Wikipedia

Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 6

< Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting
(Redirected from Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 6)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Maunus in topic RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Get rid of "2016" in the title

Latest comment: 8 years ago68 comments27 people in discussion

Years are usually only added when there might be some confusion to what attack is being reffered to, as usually the attack is something very general like the "Paris attack", which could refer to a lot of things. But what would "Orlando nightclub shooting" possible be confused with? Other articles like the Curtis Culwell Center attack and the Charleston church shooting obviously don't include the year in the title because it's very specific. So can we get rid of the "2016" in the already long specific title? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much standard practice to have the year in the title as it adds clarity.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm... my initial reaction was similar to ianmacm's, but I'm questioning that. Do we really need that degree of disambiguation? 2016 Orlando shootings or Orlando nightclub shootings would work I guess. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire isn't 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire after all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Add to that example Columbine High School massacre and Boston Marathon bombing. But then there's also 2012 Aurora shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering the examples so far, I would change 2012 Aurora shooting to Aurora theater shooting. So for me it looks like removing 2016 is OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, exactly. Nobody who's gotten to this page ever thought "Oh no, I was thinking of the 2014 Orlando nightclub shooting", because none of that exists on Wikipedia or real life. We shouldn't be overly specific on Wikipedia either. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't have removed "2016" myself. True, there may have been no other prominent shootings at Orlando nightclubs, but "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" is still clearer and more precise than "Orlando nightclub shooting", as it removes any possible ambiguity. Furthermore, the "2016" part indicates that the event is significant among events that occurred during 2016 - without it, readers are left with a name that doesn't truly indicate the importance of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with It's pretty much standard practice, Ian. For just one example, Umpqua Community College shooting, and I've no doubt I could produce ten more recent ones if I had the time. As for clearer and more precise, sure, and it would also be clearer and more precise to say "2016 Orlando, Florida nightclub shooting", since we otherwise might give the impression we're talking about a night club named Orlando. WP:CONCISE should be our guide. If no disambiguation is needed, we don't disambiguate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, The inclusion of 2016 in the title won't make anything clearer since there's nothing to clarify regarding the year. Unnecessary verbosity in the title. Alsamuef (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not verbosity in the least. "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" helps indicate the importance of the event - a title such as "Orlando nightclub shooting" doesn't indicate the importance of the event at all. A "shooting" could refer to the murder of a single person, for instance. So it's a poor title. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem with that reasoning is that it has zero support in the guidelines. We generally don't make 'em up as we go. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Editors are always expected to use common sense. In this case, I'm using my judgment, and it's telling me "2016" should not have been removed. Your reply is really not relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Your reply is really not relevant. Ok, done talking to you. @Ianmacm:, I'd suggest we start RM now, as the quickest and most efficient path to resolution. Didn't notice that other RM in progress, buried deep in the TOC forest. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, You may have a good point re "shooting". "Massacre" may be better and is being used by major news sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I support this, having the 2016 in the title is like telling people that this is an event that this happens every year. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fussed on this and will support the consensus. However, please let's not have any more changes to the article title unless there is a clear consensus over a period of several days. There is already a formal discussion running on this and it should be allowed to run its course.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Guidelines are certainly relevant, Mandruss, but WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." "2016" is relevant information, and its inclusion in the article title does not make it unreasonably long. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of the people searches for "Orlando nightclub shooting" not "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" but ok. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia article for the other shooting, and from the looks of it there never will be. It's so "major" the one citation for it is the online archive of a local hardcopy newspaper. We don't need to disambiguate from things not covered at Wikipedia, and we can do so if and when the need arises. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In this case I think the best move is to the title Orlando nightclub massacre, which follows in the footsteps of Columbine High School massacre, where far less people were killed. If anything qualifies as a massacre, it's this. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Update – The 2013 shooting was a false item and has since been removed from the Pulse (nightclub) article (diff). See discussion at Citation for 2013 shooting for details. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. So a significant part of this debate has been based on piss-poor Wikipedia editing by someone? Moggles the bind. Find them and fire them. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Update – The 2013 shooting was a false item and has since been removed from the Pulse (nightclub) article (diff). See discussion at Citation for 2013 shooting for details. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. On the fence regarding: Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Update – The 2013 shooting was a false item and has since been removed from the Pulse (nightclub) article (diff). See discussion at Citation for 2013 shooting for details. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Would moving to Orlando nightclub massacre be acceptable to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No, because most people are very prone to confuse the 2013 and 2016 events with both the "shooting" and "massacre" words, and they'd lean to mean this year's event than the one that happened in 2013. "2016" should be in the article name, whether or not the article about the 2013 shooting exists, as 2016 would inform people, that there was a shooting event x years before that one at exactly the same place (even if an article about it does not exist). -Mardus /talk 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Mardus, In your reasoning did you take into account that the 2013 shooting is a very obscure event that so far only appears to have been reported in one local newspaper in 2013 that is behind a paywall? I ask this because of your comment "most people are very prone to confuse the 2013 and 2016 events". --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
