidence that Mr. Farook communicated with extremists, domestically and abroad, a few years ago, but not recently, according to congressional officials who were briefed on the investigation." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not in source

This text in the "Motives" section is not supported by sources:

The FBI investigated the case as Islamic terrorism inspired by, but not directed by, ISIL.

The FBI is investigating this as a case of terrorism. There is no mention of "Islamic terrorism" in any of the comments by FBI officials.. Respecting 1RR, I am tagging that section as factually inaccurate. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, this may be indeed a case of Islamic terrorism, but the FBI has never used that definition, so that text fails WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Which was exactly why I'd removed that, once upon a time ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If the content doesn't refer to Islamic terrorism, then what does it refer to here? I have never seen anyone jump through this many hoops to remove the word "Islamic" from this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "The FBI investigated the case as terrorism inspired by, but not directed by, ISIL" was an updated version of the edit I'd made, and includes a direct link to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. That this somehow removes "Islamic" from the article is simply incorrect. Meantime, the assumption that your fellow editors are acting in good faith absent legitimate evidence to the contrary would be rather nice ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

... never mind the repetition inherent in, essentially, "Islamic terrorism inspired by the Islamic State". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the islamic terrorism and changed it to terrorism. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism in this instance only refers to Islamic terrorism. The NYT source in the section is more than clear about this: "The attack is the deadliest Islamic State-inspired attack on American soil." An Islamic State-inspired attack refers only to Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, this is yet another instance of Cwobeel and his enablers playing fast and loose with the facts. The sources only refer to Islamic terrorism, no other kind. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The FBI is investigating the case as Islamic terrorism. They've said as much. They haven't linked it to other Islamic terrorist organizations except for the facebook post that gave rise to the inspiration for the attack. They have said this pretty explicitly both on the record and in background. “The investigation so far has developed indications of radicalization by the killers and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations,” FBI Director James Comey said.[14]. And that it was more sophisticated and isolated than other Islamic terrorism where the attackers are more overt “This is not Jihad 101,” the senior law enforcement said. "Radicalized" and "jihad" are not hard to understand their context. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If the FBI didn't use the word "islamic", then neither should we. WP:SYNTH should be respected. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

They used "radicalized" and "jihad." I don't think they used mass shooting, either though. Common sense, however, is allowed and it's not synth to comprehend they are investigating Islamic terrorism when the use words exclusively associated with Islamic terrorism. The dead Islamic terrorists' own family considers it related to his recent swing to a more fundamentalist Islamic lifestyle and question whether the Islamic terrorist female radicalized her husband. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should not use any words which reliable sources are not using. To do otherwise would be to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION. If reliable sources aren't using the word "islamic" then neither should we. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. We use words which reliable sources are not using all the time—it's called paraphrasing. And if you are doing otherwise, it's called plagiarism. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

People here can continue to ignore WP:AGF and cast aspersions about other editors all they want, but last time I checked, in Wikipedia we follow the sources per WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources say they are investigating it as Islamic terrorism and many have said, if proven, it would be the largist Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. That's what is being investigate and that is what is being reported. It's a ridiculous argument to deny it. It's akin to saying it's not a murder a investigation because no one has been convicted of murder or charged with murder. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you are confusing the difference between a reliable source and a government position. The fact that the government is consistently downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism has already been discussed. To promote only one POV as you are doing is called propaganda, which is by definition unreliable. I'm sorry, but it's pretty damn obvious what's really going on here. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. The FBI is conducting a counter-terrorism probe. Obama declared the shooting as an act of terrorism, and added that it was based on a "perverted" form of Islam. That is what the sources say, and that is what we say in the article. So what is the issue here, if there is any? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I also believe that this is an act of Islamic terrorism, but we should respect the sources. If you have sources with significant viewpoints that explicitly call this "Islamic terrorism" you are most welcome to add them. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting: searching for "Islamic Terrorism" in Google News [15], brings up mostly right-wing and conservative politicians and commentators. Fascinating. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I get it now. Using "radical Islamic terrorism" is what conservative politicians and right-wing commentators prefer to use, while Democrats and progressives prefer not to use that term, on the basis that it plays to the hands of ISIL by conflating "Islam" with "terrorism". If this is the case, we should present the contrasting viewpoints in the Political reactions section, rather than take sides and express either in WP's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not just outsource the writing of this article to a government agency? It would save a lot of time. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How is that comment useful? Please enlighten me. You can continue with sarcasm and lack of good faith, but that does not get us anywhere. Find some sources, and do the work. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a stenographer for any official government position or policy. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. So what we do in WP is that we report on significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. I continue to invite you to do just that. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

While you're questioning another editor on how his comment is "useful" and accusing the same editor of sarcasm and lack of good faith, how is the following comment useful and not any of the things you accused him of? "Using "radical Islamic terrorism" is what conservative politicians and right-wing commentators prefer to use, while Democrats and progressives prefer not to use that term, on the basis that it plays to the hands of ISIL by conflating "Islam" with "terrorism"." How about you both take a breather from this talk page and article for several hours before someone gets blocked or taken to a noticeboard? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That comment was not directed at him. It was a general comment on what I found in the sources when I searched for "Islamic terrorism" in Google News. So gimme a break you too, and help make the article better. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth of Tashfeen Malik

I'm sure I saw a picture of a drivers license of Tashfeen Malik where her date of birth was given as the 13 July 1986, which would have made her 29 years old at the time of her death. The LA Times had to correct the age of Malik, which was in the beginning given with 27 years, according to this data to 29 years. In all new LA Times articles referring to Malik she is said to have been 29 years old at the time of the shooting events. Aarp65 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

JoeFranklinSBEHS (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Don't know how to do this but the site of the shooting map is incorrect. The shooting took place in the 1st floor conference room (labeled conference room on the map), not Building 2 of the complex as currently labeled. The actual conference room is most of the east side of the southern most building. There are two sets of doors on the east side, and Syed came in through the central most doors as he started shooting. The people in building 2 and building 1 (northern most location) were merely secondary victims. San Bernardino COunty Dept. of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health were the intended victims.

I'm not doubting your statements but do you have an sources confirming this information? Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Victim as cousin to NFL player?

Is the fact that one victim was the cousin of an NFL player really worthy of not? I realize that it has been reported, but it strikes me as trivial? Neutrality^talk 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a somewhat firm consensus on the "Deaths in 20xx" that WP:NOTINHERIT applies to listing family connections in blurbs, even for notable people directly related to other notable people. This is something like one of those blurbs. Personally, I find it significant when someone had a large influence on the other's notability (like Gretzky's dad, or most First Ladies). Everybody's everybody's cousin, to some degree. Even your dog and your cat. If the connection (verifiably) mattered beyond a family level, note it. Same goes for coaches or teachers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a matter of discussion. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see this fact mentioned in the article anywhere. And I think that's the way it should be, as it is trivial to what the purpose of this article is.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Malik photograph?

I have nominated the photo of Malik for removal. As near as I can tell, the photo originated with the FBI but that doesn't mean that the FBI prepared it. I don't know whether the photo is from a US passport or a foreign passport, probably Pakistani? Can a person with a conditional green card, like Malik, obtain a US passport? Does Pakistan have the same rules as the US about public domain? You can also discuss this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tashfeen_Malik.jpg --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

US passports are issued to citizens only. Green card holders cannot obtain a US passport. The photo is from her Pakistani passport, released by the FBI as part of their investigation, so it may fall under that licensing. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has moved to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tashfeen_Malik.jpg --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What should we do about the third perp?

At first all the news reports said three shooters, then it became a husband-and-wife thing. I'm still seeing divergent statements about how many shooters - this one makes it sound like there's a guy in custody, while this one makes it sound like it's pretty much two. Can people suggest some good sources and a balanced sentence to deal with the third shooter or lack thereof? Wnt (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's common in early reporting and investigations. Someone will be taken into custody on suspicion and then released later when there is shown to have no connection to the case. After Breivik's rampage in Norway, a student was taken into custody for acting suspicious, but he had nothing to do with the attack.
We've heard nothing about this third person since the attack, so we can just assume it was unrelated. The deafening silence on this is pretty telling. If there was a third person in custody there would be a lot of media coverage. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above, although I can't claim to be intimately familiar with all the coverage. In any case, if there was nothing to it, we needn't include content to clear that up for the reader; we're not a rumor clearing house. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, with the additional caveat that I did follow the coverage fairly well. Yes, this was something that came up during the initial coverage, but as has been said, nothing has come of it. I agree that we don't need to worry about having anything in the article about a third perpetrator or the reporting of one unless we do end up hearing something more about it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The police cheif covered the third person. They were checking people fleeing the gun battle area and one guy happened to have a minor warrent outstanding and so got arrested. End of story Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is significant and worthy of inclusion because they closed down a whole neighborhood during the search until they found the third suspect. Bod (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects of the "third perp." Some above in this thread correctly note that a third person was detained around the time of the shootout on the road. Other sources have said this third person was not part of the shooting plot, but was detained because of some unrelated matter. The harder part is the reported third shooter. Eyewitness testimony is often wrong. At least one eyewitness gave an interview in which she clearly stated that there were three shooters who entered the banquet, all with rifles, all clad in black. How many eyewitnesses saw two shooters at the banquet and how many saw three? I agree it is common that one shooter is reported as many, and this delays the entry of medics at a mass shooting even after the lone shooter has finally committed suicide. In one case a lion escaped at a zoo and mauled someone to death, and the emergency personnel were in fear of the other reported lions, so no aid was rendered to the for a prolonged time. Psychology experiments or demonstrations have been done in which one or more actors rush into the classroom in a pretend shooting, and the prof asks the students to write a description of what happened, wherein they get the number of persons, what they are wearing, and the weapon and number of shots wrong. I suggest we just watch for coverage of this point, when the media have had time to mull things over (its called secondary sourcing). Edison (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling this third suspect will be mentioned no more, so best if someone could get the facts on this aspect... and list them here for eventual inclusion. Bod (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Police chief said NO third shooter. Was very clear about it. That is why media dropped it. Legacypac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Initial eyewitness reports were wrong and the third *suspect* found fleeing the scene near the final shootout was nothing. The shelter-in-place order I thought was associated with this suspect... was actually surrounding the neighborhood of the townhouse. No further importance. Bod (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I found an article from the LA Times quoting the police chief as confirming that the third guy was unrelated to the attack, and cited to it. Neutrality^talk 23:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems there are two issues, which may have been confused with each other:

1. At least two alleged witnesses interviewed by network TV news have claimed there were three shooters who were white, including one employee of the Inland Regional Center (Sally Abdelmageed):
   • Sally Abdelmageed via CBS News - http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/witness-describes-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
   • Juan Hernandez via NBC News- http://www.nbcnews.com/video/it-sounded-like-a-gun-range-578218563875
2. There have also been reports from the police, news, etc of a "third suspect" who was apprehended at some point, and as User:Neutrality mentions above, is no longer a suspect in this shooting. There may have been one or more of these "third suspects", it's not clear to me and I haven't sifted through all the sources of this aspect.

First of all, this subtlety seems relevant to the article, especially since the story has shifted away from "three white shooters" such as by the police's narrative, Obama's address, etc. I would like to consider how and whether this can be elucidated in the article, but unsure about the best path to proceed. Any thoughts? -- Mattsenate (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Landlord inviting media into suspect's apartment. Suggestion

This spectacle is making some news. Would like to read about it in the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So, write it, then. You're just as capable as anyone else here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is chaotic and strange and the sources are conflicting. All agree that the event happened, but whether it was a media break-in, an FBI screw-up, or the landlord taking matters into his own hands, we do not yet seem to have clear answers. How it will impact the investigation is also not known at this time.

Obviously the landlord did NOT have ownership of the contents of the home -- the next of kin did (including the grandmother and the baby) -- so this angle of the story really does need careful sourcing and watching, as it may be subject to change. One source mentions the landlord being taken away by law enforcement, for instance. Other sources feature outright doxing of the grandmother, who is not a suspect and is not under arrest. This requires a cautious approach, and i, for one, am not going to attempt to write it.

Experts Shocked Media Allowed Into San Bernardino Killers’ Home

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-killers-apartment-media/

Media broadcasts live from inside San Bernardino attackers’ home

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/04/in-televised-broadcast-journalists-show-pictures-other-possessions-inside-san-bernardino-attackers-home/

MSNBC, other outlets gone crazy in shooting suspects' San Bernardino apartment

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-tv-news-going-crazy-apartment-san-bernadino-20151204-story.html

San Bernardino shooting: Mayhem at suspected California shooters' apartment as media allowed entry

http://www.smh.com.au/world/san-bernardino-shooting-mayhem-at-suspected-california-shooters-apartment-as-media-allowed-entry-20151204-glg56s.html

Media Enter San Bernardino Assailants' Home; Ethical, Legal Questions Follow

http://www.newsweek.com/media-enter-home-san-bernardino-assailants-ethical-legal-questions-401287

"Miller [the landlord] allowed reporters inside despite a California law that specifies that in the event of a tenant's death, "the tenancy continues until the end of the lease term."

Frenzied Media Pore Over Home Of San Bernardino Killers During Live Broadcasts

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/04/458502872/frenzied-media-pour-over-home-of-san-bernardino-killers-during-live-broadcasts

75.101.104.17 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

One CNN reporter standing by the townhouse door was saying no police around, but they must know because based on the media there and the languages he was hearing this event was available on every TV set on the planet. Anderson Cooper called it one of the strangest things he has ever seen, and Coopers seen a lot. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone seen any source questioning the legality of the landlord's actions? This seems something worth attention. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This article, from Newsweek, addresses the legal issue:

Media Enter San Bernardino Assailants' Home; Ethical, Legal Questions Follow

http://www.newsweek.com/media-enter-home-san-bernardino-assailants-ethical-legal-questions-401287

Relebant quotation: "Miller [the landlord] allowed reporters inside despite a California law that specifies that in the event of a tenant's death, "the tenancy continues until the end of the lease term."

75.101.104.17 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like obstruction of justice by contaminating a crime scene that could have been subject to further investigation. Any evidence remaining has been compromised by this media stunt.--Naaman Brown (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, police were done with it as a crime scene. No yellow tape. If they missed something, that's their problem, not justice's. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Syed Farook Islamic State connection

Syed Farook senior tells reporter that his son 'supported the creation of the Islamic State' The father of San Bernardino shooting suspect Syed Rizwan Farook said "My son said that he shared [IS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi's ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel [16][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.148 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I can read Italian, and the Stampa source brings up new information based on an interview with Farook's father. I'd wait until other sources in English pick up on the story. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

i24news already picked up the news, or are you waiting for other source to have an interview with the Father ? 37.26.146.148 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am waiting for other sources other than i24News to pick up the story, a fact that would give more weight to these reports. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the father was a disgruntled member of the family, and may have ulterior motives, so that is why we need to weight for other sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in original research just because a source contradicts your personal opinion. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I've been watching your activity all over the place, it's mostly "I", "I", "I"... first you don't own Wikipedia so nobody cares what you don't want included. Create your own website, there you can exclude stuff to your heart's content.

2. Whenever something disagrees with your agenda, your first line of defense is "not sourced". When it gets sourced, you then go "there is no consensus". When there are 20 people for inclusion and it's just you against it, suddenly it's abbreviations raining time...

Please leave and let people actually find what they want to read, it is an encyclopaedia you know, not a selectopaedia. Acting as if the religion of the shooters is not the FIRST thing that readers want to know, is damaging the objectivity of Wikipedia as a whole, and some of us are actually interested in having it once again allowed as a source in actual scientific research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.153 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors simply because they disagree with you. Please assume good faith. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors simply because they disagree with your role model acting in bad faith: ditch / bury the fact in which visitiors are MOST interested. Also this isn't high school, Cwobeel is mature enough to be capable of commenting (if he wishes so) on his dictatorial removal of sourced, searched-for, expected information. Your charging to his rescue is laughably childish.