My reasoning is based on the notion, that the 2013 event should not be forgotten or thought of as trivial. I am sure there are additional sources with free-to-access information about the 2013 shooting. If the current article name were without a year, then it would suggest, that this was the only shooting, which is not true. Omitting the year would certainly invite confusion, if one event were named a shooting, and the other a massacre, because the latter is predominantly known as a shooting, too. -Mardus /talk 15:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Mardus, From your response, it looks like you haven't taken into account that the 2013 shooting is a very obscure event. And if you are sure that there are more sources for the 2013 event than the one behind the paywall, could you give a link? I tried googling and I couldn't find any. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to find some more sources about the 2013 incident tonight, but the fact that the 2013 event happened, should be argument enough, even if it was not reported widely by the media. The 2013 shooting would not have merited its own Wikipedia article, for example, because its nature was regarded that year as one of many shootings of similar calibre (if you forgive the unintentional pun). Note also, that there's another argument for keeping the year (mentioned elsewhere in Talk), and that is for the use of the event's name in the future of +5 / +10 years, when the year indicates the timeframe of the event. For example, there is 9/11, which wholly consists of a date. -Mardus /talk 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mardus, I look forward to seeing what you find. In the meantime, what do you know about the 2013 shooting? Was anyone hurt?
BTW, here's the citation for the 2013 shooting from the Wikipedia article Pulse (nightclub).
"Article". News-Press. Fort Myers. May 27, 2013. p. B2 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
Note that the given title of the article is "Article" and doesn't say anything about a shooting.
I did some searching in the newspaper's archives [1] to see if I could get any more information. I first used the keyword shooting, and I didn't find anything about the cited article. Then I did a search using the keyword Pulse and didn't turn up anything about the cited article. So far it looks like the cited article about the 2013 shooting may not exist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. At Talk:Pulse (nightclub) I started a section Citation for 2013 shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, now, there is one incident that did take place in 2013 outside a "Pulse" nightclub, but in New Haven, Connecticut: [2]. It's difficult to dig deeper , because there's an overflow of articles about the current event. -Mardus /talk 07:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Update – It was found that the 2013 shooting referenced by the News-Press (Fort Myers) source in the article Pulse (nightclub) was not at the Pulse in Orlando. The false item has since been removed from the Pulse (nightclub) article (diff). See discussion at Citation for 2013 shooting for details.
Thus the arguments for keeping 2016 that were based on a non-existent 2013 shooting at the same nightclub of the recent massacre have been invalidated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Usually the "2016" would only need to be here if there was a prev article (2013 in this case) however there is no article and so there's no need to disambiguate - I don't mean this in a disrespectful way (and I apologize if it comes out that way) but yes the 2013 was obviously important etc etc however as it doesn't (and will unlikely to) have an article here it shouldn't have any relevance to the naming of this article. –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless we're going to move this page to include Pulse (the location's name) like some of the other notable mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc...), I cannot support removing 2016 in the article title. Yes, there may have been a previous shooting at the same venue, but we currently don't have a page on that and therefore that isn't the major concern (and in fact if a move to Pulse nightclub shooting or something similar is made, we can incorporate the previous shooting into that article). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If not apparent, I only support move to Pulse Nightclub shooting (or variants that includes Pulse in page name). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That may be a poor example of how to title a Wikipedia article because it appears to be contrary Wikipedia policy WP:NATURALDIS. Also, "Thalys train attack" would be precise and encyclopaedically defines the subject without the superfluous 2015. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguating doesn't simply imply finding a unique title, it also means un-ambiguating, ie stating clearly in an encyc manner what the subject is. It matters little that there is only one notable Thalys attack, the title still helps to identify the subject and will remain in place long after 2015. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the Wikipedia policy link that I gave in my previous message, there is the Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION, which begins with the statement, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
If you still think that 2016 should be included in the title, it may be helpful if you could give an excerpt from a Wikipedia policy that supports your position. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Errrr how about the policy you just quoted? The present title says when, where, what. Someone else has pointed out above that articles about US events seem far more likely to omit 'when' in the title. I've no idea what that signifies, if anything. Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Re "Errrr how about the policy you just quoted?" – The quoted policy supports removing 2016 from the title "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" because there is only one notable Orlando nightclub shooting and thus including 2016 is more precise than needed for the title to be unambiguous. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's agree to differ on how best to interpret policy and whether or not the year adds clarity and objectivity. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing that we don't seem to be making headway with each other and that maybe we should end our discussion. I think we agree that there is only one notable Orlando nightclub shooting, so with that in mind, here's the quote from Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION again and I'll leave it at that.
"Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Questions - How long do we expect this to run? Are we going to need a closer? Are these valid questions? What is the meaning of life? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Like others, I feel this title is best suited because it gives a good level of disambiguaty and with precedent going either way, I don't see a need to change something that is apparently already acceptable. United States Man (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The 2016 doesn't disambiguate with any other Wikipedia article, which is the requirement per Wikipedia policy WP:NATURALDIS, and hence discouraged by Wikipedia policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we'll need a closer here, to exclude all these anti-policy arguments. I struck that question above. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Pulse nightclub shooting". It is the most precise title; like someone else mentioned, it falls within the naming pattern of other major U.S. shooting incidents that prefer the name of the location where it occurred ("Columbine", "Sandy Hook", etc.) ViperSnake151  Talk  16:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment, it's early days to know what the commonname for the incident will settle down as. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My recommendation for naming: Orlando nightclub massacre or 2016 Orlando nightclub massacre. Most all has been said previously. Adding 2016 has slight advantages: If there are massacres (next year or later) at any nightclub named Orlando or at Pulse (in Orlando), then the present article will not need a rename; also, when thumbing thru a category list there might be a slight advantage having the year in the title (depending on the purpose of the thumbing). I don't have any strong feelings either way. 89.8.245.97 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Father's name

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Perhaps @Rsrikanth05: can explain why it is appropriate to refer to the father of Omar Mateen as "Seddique" as he does with this recent revert. [3], when the man's name is Mir Seddique Mateen. This is the sentence:

Seddique released a Dari-language video statement....

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Note also that Omar's name was Omar Mir Seddique until he asked for a court to add Mateen image here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Carbine

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

The Sig Sauer MCX is a carbine. Per http://www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx (Scroll down to 'specs"). Felsic2 (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure it's just MCX, not MCX SBR or MCX Pistol w/ SBX? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
A carbine is a short-barreled rifle. The distinction is relevant because it touches on how the weapon could have been brought into the venue. The other two options, SBR and pistol, have even shorter barrels. Short-barreled rifles are highly regulated. What we do know for sure, is that there is no MCX with a conventional length rifle barrel. Felsic2 (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting situation. I'm the reverter per NOR, but I'm interested in what others say here. At minimum we would have to cite that source, but let's wait for more comments please. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
We can say that it's a carbine, sure, but... we can't raise the other issues that comes with it without any media reporting on it (i.e. even more stringent regulations w/r to SBR). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's absolutely not a short-barreled rifled which is a 4-6 month wait for purchase. "Carbine" in this case refers to the location of the gas port for operation. There are pistol, carbine and rifle length gas ports. It's a technical point in a civilian rifle usually for cycle time and reliability for caliber. The ATF said he purchased a "long arm" which is a rifle with an overall length of at least 26" and a barrel of at least 16". It's measured when stock is fully extended. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: If ATF says that he purchased a long arm, then the gun is Sig Sauer MCX Carbine (the SBR and Pistol w/ SBX version both only have 9" barrels), which means we should clarify. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All this because of the insistence that we must report the exact model because some of our sources did. A simple broad classification, just specific enough to convey the essential basic capability of the weapon (semi-auto, etc.) is not sufficient for some of us. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
"semi-automatic rifle" is fine with me. There's a long running joke, though, that journalist call all rifles an AR-15 and all pistols a Glock. There's a political undercurrent that makes "AR-15" designation desirable for a cause to ban them when there are very significant differences. The opposite cause labels them "modern sporting rifles." Neither label is an accurate or neutral portrayal. This rifle is 3x the price of an AR-15 for very good reason. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I proposed simply semi-automatic assault rifle (two clarifying links). The first link defines semi-auto, the second gives a rough idea of the kind of weapon we're talking about, that it wasn't like an M1 or something. Both terms are necessary because, per our article, an assault rifle can be selective fire (actually it says it is selective fire, but I was hoping the "semi-automatic" would be enough to overcome that problem). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That's more political framing than enlightening. A Ruger Mini-14] is identical in function, caliber, auto-loading, etc as this rifle. A correct technical functional designation is a "self-loading, semi-automatic rifle with an intermediate cartridge." "Select-fire" and "intermediate cartridge" is what separates "assault rifles" from "battle rifles." "Assault rifle" in this context becomes a political term much like I suspect modern sporting rifle would also be an objectionable description. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but don't get hung up on carbine barrel length. It's 16.1" for the rifle he bought. Arguing that "carbine" means a barrel length when clearly it's the barrel port location, not the barrel length. It is a pedantic argument. You can get an 18" barrel with pistol, carbine and rifle port locations. ATF does not care about where the port is. The distinctions between pistol and rifle are based on the stock. Once the stock makes it a rifle (shoulder fired), it goes through the rifle transfer laws. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the model name is "SIG MCX Carbine" and it's a mistake to see the word "Carbine" and imply it means anything other than a model designator. "GMC Yukon" doesn't mean we associate it with the Yukon. --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: We should absolutely report the precise model of gun as best as we can determine it from the available sources. What's going wrong here are WP:Primary/Synth issues. People aren't supposed to take a look at the company sales web site and alter what the news sources said the model of the gun was on the assumption that they left something out! Nor can they decide the classification of the gun - which is obviously a much more confusing technical issue than I'd ever have imagined - on their own. They have to join the rest of the frustrated technical people on Wikipedia and wait for some secondary source to say it's a carbine or whatever, at which point they can cite it. This isn't really rocket science, and if it is, you're violating the rules. Now to be sure, there are some sneaky ways to bend if not break the rules I wholeheartedly approve of, like referencing the company web page for the gun, but nothing as blatant as making up technical statements by dead reckoning. Wnt (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Wnt that what's going on here is PRIMARY/SYNTH issues. Let's follow the secondary sources. Neutralitytalk 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your people killing my in Iraq

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Welcome to Wikipedia Editing 201.

quote='I could hear him talking and he said, "I don't have a problem with black people. It's nothing personal. I'm just tired of your people killing my in Iraq",' Parker explained.