Why does this article lead with a list of weapons used in the attack at all?

The least significant thing about this event is the exact weapons used. So why does it lead with a categorical list of the types of weapons and ammo used? Listing every weapon used and the type of ammo and where they go it, especially first, has the effect of fetishizing the weapons / weaponry at the expense of the social, emotional, and political aspects of this event. It is also potentially providing a roadmap to assist others with similar plans. While this may be of interest to gun people, it insensitive to the victims and irrelevant to what makes this event newsworthy. I think this section should be eliminated, moved to the bottom and/or severely edited to remove specific references to the exact make and models of the guns and ammo. WikiUserSF2015 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)WikiUserSF2015

First, take a deep breath, are you new to editing at Wikipedia? Thank you for your concern about the what impression the article leaves. To fix this issue, you would have to petition to have the infobox removed, or just the "weapons" part. Or you would have to take it to Template:Infobox_civilian_attack, but I will tell you right now that you are unlikely to have success with any of these methods... Moving the infobox to the bottom? Well, that won't happen; it is designed for the top. Bod (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiUserSF2015: Welcome to Wikipedia. You suggestion is not gonna happen. We are not censored and the weapons have been widely/extensively covered in high-quality sources. The weapons are obviously relevant as the instrumentality used in the attack, and of course the type of weapons used is also relevant to any policy impacts that arise in the aftermath of this tragedy (e.g., new proposed gun legislation). Neutrality^talk 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This accusation of fetishism has been raised at other articles. The most practical solution for the infobox is to head to Template talk:Infobox civilian attack and make a request that 'Weapons' is moved from no. 6 in the list of 17 parameters, to somewhere much lower in the list. As for this article, there's no real reason this amount of detail needs to be the first sub-section in the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved down to an appropriate place. Bod (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note, Template:Infobox civilian attack says the weapon field "should not be over-used" - I have removed the manufacturer names and XD model number, and piped the words "pistol" and "rifle" so the three lines sit on their own. This should be just the important details. -- Callinus (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarification. The "pipe bombs" part needs to be rethought... They used fake pipe bombs and a failed "explosive device"... Bod (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "fake pipe bombs"? As far as I know, the pipe bombs found in their garage were not fake. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor used. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have RS saying the bundle of three pipes at the conference center was a fake? The sock in tube they threw out of their car was a fake. -- Callinus (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The ease of killing a large number of people varies when the assailant use a semiautomatic rifle, a fully automatic machine gun, a muzzle loading Kentucky long rifle, or a dagger. It is obviously encyclopedic and has been included in almost every mainstream article about the atrocity. Wikipedia is not censored to protect manufacturers of particular weapons. Edison (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How did police locate their car?

This appears to be the biggest hole in the article's narrative. How did the police find their SUV after the initial shooting at the center? Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't their SUV, it was a rental. If I gave cars to strangers for that sort of money, I'd want some sort of magical device that ensures omniscient spaceships follow it everywhere (except outer space). That's this thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

KORE Wireless runs Position Logic for that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added some detail per the sources already cited. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I too want to know exactly what happened. What is the timeline of when the police went to the townhouse? Did the pair stop back at the house? Were they at the house and got away? Bod (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's the LA Times and USA Today timelines. After the shooting they went back home. The police got a call from a neighbor, saw that they rented a similar SUV and found their address. Then they started surveillance of their town house. After a bit the shooters ran and the police chased. (This is all hours after the shooting.) Snd0 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's it. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

I can't seem to move the page back to the original, I'm trying to create my own article in my own sandbox, I apologize for everything! Hope an admin can help! House1090 (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Should be move protected as a very high traffic article. Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

assault rifles

The term "assault rifle" is back in the article. The weapons in question are semiautomatic rifles. They do not meet the formal definition of "assault rifle" in that they are not capable of firing multiple rounds on a single trigger pull. They are not "assault weapons" because "assault weapons" are banned in California and neither rifle met the legal definition in California (or federally) of an "assault weapon". They were (as well) reported to have been legally purchased in California which (again) makes them neither assault weapons nor assault rifles which are not legal for purchase in California. There are multiple reliable sources using the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" incorrectly (including the New York Times). But there is no obligation on the part of Wikipedia to reflect their mistakes or false information. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that non-American publications refer to them as assault weapons. Is the term accurate outside the US? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The term originated in the US. The legal definitions of the term (assault weapon) also all originated in the US. Use of the term in many sources outside the US is simply derivative of the widespread use of the term in the US media and in US political debates. The US was somewhat unique in creating a whole series of laws (assault weapons laws) which ban guns based on cosmetic appearance or even product names rather than the actual firing capabilities of the weapons. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Assault rifle begins, "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle ...". Unless we have information that the weapons were selective-fire (firing full automatic or capable of doing so), we should not use that term. I agree that many news sources don't know the technical definition (or care to), so the mere appearance of the term in a source is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this: there's apparently a conflict between common usage and specialist jargon. There are many search hits for "AR-15 assault rifle" including on gun enthusiast sites. I don't know anything about this stuff but always thought the term didn't entail automatic fire. Also the AR-15 article mentions that the AR-15 was subject to various laws regarding assault weapons. I'd go as far as to say that the assault rifle article should discuss these nuances if it doesn't already (I didn't check). 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Assault rifle later states: "Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities." That's good enough for me. If that article is incorrect and needs work, it's outside the scope of our responsibility here. As of this moment, Wikipedia believes that a semi-automatic AR-15 variant is not an assault rifle. If that changes, this article can change with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a whole mini-industry that profits off providing misinformation to gun enthusiasts. Many of them do indeed think that they are buying "assault rifles". But its not so. In the 1970s, the military and civilian versions of the AR-15 were very close. But starting in the 1980s, while they still appeared the same, they became totally different guns inside. Civilian "assault weapons" are ordinary semi-automatic rifles dressed up to look like military equipment. But they are not the military equipment (the real assault rifles).

Bans on "assault weapons" are bans on guns with particular names or particular sets of cosmetic features. They are in reality bans on scary looking guns. And the reality of the law is that a gun can go from being an illegal "assault weapon" to being a legal semiautomatic rifle with sometimes very minor changes. You cannot buy an AR-15 in California because a gun named "AR-15" is banned. But you can buy something that looks almost exactly like a banned AR-15 that has a different name and tweaked set of cosmetic features. There have been problems for years with the terminology and the confusion it creates. But there are people on both sides of the gun issue who profit from creating confusion about these definitions. The gun control crowd is able to completely misrepresent the effectiveness of these bans and gun dealers have made a fortune off people thinking they are buying military rifles. I'm rather passionate about the issue because misuse of these terms has ruined public discussion of the real issues for years. This isn't really "specialist jargon". Its widespread public misinformation and misunderstanding. I realize that misuse of the terms is very popular, but correcting that misuse has to start somewhere. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Another nit. The info box refers to the rifles as AR-15s. But they are technically not AR-15s because AR-15s are explicitly banned in California by law. The real names of the rifles should be exclusively used. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the NTC tracing back where the guns originated? Maybe not from CA, unless they finished that already. Didn't see any articles yet. Definitely agree that "AR-15" is almost never used correctly. Snd0 (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