Clearly the word "my" is wrong, but it's unclear whose mistake it is. I've never heard anybody actually make that mistake verbally. Most of the sources say "my". What to do with this? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's a quote then we go with what the sources tell us. If the sources are conflicted then we go with what the preponderance of evidence suggests is most accurate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I assume you mean "most of" the sources. In any case, that leaves the question of whether to include a sic. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I think [sic] is allowed per MOS:PMC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Everyone. What WP quotes is the actual news interview of the speaker, Tiara Parker, using Template: Cite AV media. The words that Tiara Parker actually said are the following:
"I could hear him talking and he said. ‘I don’t have a problem with black people. It’s nothing personal. I’m just tired of your people killing my people in Iraq,’ "
The video/ultimate source, the actual interview from Philadelphia FOX TV station 29 can be found at: http://www.fox29.com/news/158721816-story
The news sources are simply churning & repeating a mistake. The actual words spoken are verifiable from a reliable source and that is what WP should go with. If a bunch of sources misquote the Declaration of Independence or misquote a speech of PM Justin Trudeau or misquote Jo Cox or mischaracterize the Wukan protests or some other event in the news, then should WP quote these sources as if they are the verifiable truth? Ummm...no. Not when WP can find the verifiable spoken words. Now if someone wants to write up a section about how a misquote can work its way into various sources...then that's another issue.
WP could conceivably state the misquote with a "sic" with the various sources but WP should give more prominence to the actual words spoken by Tiara Parker since they can be so easily verified. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that reasoning, but we could also say killing my [people] in Iraq, as I read PMC. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe the wording could go something like:
Tiara Parker/one of the survivors is seen speaking to a news reporter stating "I could hear him talking and he said. ‘I don’t have a problem with black people. It’s nothing personal. I’m just tired of your people killing my people in Iraq" [Source/Fox 29]. Many sources have reported Parker's words as "I don't have a problem with black people. It's nothing personal. I'm just tired of your people killing my [sic] in Iraq."[Other sources]
Or whatever wording seems most appropriate but the actual words spoken by Miss Parker are what should be given prominence. Shearonink (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The correct wording is appearing in reliable sources [4]. No need to perpetuate the error. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
WWGB - Thanks for finding that. At least *one* news source got it right. Shearonink (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  Fixed [5]. It does make a difference that this is in the |quote= parameter of a cite, not in open prose, I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a great example of why I value primary sources highly. There are a lot of things you can't do with them, but getting the quote right is something you can. The primary source and ABC's correct transcript should be cited. The erroneous reports can be mentioned later on within the ref tag for ABC's correct transcript, but don't deserve a standalone citation for this let alone a mention in the text. Wnt (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, this quote lives only in the |quote= parameter of a cite of the video. No part of it is in open prose. Do you think the |quote= parameter should cite the ABC article (and is that technically possible, a cite within a cite?)? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Nested references are possible but the code can get somewhat complicated and sometimes involve a "Notes" section. If no one else gets to it I'll poke around and see what I can come up with later today. Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unredacted transcript of 911 call at 2:35

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

For those looking for the text: IT'S HERE Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated! (Albert Mond (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC))
That's hateful propaganda? Damn. Anyway, the statement says it initially redacted the names of the organizations and leaders, but only Baghdadi and ISIS are named. Are those typos, or did the other guy(s) stay redacted? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI describes Mateen's 911 call(s) this way: 2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds Nothing about the Tsarnaev brothers or Abu Salha. No mention of other calls, but we've been reporting a total of three. Can someone make sense of this? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And see the latest timeline from Buzzfeed: HERE Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The buzzfeed refers to 3 calls to negotiators, some quite long, perhaps calls to negotiators and 911 calls have got mixed up. Pincrete (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

US citizen versus American

Latest comment: 8 years ago53 comments12 people in discussion

I don't understand the logic of this edit, even less the logic of the edit reason "One can still become an American after coming to the U.S. at, say, age 40 and gaining (naturalized) citizenship, so the distinction is worth noting" since one can also become 'A US citizen' at age 40, even if not born one, there is actually no distinction or clarification made by the use of either term. On WP Briton=British citizen, regardless of how/when citizenship is acquired. The only distinction we normally make is, for example American-born Briton. The logic behind my edit was simply that we call someone the most common term and that 'US citizen' is rather grudging. The man was, in every sense of the word 'American', albeit of another ancestry, which we make clear. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen was just as much a U.S. citizen as anyone else born in New York and brought up in the USA. His American identity should not be played down because of his Muslim sounding name.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
User:ianmacm I think everyone agrees about not 'playing down', but is that better conveyed by 'American' or 'US citizen', I'm inclined to find 'US citizen' a bit grudging, possibly unintentionally. Pincrete (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
American is a little bit better, because "U.S. Citizen" has a subtle ring of doubt to it.- MrX 16:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"American" is both shorter and perfectly accurate. Neutralitytalk 16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone lives in the United States and "American" can mean different things. Mateen was born in New York, and never seems to have lived in any other country.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Most people will understand "American" to refer to the United States, and not to Bolivia or something. (See Names for United States citizens). Neutralitytalk 16:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
However, it isn't as specific as "U.S. citizen." Also, American can technically mean someone from any North or South American country. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 05:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A natural-born U.S citizen (American) can run for Presidency or Vice Presidency. A naturalized U.S. citizen (American) cannot. Subject to exceptions. So if you weren't born in the United States, you won't be able to become President or Vice President without going through eligibility challenges in the courts or Congress. See natural-born-citizen clause. Ionize Me (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that "American" is not a nationality. In everyday English, many people will understand this as meaning "the person is from the United States", but for clarity, "U.S. citizen" is more formal and accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Among English-speaking people, irrespective of where they live, American is commonly understood to mean U.S. citizen.- MrX 16:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I was specifically responding to user Pincrete's statement that there is no distinction. Except that I just noticed he did not delete/alter "born in" in his edit that I've reverted, so what I said is irrelevant to this discussion. In other words, I accidentally reverted for the wrong reason and inadvertently gave an edit summary that doesn't address the issue. My mistake, and I apologize. This discussion is still worth discussing, though--I'd personally choose "U.S. citizen" because it's more formal, but I wouldn't object to "American" as long as it is linked. Ionize Me (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Concur with MrX. Unless there is some issue around citizenship/nationaliity, which there is not, the common term is American. Ianmacm mentions language differences, and I could only take his word for that, but I think this article is written in AmEng, no? Or does this not fall under the umbrella of ENGVAR? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"Charles Augustus Lindbergh (February 4, 1902 – August 26, 1974), nicknamed Slim,[1] Lucky Lindy, and The Lone Eagle, was an American aviator, author, inventor, military officer, explorer, and social activist."
I see no reason to deviate from this very common convention here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This video shows that Omar Mateen spoke American English as a first language. I was a bit puzzled by the attempt to introduce naturalized citizenship. Under current rules, Arnold Schwarzenegger can be the Governor of California but not President, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to point this out. And Arnie has never lost his heavy Austrian accent. We probably wouldn't need to debate all of this if the shooter's name had been John Smith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't get the name thing. Mateen looks no more Muslim than Mattoon to my ear. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"Mateen" is an Arabic/ Afghan name.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It matters not that it was an Arabic/Afghan name, but whether it sounds like one to most readers, even if that question is relevant in this context, which is dubious. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but it's a common misconception that the attacks in Paris and Brussels were carried out by foreign terrorists. They weren't, because all of the people involved were French and Belgian, eg Ibrahim El Bakraoui.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not grasping how any of this bears on American/U.S. citizen. Probably because I just woke up and I'm not running on all cylinders yet. Help me out here. He was an American, just like me, full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
nb edit conflict. The only ambiguity I am aware of as a UK person, is 'American' meaning 'of the continent' or 'of the US' and that rarely arises in respect of people. IF the perp were born elsewhere and naturalised, that would probably be relevant, but he wasn't, it isn't. I'm going to take it that 'American' is more normal. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You don't call us "colonists" anymore? Thanks! :D ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
England easily produces the adjective "English", but the United States of America does not produce the adjective "Unitedstatesofamericaish". "American" is commonly used to perform this task. I'm not going to edit war over this, but prefer the use of terms like U.S. if confusion is likely to occur.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we have enough agreement on American that we can move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreement on anything American!? There must be a blue moon out there today... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd changed it to American a few days back for conciseness, and Wikilinked it in case somebody didn't understand what an American is. Somebody unlinked it, and somebody else was apparently confused. I get that there's an unwritten rule that the US is the only location and nationality "major" enough for the WP:OVERLINK treatment, but if unlinking leads to confusion, we should probably ignore that guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: What was the nature of said confusion? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
All of the above. If I'm not mistaken. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Then, not so much confusion as the editorial, "We need to clarify here". Anticipation of potential confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess you could say that. I just noticed "American" is now piped to U.S. citizen rather than Americans, and I don't know what to be confused about anymore, but WP:EASTER is probably relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk:   Fixed, I think.[7] I hope I'm not being disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. If it's trouble, I'll take the blame. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Civilian vs gunman

Sort of related. I say Mateen was a civilian. Another editor says only innocent people are civilians. Discuss? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

See civilian, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The basic definition of "civilian" definitely supports Mateen being labeled a civilian. United States Man (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the civilian link helps if you want to follow it: "The term also includes chaplains and medical personnel who are not part of the organizations mentioned in the preceding sentence, as well as those who are not perpetrators, in order to distinguish between those who are law-abiding people and those who are dedicated criminals." That means Mateen, a perpetrator, was not a civilian. Ionize Me (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Citation needed. Removed there and restored here, pending a source. It was added (and re-added) there by the same person who wanted the idea here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Mateen was a civilian, but why not avoid this ambiguous term altogether? Neutralitytalk 21:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind, but I think there's a tendency in America to treat cops and soldiers with a different reverence. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose they could be prominently mentioned without explicitly saying they weren't civilians, though. Or swapped with the Hispanics, foreigners or Disney workers, if the prominence itself isn't warranted. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course Mateen was a civilian.- MrX 21:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It's also ambiguous because one of the two people who was "not a civilian" was Antonio Davon Brown, an army captain who was off duty, not in uniform and simply one of the patrons of the club at the time of the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
A bit of a grey zone. I've tried this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, good edit, but one thing lost in the various 'snips' is that the cop was injured during the 'break-in' but the soldier was simply there as one of the club-goers, I couldn't think how to neatly make that distinction. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Call one a "responding police officer" and the other a "captain already at the club"? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Something like that, but it's now bedtime for me, I'll leave it to you.Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