According to [18] the pistols came from a store in Corona, CA; the rifles came from another store that wasn't identified. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is important to get this terminology right - accurately reflecting the thoughtful discussion here - among other reasons because this actually is a part of this article that has BLP implications, at least when we start reading about who sold them the "assualt rifles". Wnt (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of sources have addressed this with "assault-style rifles" (they are all rifles in this case, not carbines or sub-machine guns or personal-defense weapons (PDWs)). We should use "semi-automatic rifles." Background: The lower receiver (the part the the ATF considers a firearm because it receives the least wear and never needs to be replaced so the serial number goes on that part) is generally a mil-spec compliant variant if the lower receiver of an M-16 without the select fire hole drilled for the cam needed to make it select fire. That receiver can be made into rifles, pistols, carbines, etc, etc. The lower receiver is the only part considered a firearm and is usually made of aluminum. It has no moving parts itself but contains the trigger, hammer and safety. Since it was lawfully sold as a rifle in this case, it is not select fire and not an "assault rifle". It has a barrel length of at least 16 inches (the currently issued M-4 rifle in the U.S. Military is 14.5 inches and is considered a carbine). The .223 caliber is woefully under-powered/under-sized for hunting except squirrels and other small animals. Larger calibers in that platform are suitable for hunting and are used for it. (i.e. "it has only one purpose" is oft repeated but lacks proper understanding). In California, the law prohibits magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. It also prohibits any rifle that allows detachment of that magazine without a tool. Gun dealers (in any state) that sell rifles to residents of California are required to be licensed through the California's attorneys general office (in addition to ATF). --DHeyward (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up .22 Long Rifle ammunition (very cheap and common for plinking, small animals, target shooting, Olympic biathlon) versus the .223 Remington (aka 5.56x45mm NATO ammo used by the US military in M16/M4 rifles that is most certainly deadly). -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the rifles had been modified to take magazines with more than the 10 bullet California limit and one had been modified for fully automatic fire (though the mod might not have been fully successful)[19], [20]. It is pretty straightforward to do modifications of these weapons, so "they are not assault rifles because of the limited magazine and one shot per trigger pull" is bogus. The basic Californa-legal weapon plus some mail-order parts and you have an assault weapon. Its like the old days in farm states where at the insistence of the dairy industry margarine was sold as white grease in a plastic bag, along with a tube of food color the buyer could mix in to make it look like butter. Edison (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is NOT straightforward to modify a civilian AR-15 to fully automatic or selective fire. The civilian AR-15s are not at all designed for automatic fire. They simply have the appearance of a military AR-15, but not the firing mechanism. They may have attempted to convert it to fully automatic fire, but in practice that is not really practical. (as they discovered) The trigger group mechanism for a civilian AR-15 is designed strictly for semi-automatic fire. It is totally mechanically different than the military AR-15. Decades ago (in the 1970s), the trigger group mechanisms were the same and conversion was more practical. But that is no longer the case. Assault weapon is a *cosmetic* definition in California. You can turn a legal semi-auto rifle into an illegal assault weapon by threading the end of the barrel. But it doesn't change the basic capabilities of the gun at all. You are correct that modifications to accomodate larger magazines are rather trivial. But these were still legal semi-auto weapons in California. Pretending otherwise simply encourages misinformation about the law in California. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, both rifles they have versions that are available for civilian purchase in California. Its still not known if they were purchased in California, but nothing known about the guns so far suggests that would have needed to go out of state to purchase them. The major unknown is where they got the 30-round clips. I've yet to see anything about that. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The point I was hoping to make above is that this debate belongs at Talk:Assault rifle, not here. This is not an appropriate topic of discussion at every article like this one. Wikipedia should agree on this point, right or wrong, and Assault rifle should be regarded as Wikipedia's current best judgment on the question. If Wikipedia does not use a consistent definition across all its articles, the term "assault rifle" becomes ambiguous and meaningless in all its articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally true, but there is a specific wrinkle that there is some person who sold the not-assault-rifles, who is bound to end up featured on news reports shortly. This is one of the more serious instances of BLP because it's not that unlikely whoever it is might get a brick through their windshield from someone who condemns selling "assault rifles" to terrorists, and I don't want Wikipedia to be at blame. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree they are not assault rifles. period. They may be assault weapons. They were not purchased as assault weapons, but subsequent modification may have brought them back into the California definition. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims div col

I would rather have the list of victims as a horizontally divided list like Umpqua Community College shooting#Victims. This limits the vertical space taken up by the list. I'd argue for removal of gender and hometown - the age should suffice. -- Callinus (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This:

• Aurora Godoy, 26
• Bennetta Betbadal, 46
• Damian Meins, 58
• Harry Bowman, 46
• Juan Espinoza, 50
• Larry Daniel Kaufman, 42
• Michael Wetzel, 37
• Nicholas Thalasinos, 52
• Shannon Johnson, 45
• Sierra Clayborn, 27
• Tin Nguyen, 31
• Yvette Velasco, 27

I prefer that. -- Callinus (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - For the same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - The difference in vertical space is minor and the table looks better. In fact, I am a bit insulted that the victims don't deserve half the vertical space of the perps. It is less flexible for editing and sorting. The ages don't line up... etc Bod (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of what any dead people "deserve", horizontal cuts down on empty space. This article could use a bit less pointless emptiness, especially when it comes to memorializing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no preference. That said, as I note above, I think we should be careful, as can happen—and has—that we do not build a shrine to the perps at the expense of their victims. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Either would work, but the vertical table has the column sort option that may be useful to readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Not really in favor of it being sortable. There simply aren't that many names to need it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A simple list in columns is sufficient. Having a table where one can sort by first name is just bizarre. WWGB (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the altogether removal of the victims' names. NOTAMEMORIAL #4 states, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Per numerous articles including this, I argue that they do meet those requirements for the same reason that the perps meet those requirements. This is not a NOTAMEMORIAL issue, IMO. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that rationale was completely off-base and the deletion counter to the practice of building consensus on the talk page... Bod (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Include significant biographical data on victims is my vote. This precludes a two-column format. I don't think that it was entirely random that the guy with the gay pride earring was shot, that the guy who argued with one of them about religion was shot. Their data is relevant, not merely because they are notable victims, but because it reflects on the nature of the massacre itself. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we add details like people's jewelry and religious ideologies to speculate as to why they were killed? Such data is completely irrelevant.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It would look dumb in a table, but I would love to see that table be replaced by out and out paragraphs, or at least a (sigh!) bulleted list that gives real English sentences about the victims that reproduce what the sources say about them, whatever it is. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it look strange to anyone else to sort by last name but list first name first? I don't see the harm of making it sortable, I was able to sort by age and easily see the distribution (before). Bod (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to "sort" the table? It has only 14 lines, just scan it to look for similarities in detail. Sorting benefits large tables with many entries. In this case, the entire detail lies within the reader;s field of vision. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Making it machine sortable allows it to be machine sortable, thereby making anyone who machine sorts it dumber. The brain needs exercise, and sorting small lists is nothing cruelly strenuous. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Listen here for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Machines already do everything else for us. Don't hold back, let us know how you really feel, Hulkie, my boy. Bod (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm extremely neutral online. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Harizotoh9: removal of well-sourced material (NY Times)

Harizotoh9: I saw you made this edit removing the discussion of the New York Times front-page editorial. In your edit summary, you claimed: "wont' be notable in a short time." That is just flat wrong, and it's an unexplained ipse dixit to boot.

The last time a front-page editorial ran on the cover the Times was 95 years ago. (Specifically, June 13, 1920). It is obviously historically significant when the country's leading paper does something so rare. And this fact was recognized globally; the decision to publish on the front page generated extensive attention, by, to name just a few of literally hundreds: BBC News, the Washington Post, the NYT itself, The Daily Beast (interview with NYT executive editor Dean Baquet on the decision), and NPR, Reuters, The Independent, and on and on. It has been the subject of articles published by The Poynter Institute and the Cato Institute.