this is all supposing a war battle. There are three distinct groups: victims, attackers and first responders. The military man is a victim. Distinguishing him as separate is ridiculous and a gross distortion of his role, expectation and legitimacy as a target. Nobofuy would argue that the employees of the government were not victims or designate them as non-civilian to distinguish them as somehow a legitimate target. Same with OKC bombing and ATF employees. Or the Colorado abortion clinic shooting. Should we separate out abortion doctors from civilians as if it was legitimate? --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DHeyward making a distinction for those reasons was not my purpose, rather to clarify what occurred. Arguably the off-duty reserve's part-time occupation is no more relevant or notable than that of 48 other people. Having just looked at the text, speculation about him getting a 'Purple Heart', seems undue IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
My point is there are no "civilians" distinguishable in this context. The word should not be used. They are victims. It's like using the word "human." Technically correct but would imply there are non-humans involved. --DHeyward (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The sentiment I agree with, but a neater way has been found to say it now anyhow. I still wonder if the reserve soldier's presence, and his possible 'Purple Heart' are significant. On the night he was simply another unarmed victim in the wrong place as far as we know. Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The Purple Heart business is definitely irrelevant. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly irrelevant. Moreso as a potential Purple Heart. I won't argue against its removal, but if he does win one, I'd like to see it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Help please! Someone is accusing me of introducing false statements

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

All I have done, seen [8] here, is move two statements that are supported by the text already. Too tired to fight a trigger happy editor. Computationsaysno (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Computationsaysno I think the logic of not tying ethnicity to speculations about motive (terrorism? hate crime?), is that while Latinos were the majority victims, there is no indication, or indeed much speculation, that they were consciously targetted. If they were, that would be covered by hate crime. The 'speculations' sentence has been purposely put on its own for the time being. None of your text is 'false', however putting things together might imply a meaning not supported by sources.Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
See the section "Latin Night per WP:LEAD" above. While Mateen undoubtedly knew that Pulse was a gay nightclub, it is less clear if he knew or cared about the Latin Night event. Most sources have not stated or implied that the victims were targeted specifically because they were Hispanic, although many Hispanic people died due to the Latin Night event.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Both User:Computationsaysno and User:Melmann were effectively edit-warring over this, not cool guys. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Per Pincrete's post above: I would like to remind all of us... This article is under ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions. If editors are having a difference of opinion about edits they need to bring that issue here, to the talk page at the beginning of any such issues and talk about it. This is an article about which feelings run high - let's all tread a little lightly with each other and the subject matter ok? Shearonink (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and we should not hesitate to post polite warnings on the edit warriors' talk pages. It's illogical to tolerate disruption in the name of peace, in my opinion. Signed, Mr Spock. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
btw I'm not endorsing either edit, I think Melmann's is marginally better, I was just trying to clarify what the concerns might be. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The edit war did continue! I think the Computationsaysno version is marginally less clear. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The LGBT part could be moved to the second paragraph after the FBI doubts statement. Computationsaysno (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
My edits were not part of any intentional edit warring. I primarily WP:RCP using WP:HG. The edits seemed like they could be introducing unnecessary bias so they were reverted. I definitely have no intention of breaking WP:3RR nor do I have any agenda when it comes to this. Therefore, I've whitelisted everyone involved in this conversation so I won't be reviewing any of your edits. In the future if you encounter any conflicts with RC patrollers just post on their talk pages. Cheers. Melmann(talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That may be the case Melmann, however as I'm sure you're aware you are entirely responsible for any and all edits made whilst using Huggle (and other automated tools) - please be a little more careful when using these tools, and review every edit before saving. If you're ever in doubt, skip over the edit -- samtar talk or stalk 11:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lynch: "Partial Transcript" Of Orlando 911 Calls Will Have References To Islamic Terrorism Removed

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

[9]

71.182.239.232 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

And that's just the part we know we won't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That's weird. I just saw Lynch in an interview on CNN and she said that the material that was going to be redacted was out of sensitivity to the victim's families (I'm paraphrasing).- MrX 23:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"The reason why we're going to limit these transcripts is to avoid re-victimizing those people that went through this horror. But it will contain the substance of his conversations." I wonder if they'll let the killer mention guns and death, or if that might still be too fresh in anyone's minds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that the full transcripts will eventually be released... just an issue of time and maybe the courts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