Given all this, there is no justification for not covering it, as I think the vast majority of editors here would agree. At least four editors above (10stone5, Cwobeel, AntHerder, myself, and I'm sure others, have all indicated that the material on the NYT belongs here, in one section or another). Neutrality^talk 16:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The issue I have here is that using an editorial might be significant, but the way we're using it seems to make it about their political view on gun control, not about the significance of an editorial being used on the front page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Point taken, but I think the reader is entitled to know what point the NYT was making in its historically-significant article. It would be somewhat odd to say "The NYT published an editorial on the attacks for the first time in 95 years" without a few brief words on what the editorial actually said. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• But isn't the only thing notable and/or significant about this editorial is the fact that it appeared on the front page, it's not like they have changed their political view on gun control, have they? Why should we include their political view if it hasn't changed?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The actual content of the editorial is important too, since it touched off a wider debate. It's difficult to separate the placement on the front page (and the depth of strong feeling that signifies) with the actual point being made. That's why all of the sources who have written stories about the editorial mention the stance itself, in addition to the historic unusualness of the front-page placement—and the majority of them make the connection is often in the headline itself. E.g.: "New York Times publishes front-page editorial advocating gun control" (Poynter); "New York Times calls for gun control in front-page editorial" (Reuters), etc. Neutrality^talk 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's not like this is the first editorial they've ever written where they have opined about their political views on gun control, it's the first time it's been on the front page, which is the only thing notable about it, their views haven't changed. I'd also question whether this specific editorial "touched off a wider debate" too. We see more calls for gun control every time after one of these mass shootings, the NY Times just decided to go front page with their political view on gun control.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, you are showing your political bias. The editorial had such significant placement that it was remarked upon as of note in the history of journalism. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editor, this article is not about "the history of journalism", so it would probably be better to include it in an article about "the history of journalism", instead of this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed significant that the most influential newspaper in the US has done something it hasn't done since 1920 because of what transpired in San Bernardino. It's not out of line to include a significant quote from it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Putting an editorial on the front page may be new, but the NY Times has never seen a gun control law it didn't like. The "significant quote" will be a rehash of the same position they've had for decades, which is much less significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, with language like "rehash" and "never seen a gun control law it didn't like" you are simply displaying political bias. There is no place for that in a discussion of this type. The editorial and its placement are significant. Your attitude is too snarky to be taken as an assumption of good faith. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Rehash is the correct term. Read their editorials from the early 1990's and they will sound very similar to today. And I'm sorry (well, not really) that my "snarky" attitude offends your delicate senses, but why don't you try refuting me with facts. (You know, commenting on the issue and not the editor) Can you show me any gun control law that the NY times has opposed? In the absence of that, my statement that they never saw a gun control law they didn't like seems to be correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it also significant that in 1920 they ran their previous front page editorial denouncing candidate Warren G. Harding (who won the 1920 election anyway)? --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan, Jr. Yes. (Misread that as a parenthetical question.) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NYT 12-05 Editorial

• Request to move that paragraph on NYT editorial of Dec 5 to place under the Political Reactions sub-section. Its an editorial and so by definition a Political Response. Further that editorial doesn't actually address the actual motives of this shooting which the FBI acknowledge is being investigated as terrorism. Strive for accuracy here. NYT is giving their opinion, their political response, which is a call for more gun control, which by the way many do not agree with. Place this information where it belongs, a politically motivated response in order to keep this major incident write up accurate. 10stone5 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The NYT editorial is OK where it is now, the general "reactions" section. The editorial is significant as it was placed on the front-page, first time in 95 years. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So an editorial advocating a position on a controversial political debate is not a political reaction? Are you saying that this belongs in the same section as cancelled classes and candlelight vigils? The significance of a NYT (or any other) editorial is proportional to your agreement with it. For better or worse, their influence on this issue is not significant.--AntHerder (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, just that the section seems to be more about politicians than just politics. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I oppose all and any kind of "reaction" section, which encourages trivial additions. Instead the material should be added to a small media section devoted to coverage and positions by media outlets. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved to a new "Media" subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The NYT Editorial doesn't belong here for the simple reason it is partisan political statement. The amount of time since they've last printed an editorial on their front page is totally irrelevant. It's still just their opinion, and a grossly liberal one at that. The "reaction" by others (likely included to add some sort of legitimacy to it) are all from the NYTs themselves with only one exception; the no less liberal NPR. If you're going to include it, then also invite the NRA to offer their political view on the matter. Otherwise, get rid of it. It simply has no place here. Either this is an encyclopedia or it's a mouthpiece for the left. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.249.110 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In order to summarize an important debate or issue, or divergent reactions, Wikipedia articles often include various statements of opinion or belief (including, in some cases, "partisan political statements"). This is acceptable so long as (a) the source of the opinion if significant or representative of a wider position; (b) the source is properly cited; (c) the paraphrase or quotation is accurate; and (d) we attribute the point of view. All of these requirements are met here. The fact that you don't like the opinion does not mean that it is irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the terrorist attack. "Gun control" was the first response out of ill-informed people but changed when this act shifted from "workplace shooting" to "Islamic terror attack." We have articles on gun control and the NYT's but this is not one of them. No one seriously considers gun control as an issue related to terrorism (i.e. see Paris shooting or Boston Marathon bombing/shooting - terrorists get guns/bombs/whatever). As an editorial on gun control, the NYTs story is simply not relevant to this article. It's distraction just as editorials that blame Snowden for ISIL terrorism are a distraction. If NYT editorial about GC is relevant this, then editorials blaming Snowden are relevant as well. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Goddamnit, Heyward. Get your head out of the political blogosphere. Regardless of whether the shooting was jihad, robbery, revenge or what, it was still a shooting. So gun control is still highly relevant, and anything that's ever applied in the "debate" is equally applicable. You ever see a terrorist shoot someone without a gun? If America had more guns, would law-abiding citizens shoot more terrorists to prevent more terrorism? Will gun shops laugh all the way to the bank, regardless of which governor says what about which senator? Exact same deal it always is, just has a bonus Islamaphobia angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And yeah, if someone influential is blaming Snowden, that's perfectly fine, too. If it's Breitbart and The Daily Mail, nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the NYT's editorial on gun control is not relevant to this article. What is notable/significant about The New York Times, or for that matter, any newspaper or media outlet writing another editorial about gun control? It should be removed from this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's the first front page editorial by NYT in 95 years. And it was written about gun control in the aftermath of this shooting, so it absolutely relates to this subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If the only thing significant about this editorial is - it's the first front page editorial by NYT in 95 years - then that bit of trivial info belongs in another article about trivial facts about newspapers, because that trivial fact is not relevant to this article. And the fact it was written about gun control doesn't make it any more notable.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"...in the aftermath of this shooting...". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As InedibleHulk pointed out, it was only the first significant thing about the editorial in my sentence. You should've kept reading it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times writes a gun control editorial in the aftermath of every mass shooting, so there is nothing notable about them writing another gun control editorial. The only thing notable about this one is the fact it appeared on the front page. So instead of including a rehash of their gun control talking points in the article, we should be reporting what secondary reliable sources are saying about their decision to make a political statement by featuring the editorial on the front page, that is what this story is about, not their stance or talking points on gun control which is obvious to anyone who reads their paper.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one in the blogosphere. Any idiot can parrot "gun control" after an attack. After all, ISIL has guns and we can wish, pray and scream they didn't. France has had multiple attacks with full-auto (the U.S. hasn't had any) weapons and un control doesn't get any more severe. In Boston, they used pressure cookers for bombs and killed police for guns. Sorry if reality doresn't fit your agenda, but the normal buyer of sporting firearms in the U.S. has nothing to do with terrorism. Even simple criminal use of firearms is only tenuously related as gun crime is highest in cities with the most gun control and crime is related to illegal firearms. The gun control crowd wet their pants when this looked like a normal citizen with legal guns but that evaporated when it became clear that it was a terrorist with illegal guns in the most restrictive state. To compare, please check the legality of automatic weapons and explosive suicide vests is paris (hint: all are very illegal). --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A legal gun is every bit as deadly as an illegal one, in my reality. Not sure which "crowd" you envision pissing themselves over that aspect, or what semi-auto vs auto, or workplace dispute vs terrorism has to do with anything. I suppose it's not the exact same deal, but same in the general sense of "Guns kill people, tighten up" vs "Guns protect people, loosen up". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fox News opined on the NYT editorial. It appears that the editorial itself in noteworthy and probably deserves its own paragraph in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC

Request Move Protection

There have been a few unnecessary and unilateral moves. The title has always returned to 2015 San Bernardino shooting and should not be moved without a well considered discussion. Legacypac (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Those requests are handled at WP:RFPP. You can post a request there. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the request was accepted.Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Shooting"

PLEASE CORRECT THE MENTION OF "mass shooting" the first paragraph says "4 people were killed and 21 injured in a mass shooting " this is incorrect, some of these people were first responders killed by a bomb, please change this to "terrorist attack" before I do it myself, consultation is important of course but this is a WELL DOCUMENTED terror attack with the president of the USA calling it by this name (and not mass shooting) on Monday December 8 during his address on the topic from the oval office. 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy3565 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You better show us your sources. Bod (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is being reported as a shooting, but this is a shooting and a failed bombing attempt. The bomb didn't go off and was destroyed by the bomb squad, so it's easy to forget about the bomb. As such, this should not be called a simply a "shooting". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be remembered that Columbine in CO was also a shooting and bombing with some of the bombs even detonating (not the largest ones though) however this event is largely identified as the 'Columbine Shootings' and not sure how changing that title would be productive. The failed bombing certainly deserves a place in the article however not sure the main title needs to reflect it.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooting is what actually happened. Let's stick with that, and not include things which could have happened but didn't. Firebrace (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "2015 San Bernadino shooting and bombing attempt" would be a bit much. It's possible to overthink a title. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

True, but the bombing should be noted. Even though they sucked as bomb makers, it does take concerted effort to construct them. For the title, how about "2015 San Bernadino Terrorist Attack" Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I actually think that the supporters make a reasonable case in that we don't usually preemptively disambiguate in case of there being another notable shooting in San Bernardino, but clearly there is a consensus against the move at this time. Probably worth revisiting in six months or so when things will have calmed down a bit. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 San Bernardino shooting → San Bernardino shooting – Already redirects here. No point in using the year when there are no conflicting articles. RS's already use the "San Bernardino shooting" title. Can be moved again in the future. Bod (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strongly Oppose see discussion earlier. There are many notable shootings (some really unusual ones) in the area's history. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide one (or two, since there were 'many')? I don't see any others linked from San Bernardino and google is obviously flooded with current events. Velojareal (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

See a few here [21]Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And none of them have a wikipedia article?Bod (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose accomplishes nothing over "2015". The year is common in other articles. -- Callinus (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - no reason to bother, and it seems weirdly optimistic to think disambig wouldn't be needed in the future (or even the past). Wnt (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is but one of many notable shootings which have taken place in San Bernardino. Some disambiguation is needed. Would you have "Chicago shooting" or "New York City shooting" if attacks took place there? Please quit wasting everyone's time. Edison (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title adheres to the current standard. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The Germans have already named their article "terror attack in San Bernardino" with no date and the Germans are the most logical people on the Earth. Bod (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment about who the most logical people on earth are, but there sure ain't much logic in the comment above.VR _talk 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting do not include years. Paris does, but it has unfortunately also endured the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks. Logically speaking, if another event does take place in 2015 (hope not) it can be renamed to something more specific then (would need to anyway, as 2015 San Bernardino shooting would overlap either way). No need to make it this specific initially, imho. If the "current standard" is to include the year, there are at least two renames which should probably take place....2:1 1:2? Velojareal (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your example Boston bombing supports NOT changing this article. That is a redirect and rejected title (as too imprecise as I recall) for Boston Marathon bombing which is quite percise without the date because there has never been another bombing of the Boston Marathon. Same for the Sandy Hook example-only known shooting in that location. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point. I may have crossed this with a rename that included 'attacks' as opposed to the more general 'shooting'. Velojareal (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep the date and keep the redirect. As others stated, San Bernardino is more likely to have additional incidents that Sandy Hook. Plus, it's not unheard of for terrorists to plan and attempt additional strikes on the same target. grifterlake (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance re: naming, but why not just rename it if another awful tragedy were to occur, rather than planning ahead for it? Velojareal (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, how about that... another rational being frequents these parts. Bod (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. In other words, we cross bridges when we come to them. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the scheme of things, it's a minor matter but I don't have a problem with any "incident" type of event including the date in the title. Kind of like a flight number included in the title for a plane crash article. In this case it provides an organizational chronology for Islamic terrorist incidents. However, it shakes out though, this might be something for Wikipedia to look at and consider establishing a more consistent naming convention, especially for terrorist and other violent incidents. And by violent I would also include weather and geologic phenomenon along with other natural occurrences. grifterlake (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support, no need for the disambiguation at present and the redirect from the desired title to the current one already shows that there's no reason to not move it. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here as it's by far the most notable shooting incident in San Bernardino, solidifying itself as one of the worst in the state as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose only because it should be "attacks", not "shooting." Those pipe bombs didn't make themselves and the objective was terrorism by radical Islamists. --DHeyward (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose San Bernardino is a site of many shootings, the current title is already not precise enough. WP:RECENTISM on this being a primary topic, as WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this cannot be a primary topic just because it is in the news. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose particularly per very valid point by User:Grifterlake, see also four of five points of WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So if you were starting a conversation with something like, "What are your thoughts on the San Bernardino shooting?" They would obviously say, "Wait! Are you talking about the 2015 one?" Bod (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If we go out 25 years, the question will be "Do you remember the terrorist attack on San Bernardino?" The year (hopefully) won't be necessary. It's rare for the year to be associated with an event but convenient if the agenda is to create a list of events that appear to all be the same problem. Even the 9/11 attacks don't have the year. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per DHeywood. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean DHayward? Bod (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

More likely DHeyward Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The year in the lemma makes it clearer. -Metron (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same as everyone else.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - San Bernardino is a large populated area that experiences shootings as a regular part of simply existing (vs. Sandy Hook or Umpqua Community College as small locales that do not) - the "2015" part of the title signifies this is indeed an article about a particular occurrence. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, weakly and for now - Let's wait until the end of the year before we even think about renaming. "San Bernardino shooting" (and various misspellings) are already redirects and I assume that most of the significant others are too. What if, in 2016, there's another shooting in SB, this time in a deli robbery that some celebrity got mixed up in? As long as your favorite name has a redirect, I don't see what the trouble is. Do you like bean sorting? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As Fuzheado notes, San Benardino is a large city, and one would expect at least a few shootings to occur within said city in a single year. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 01:50, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Everyone's already got all the explanations and reasoning covered. Parsley Man (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I dont understand the reasoning behind the proposal. As someone else said, there is already a redirect for the proposed name and it would likely that the old name would become a redirect after the move. What is being accomplished? 75.17.124.228 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unlike Sandy Hook, which is unlikely to have another shooting, the city has shootings every year. In fact, the present title is almost not specific enough. I'm not suggesting this at all (not common name) but Inland Regional Center shootings would not need a year. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• How about San Bernardino shooting, 2015, which places the year as an afterthought? Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • But that's not the style of how we do articles about current events. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Part of me thinks something like "Inland Regional Center shooting" might be more appropriate, but given that the media is calling it the "San Bernardino shooting," I guess we should stick with that. Given that it's just a city name, including the year seems okay. -KaJunl (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should close this per WP:SNOW- Cwobeel (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Should the Urdu name of Syed Rizwan Farook be included in the article?

Should the Urdu name of Syed Rizwan Farook be included in the article?

Comments

oppose RFS here do not include this. UNLESS its a Reliable source that can be cited that requires the urdu name included

• Oppose - Seems to be that this is an attempt to paint Farook as foreign. He was born in Chicago and was an American citizen. I have never seen in Wikipedia the name of an American be spelled in their parent's language. See Category:American people of Pakistani descent, I see there no other case in which the name of the person is spelled in Urdu. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but include pronunciation'. As a U.S. citizen with immigrant parents, I don't think the foreign spelling is relevant unless there are RS that he used Urdu with any frequency at any point during his life. I do think pronunciation guide is helpful for foreign names, so include that part. Bod (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's an Urdu name. There is no official American language and the anglicized version is for convenience. Urdu was the language spoken in his home when he was born. Censoring it seems to imply that Urdu is somehow a shameful ethnicity in America that should be suppressed. It's not and we provide other names, especially those that are only approximated with latin character sets. --DHeyward (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

• a shameful ethnicity?? No one is arguing anything of the kind. Your comments are increasingly nothing but puzzling. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oh Bullshiat. Your "No True American uses Urdu" argument is blatantly racist. He grew up up speaking Urdu and it's an Urdu name. The omly concern is troll concern about the Urdu name being exploited. It doesn't change the nature of name, heritage or use. It's Urdu. There are Americans with Urdu names just as there are Americans with Italian and German names. There is no shame in Urdu despite the No True American test you are applying. --DHeyward (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless RS are commonly giving the name in Urdu, there is no reason to include it in the article. I'm also going to guess that his birth certificate and other official documents were issued in English, so the "anglicized version" was more than just convenient. --RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - this isn't that easy to resolve. For example, when he was married in Saudi Arabia, what character set were used on the documents? It might be better to say "In Urdu, this would be rendered" to distinguish his case from the other ... then again, does Pakistan use Urdu or English in identity documents? And do those documents define a person's 'true' name, or only the government's opinion of it? Count this as a vote that whatever is decided in the RFC should get a revisit if someone who knows what they're doing gets on the case. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should only use the name which reliable sources are using. There is no reason to use the Hindustani form of his name if reliable sources aren't using it. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with the points made by Bodhi (reliable sources do not show that he used Urdu with any frequency at any point during his life) and RL0919 (his birth certificate and other official documents are in English). Neutrality^talk 22:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Farook was an American-born American citizen. Use of a foreign-language name serves only to suggest he was not a "real" American. How does the inclusion of this language benefit the program in any way? WWGB (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Farook was born in a country which speaks English, and registered with a name in the English language. This is trivial. He spent only short parts of his life abroad, and there's not even a suggestion he even visited Pakistan. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe If the birth certificate is registered in Urdu, the Urdu name is the "real" one and should be noted (but not used). Seems unlikelier for the guy than the girl. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I don't really understand what all the opposition here is for. The standard for inclusion of factoids within an article is only that they be verifiable. If his Urdu name is verifiable, why shouldn't it be included? Obviously Farook will remain the primarily used name, but I see no issue with mentioning his "Urdu name" somewhere in the body of the article. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use American/Anglicized version of the name being used by reliable sources, which is what a solid Wikipedia article is built on.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Like an above user has already mentioned, "Unless reliable sources are commonly giving the name in Urdu, there is no reason to include it in the article." The reliable sources, at least the ones that I have seen, do not show that he used Urdu at any point in his life, therefore I do not think it should be included. He was an American born citizen and has no foreign ties to any other country, which the Urdu language infers. Regardless, the inclusion of his Urdu name does not benefit the article in any way. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims home towns

The article currently lists the victims' home town. This information is not relevant in any way. No other article on a similar incident includes home town information as far as I know. It should be removed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is basic biographical information, just like their religions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The religions of the victims is not currently listed. Plus this is not a biography, and citing the principle of "biographical information" is irrelevant. Marteau (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooters' religions are explicitly mentioned in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The biographical details of the victims are irrelevant. We don't need to include biographical information on them. Adding their home town does not help readers understand the attack more. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's basic bio information, widely reported in the (serious, respected) press. If we are going to include the names, I see no reason to exclude the places where the lived. I do think it does convey information to the readers - for example, it shows that the victims came from all over southern California (from Riverside, San Bernadino, and Los Angeles counties, it appears). Neutrality^talk 22:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What secifically about the inclusion of the shooters' hometowns do you oppose? ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue I've seen more than once with articles of this type; the potential that we build a shrine to the perps while making their victims little more than an afterthought. I'm of the mind that, because of the extraordinary amount of data that is necessary in what almost has to be a biography of the shooters, data on the victims that ordinarily would be deemed unencyclopedic is all but required to present something resembling some balance (which is why I followed this with this). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The victims are irrelevant. They're notable only because they died. This is a major shooting, and people want to know why it happened. Thus biographies of those who carried it out are important.

Why stop at home towns? Why not list their pets? Their high schools? etc. None of it is relevant or encyclopedic. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree that it's just info overload. Their hometowns have no bearing on the incident and do nothing to enhance the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The victims are no less irrelevant than the perpetrators; they're only notable because they shot 36 or so people. (See how ridiculous that argument is? ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Did I say the victims are irrelevant? So why are you acting like I did? See how ridiculous that is? The victims are completely relevant, their hometowns, however, are not. That's what I didn't suggest removing the victims and did agree with removing their hometowns. See how that works? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at the comments above yours... Bod (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Niteshift36, I was replying to Harizotoh9. I indent; I virtually never use bullets when not making lists. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The people aren't notable for shooting or being shot: they're notable for being published about by reliable sources. Note that I speak of notability in the plain sense - "notability" as a guideline for article creation is not required to give a sentence or three about someone in a larger article. Also note that what makes the article encyclopedic is that it summarizes existing literature. We are not here to make value judgments about whether shooting people is more important than being shot, or whether a pro wrestling match is more important than an opera concert. The question is only: can we document it? And if people do, pets and all, then God bless 'em. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it can be removed. It is slightly unencyclopedic, but at the same time I don't see it being a big problem. Bod (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The home towns have been added back. Can someone explain to me why this one article should include a list of the home towns of the victims? Why is this article so special? Should all wikipedia articles on attacks and shootings include home towns? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure they should. Why does this encyclopedic information cause you such pain? Edison (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant and non-notable trivia. The attack is relevant. These people are not. Giving some indication of their ages at least gives some sense of better understanding the attack. Knowing their home town does not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I added these back a day or two ago (I haven't checked if others have also...). There's no reason to exclude them - the table as written literally takes up the exact same space whether that column is blank or filled. The main reason to include them is that they are leads for further research: someone looking up name and hometown in ten years will have an easier time finding information about individual victims. Also, the range of hometowns provides some context - how far did these people come for the event? What towns were affected politically, spiritually, financially by the murders? Wnt (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• How far they came for the event? You honestly think that 10 years from now, more than 2 people will be asking themselves "wonder how far people drove to get to the San Bernadino terrorist attacks"? And you're making a lot of presumptions. If one person's hometown was LA (and at least one was), do you really think that LA was financially affected by that death? Politically? Well, Trump shoots off his mouth and says to bar all Muslims so, in response, the mayor of St. Petersburg, FL bars Trump from town. Sounds like St. Pete is being politically affected too....so thinking that this list of a few towns is going to be that informative seems off. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Maybe I think differently than most people, but when the news coverage first mentioned it was a public health department, one of the first things in my mind was whether they were sabotaging the detection of some kind of biological attack. Fortunately that doesn't look like the case right off, unless it's a subtle one (though it could be ...) So it mattered to me to see the context of how wide a region these people were from, and more importantly what their actual occupations were (not that we even include that -- the obstructionist thinking makes it discouraging to deal with this article the way we should). Even ten years from now, people will still be looking at this -perhaps enlightened by future events???- and trying to decide if it was part of a broader plan or not, and all these details come up.