None of those reasons would stand up to FOIA request. There's political framing but there is also national security. We have no idea what he said or implicated. If there is any intelligence in those transcripts, they are following them up without alerting the people they seek. Some are not so bright: we drone striked an ISIL element as the genius was posting his picture on social media with geolocation data embedded in the photo (he never got the selfie with the drone in the background). --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"but there is also national security." But... the Official Narrative on the lead reads "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) said it found no links between ISIL and Mateen."... so... what national security issues could there be? XavierItzm (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Dunno, but DOJ isn't the keeper of the 911 call, the local PD is. The feds could force redactions but only in the national interest. The press is obviously interested. That DOJ is making the statement about redactions is actions they are taking. CIA is not DOJ so it may be many reasons but the DOJ would not be able to stop the release of a record they don't control without a compelling federal interest. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Likely to do with rabblerousing. Not in America's best interest to have people thinking terrorists (of any ism) have motivations beyond evil, and far worse to have even one citizen think a public enemy made a convincing argument. That's not to say this one did, but even a poor argument can be good enough to sway a gunowner who's already on the fence about going postal, or just plain gullible. Same reason the major search engines block that stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
In light of the allegedly full version, I have no idea how any of it could reasonably harm anyone or anything, American or otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Friends, please find a chat room for this sort of conversation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There actually is a sort of article relevance. If people in charge are pushing this hard on the facts to prevent anti-Islamic or anti-immigration sentiment, then there are some other things - like the allegations of homosexuality - that we need to take a harder look at. We should be clearer when we're citing a named witness who has come forward to speak publicly versus an anonymous second-hand account, and I would go so far as to say I want to see the names of the witnesses who spoke to the press in our article so that it is easier for us to keep track of how many there are. Wnt (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. Some will argue that naming common folk is a BLP privacy violation, but the benefit outweighs that risk. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've actually started a discussion about the policy more generally here. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Moving large amounts of material to the "Reactions" article and such strikes me as precipitous. We don't know if that entry is going to be deleted or not. And the material "removed" should still be summarized here. And I think we've been -- on the whole -- careful about the level of detail included here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I was just about to post much the same as you did re the recent spate of removals from the reactions section done by User:Knowledgekid87. I've undid these for the time being — I think several of these removals cut a little too deeply, and there is some significant content in there that editors may wish to preserve here in the main article, rather than in the reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting article. I'm not opposed to making cuts (I agree with Bmclaughlin9 that all have been pretty good, collectively, at keeping it pithy) but I think cuts on a more extensive scale bear some further discussion.
I would also wait until the AdD discussion for the "reactions to" article is complete. Neutralitytalk 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It was just kept as no consensus, can we please get rid of the duplicated info already in the main article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The summary in this article will include some of the material in the other. It's alread quite selective. And much of what was in this section didn't belong there are has been moved. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

American-born

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Re: [10] [11]

Notify: InedibleHulk

Ok, let's discuss. I see Hulk's point about the link to an article about the people. A relevant question is: To what extent does the link define the word? Must we expect the link to be followed in order to make our meaning clear? Without the link issue, "American-born" clearly does not mean "born to Americans" in common usage. In my most humble of opinions.

But I guess I would support a change from American-born to American-born. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me reading too much Deaths in 2016, but doesn't it seem like "American-born" should be for people who later took up a new nationality, Wikilinks aside? Unless we'd like to recognize the Islamic State as legitimate, Mateen wasn't merely born an American, but stayed one until he died. I get there may be Americans who don't want to count him in as "one of us", but there have been (and still are) many terrible Americans amongst the good ones. If Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Omar Mateen's articles can handle the truth, so can this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
1. I don't see a proposal in there, or a support of mine. 2. BTW, "American-born" is consistent with the existing "Afghan descent", both adjectival uses. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The proposal is just calling him American. I reject yours because it would still imply he was only born there. When I last checked, Afghan linked to the adjective Afghan. The new destination is also a bit weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Mateen wasn't merely born an American, but stayed one until he died. - Ok, now I better understand where you're coming from, and I'd support a return to American. No need to state that he was "American-born" any more than we would for any other American. This stuff ain't confusing at all! (Check Afghan again, I self-reverted because it was adjectival. The Afghan article is "nounal", not adjectival.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant when I last checked before the time I noticed the new destination was a bit weird. His descent was Afghan; his descent was not Afghanistan. "Afghan" is a noun and adjective, and that article notes both in the lead. If it were only a noun, an Afghan rug would be disgusting, like an American lampshade. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out above, it isn't considered necessary to say that Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy are "American-born". They are routine U.S. citizens, born and brought up in the USA, and never held any other nationality.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The Afghan thing is a separate and independent issue, so let's defer that. But I have enough confidence in American to change back now, and others may disagree when they wake up. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Or if they happened to be born sheeple, agree when they wake up. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I decided not to defer that after all. But Afghan says, "particularly a citizen of that country". So, if you are born in Afghanistan of blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian-descended parents who are citizens of Afghanistan, are you of Afghan descent? At some point "Afghan descent" becomes meaningless. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the removal of "born". Mateen is an American. The only reason "born" is being added is because frankly because he's not White and Muslim. As others have pointed out, we don't have that language on similar articles for other natural born US citizens. Compared to Dylann Roof, Adam Lanza, or other mass shooting gunmen. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any of this talk page discussion until now, and I've just removed a couple of instances where an editor was trying to pipe either Americans or American citizens to American. I saw that as a pretty superfluous use of a wikilink and thought it was probably running afoul of WP:OVERLINK (the bullet about not linking major geographical features, nationalities or religions). I just can't see where a person would navigate to this article and then seek out additional information about Americans or American citizens to help them understand this entry about the shooting. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen was an American citizen. To state that he was "American-born" implies that he is an Other. He is not, he was a citizen of the United States. The introductory sentences about him should follow the accepted style of any other Wikipedia article that contains information about an American. I do not think it is necessary to include the word "citizen" after American. Because of the possible international aspect of this incident I can see that the article should include the fact that the perpetrator is an American. The piping does not seem necessary to me. Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything added to "American" is either unnecessary or inappropriate. And I agree that any link is also unnecessary, and it only creates problems like we've seen in this thread. It's time we ceased agonizing over the very commonplace word "American". It's possible to overthink this Wikipedia editing business, and I think this is a good example. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Re: [12] @Pincrete: - Come on, you know better. The discussion already existed, and there is a significant if not unanimous sentiment that the link does in fact "do harm". Or, at least, is unnecessary, and we don't link things unnecessarily. For about the tenth time, what justification is there for this article treating "American" any differently than 95% of the other articles that use the word to describe their subjects? Why not discuss first? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, WWGB has now reverted, and I for one am going to consider any further change in this area, without prior consensus, as disruption. Enough is enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Mandruss, sincere apologies if I misunderstood views here, earlier you said you supported the pipe to 'Americans', and I slept in between times. I endorse that we should not treat Mateen any differently from Presley or Clinton or Oprah. It is actually common, but not universal, to link first use of nationality, especially if there is possible ambiguity or uncertainty, eg 'Serbian', 'Russian', 'English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, British'. The logic behind my 'no harm' was that any Canadian or Mexican victims were also 'American', in the other sense of the word. I agree that most of the time 'American'=US, but would still argue that the link clarifies. Pincrete (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Well I just pulled some notable people out of the air and checked their articles. Charles Lindbergh - no link. Stephen Hawking - no link. Ryan White - no link. Desmond Tutu - link. Charles Dickens - no link. Pierre Trudeau - link. Salma Hayek - no link. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - no link. Ludwig van Beethoven - no link. Catherine Duc - link.
I'd say your statement that "It is actually common, but not universal, to link first use of nationality" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Number of Americans in that randomly-chosen sample who have a link: zero.
If you say, "yeah, but Mateen needs special clarification because he was Muslim, and we don't want readers to be misled by that", you are catering to the readers' prejudice in violation of WP:NPOV, and you might examine yourself for some subtle bias in that area.
The idea that we need to clarify that we're not talking about "North American" (or "South American") is frankly a little ridiculous. As WWGB correctly said this morning in an edit summary, "the world understands what an American is". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
nb edit conflict, Mandruss, 'common but not universal' is a reasonable description of that list IMO. It's silly for me to find X counter-examples and I certainly had no intention of making any distinction because of Mateen's background or religion. What about my posts suggests that I would even want to? It was me that first brought the discussion here back when the article (grudgingly ?) described him as a 'U S citizen', the usual name for which I argued is 'American'. The world, I'm afraid, does not universally understand that single use of 'American' anymore than it universally understands the meaning of 'English' or 'British', nor the various uses of 'Russian' or 'Irish'. It understands that use 90%+ of the time perhaps. We don't actually disagree about anything substantive, so let's see whether others think the piped link clarifies, which I believe it does slightly. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC) … … btw, 'Germany' didn't exist in Beethoven's day, so linking would be anomalous and confusing. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Add one, not so randomly chosen: Jimbo Wales - no link. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You've made your point. Linking 'American' is much less common than linking other nationalities. I'm happy to follow the majority view on this, but cannot see the objection to removing the (admittedly small), ambiguity. Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit removing "Muslim"