I should also say that I think that something akin to Zipf's law holds for article readership. I tend to believe that there is one particular person, at some point in the future, who will devour every detail of our article, whose actions will mediate a large share of the total impact that writing the article will ever have. And the next most important reader will have half that much effect, and the third will have a third as much effect, and so forth, until the total number of people who will ever see the article is exhausted. So I don't care much if "only two" people read a detail, if they turn out to be the ones most capable of doing something with it. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• We see it differently. I look at it similar to the guidelines for WP:OVERLINKing. There might be that one person who doesn't know what the word "house" means, but the vast majority of people will understand it, so we shouldn't wikilink it. If that one person is truly that interested, then they will likely read the sources, which contain all that information.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I agree with Wnt. This information has been widely reported, takes up space that otherwise would be blank, and is consistent with how we've treated other similar information in the past. For example, in Bath School disaster#Aftermath we list not just the names and ages of the victims, but also their grades (4th grade, 5th grade, etc.). The hometown adds context, particularly for readers not familiar with Southern California. Neutrality^talk 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The article about the Columbine shooting doesn't list hometowns. It lists name, age and (rather crassly) the location of wound. Same with the 2012 Aurora shooting. The Sandy Hook article doesn't list hometowns, just name and age. So there is apparently no standard practice. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Gun seller, Farook, Farook's brother—tied together by marriage to Russian sisters

This source (SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Gun buyer, shooter's brother married to Russian sisters, San Bernardino Press Enterprise, 8 December 2015.) seems both interesting and relevant to an encyclopedic article about the origin of many things (e.g., the guns used in the shooting) and the authorities search for factors that might affect motive. It does not seem to currently be summarized in the article. Discuss. N2e (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The information might be usable in the article, but needs much better sourcing. This site is not sufficient for controversial BLP info like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It is also reported on NYDN [22]. In any case, not sure it is useful, unless there is an indication of involvement by Marquez. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarify two issues involving "third shooter" or "third suspect" or "third perpetrator"

As I described in my comment in this above section:

It seems there are two issues, which may have been confused with each other:

1. At least two alleged witnesses interviewed by network TV news have claimed there were three shooters who were white, including one employee of the Inland Regional Center (Sally Abdelmageed):
   • Sally Abdelmageed via CBS News - http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/witness-describes-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
   • Juan Hernandez via NBC News- http://www.nbcnews.com/video/it-sounded-like-a-gun-range-578218563875
2. There have also been reports from the police, news, etc of a "third suspect" who was apprehended at some point, and as User:Neutrality mentions above, is no longer a suspect in this shooting. There may have been one or more of these "third suspects", it's not clear to me and I haven't sifted through all the sources of this aspect.

First of all, this subtlety seems relevant to the article, especially since the story has shifted away from "three white shooters" such as by the police's narrative, Obama's address, etc. I would like to consider how and whether this can be elucidated in the article, but unsure about the best path to proceed. Any thoughts? -- Mattsenate (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm thinking it might be appropriate to create at least two sections:

1. Witness Accounts of Alleged Perpetrators
   • Two Shooters Narrative - Include witness accounts of only two shooters, namely for example Farook and Malik. Cite police report, obama address, and news stories.
   • Three White Shooters Narrative - Both videos of Sally and Juan can be included here, among other witness accounts of "three white shooters".
   • A section describing how news stories (with sources cited) were updated from the original "three white shooters" narrative, to later the "two shooters" namely Farook and Malik narrative.
2. Third Suspect Apprehended at Scene
   • Include sources for the aspect of the events that include the news media reporting and the police searching for, apprehending, releasing, or otherwise making statements about a "third suspect", one of whom was determined by police to be unrelated (not sure why yet).

Further, this could mean updating throughout the article to reflect the ambiguity about who perpetrated the mass shooting, without unduly indicting Farook and Malik as the definitive and sole perpetrators.

Need feedback, thanks! -- Mattsenate (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is now clear that there is no "third shooter". We could mention that in the initial reports there was a mention of a third shooter, but not sure it is needed. As for the perpetrators, I don't think there is any ambiguity. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What is meant by "third shooter" is unclear, which is why I wrote the first comment above. I saw this story unfold and change without being able to determine how/why, so I sought clarification from the Wikipedia article and did not find it, so it seems reasonable to at least disambiguate that: (a) there were claims of three shooters by witnesses and reported by news and (b) there was also at least one "third" suspect apprehended near the scene, but who was determined to not be related to the shooting.

Why is there not ambiguity about the shooters? I have not seen any news reports that cite eye-witness accounts, or even confidential sources, that identify either "exactly two shooters" or specifically Farook and Malik. I have only seen references to police reports, police accounts, and other official narratives from non-witnesses. Please link me if you know of any sources that clarify why the identities of the alleged shooters are unambiguous, thanks! Mattsenate (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, the third suspect in the shootout with police, is already covered in the "Shootout" section (last paragraph). - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool, that touches on case (b), but it also does not disambiguate (a) above. Mattsenate (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Matt - this is much, much less complex than all that. There were initial, erroneous reports during the chaos about a third shooter, and those turned out to be incorrect. That's all there is to it, and nothing more needs to be said. (note that it is common for there to be mistaken, early reports of more shooters than there actually were). As Cwobeel says, we've already addressed this in 2-3 sentences in the "Shootout" section (last paragraph). Neutrality^talk 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear where you're coming from, and I'm totally willing to accept that perhaps the early reports were erroneous. However, I have not found any sources that explain how and why the early reports may have been erroneous, and further I have not found any sources that definitively identify the shooters, or even name "two shooters"--specifically Farook and Malik. Do you have any links to sources that can clarify this? Thanks! -- Mattsenate (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Early, inaccurate reports are always superseded by later, more accurate reports. In some incidents, early but accurate reports might be discarded in favor of later reports, but you would need a source that discusses it. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, but I don't see why it's inappropriate if the authors commenting on this talk page were to update the article to ensure it is clear that there seems to have been early inaccurate reports, that have been replaced by current seemingly accurate reports, making citations for both. I think this is a pretty reasonable measure that would help clarify the ambiguity I faced for new readers. Wouldn't you say so?

As for the kinds of citations I'm requested and searching for, this is the first article I've found in which a journalist cites a source who is willing to claim that witnesses identified Farook (and not necessarily Malik, fwiw): http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/02/458196942/active-shooter-situation-reported-in-san-bernardino-calif Otherwise, this reporter cites details from Police Chief Jarrod Burguan, and other police sources.

NPR at least notes: "This is a developing story. Some things that get reported by the media will later turn out to be wrong. We will focus on reports from police officials and other authorities, credible news outlets and reporters who are at the scene. We will update as the situation develops." ;)

- Mattsenate (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to include because not a newspaper or journal. The initial reports also don't hold up to the ten-year test. It is mentioned, since it did happen, but the confusion during the live broadcasts themselves aren't necessarily interesting on their own. Velojareal (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What was Malik doing in her bedroom in Pakistan or elsewhere?

From the NYT:

Ms. Malik’s state of mind at that time is a point of intense focus for American investigators. She had spent the previous three or so years living with her mother at the family home in the southern Pakistani city of Multan, where she obtained a degree in pharmacology from the city’s largest university, and studied part-time at an Islamic center for women that teaches a literalist version of the Quran. At home, her father said, she spent much of her time alone in her room...

The "alone in her bedroom" bit sounds similar to the Amin "Twitter terrorism" case:

[On] his laptop, alone in his bedroom in Manassas, Va., [Amin] found powerful emotional support for his militant pronouncements...The Internet had allowed him to develop “a secret, independent identity” without his family’s knowledge, Mr. Flood said. Mr. Amin adopted a stern, adult tone to instruct others in online security measures and he drew the State Department’s anti-Islamic State Twitter account, @ThinkAgainTurnAway, into an exchange. For an ailing teenager with a protective mother, it was an intoxicating time.

What did Malik know and when did she know it? Who was she talking to in her bedroom? Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM? These pages are not for editors to speculate. If you have some sources or material that addresses these issues, please by all means make them available. Otherwise, these comments are superfluous and not useful at all. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's so strange. I just offered "sources of material" up above for the sole purpose of adding and expanding content about Malik's background. Further, I find it extremely useful to pursue writing about what Malik was doing in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan per the sources. Of course, what you find "useful" and what I find useful are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I'll keep pursuing these additions to the article while you keep whitewashing it. Deal? Since you're not interested in expanding this line of inquiry from the sources, I'm sure this will be your last post to a thread you find useless. Bye. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)