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Somedifferentstuff, Could you give more details regarding the reason for your recent edit [13] that removed "Muslim" from the description of Mateen in the lead? Especially could you explain the part of your edit summary where you mentioned "neutrality"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying in the lead that Mateen was "a Muslim" sounds rather Donald Trump-ish. It could be interpreted as racial profiling, something which Trump seems to be keen on in the wake of the attack.[14] While it isn't in dispute that Mateen picked up radical Islamic ideas from websites, the average Muslim would not do this sort of thing and is just as sick and tired of it as everyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that we do not treat other mass shooters similarly. No mention of their religion in first descriptive sentence, even when that religious belief may have been tied to their actions. (e.g., Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.). That he pledged allegiance to Islamist groups is enough for the lead I think. The section in the article can explain his religious affiliation (which is questioned). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 10:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Describing Mateen as Muslim in the lead violates WP:NPOV by implying that he was motivated by his religion and giving UNDUE emphasis to a non-noteworthy detail.- MrX 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rican transgender headlining performers

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

"Two Puerto Rican transgender women were headlining performers." This seems like a superfluous statement/trivial. What is the point of its inclusion in the entry? Were they well-known? Were they victims? Partyclams (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to have wandered off topic unless it has some direct relationship to the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. If there is any relevance, it certainly isn't explained here. We don't ask our readers to figure out the relevance on their own. My guess is that there is no relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed.Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done [15] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Akyra Monet Murray

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is a separate article about Akyra Monet Murray appropriate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No IMHO.Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No. Unfortunately, someone put some effort into making a nice article, but the subject is not notable.- MrX 21:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akyra Monet Murray

Plane tickets

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Orlando Gunman Omar Mateen Purchased Plane Tickets for After Shooting: Official. This is also an odd twist, not worth including at present but ??? Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Might help locate his missing wife. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Are anybody aside from pundits even looking for her? If not, she's less "missing" and more just "free to move". InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

House Democrats sit-in

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I went ahead and created the stub 2016 House Democrats sit-in because the sit-in is unprecedented and receiving lots of press coverage. Regardless of the outcome of this stub, I think the sit-in should be mentioned in this article as a reaction. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting development. There should probably be a paragraph under aftermath covering the filibuster, the failed votes, the Senate bill expanding surveillance and NSLs, and the House sit in. If others agree with this, I think it's important to keep to a neutral presentation of facts without quote farming and with minimal name dropping.- MrX 17:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Depending on the length (still ongoing as of this posting), maybe it'd be suitable for ITN. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't sitting around doing nothing usually come before talking in advocacy? By this Benjamin Button trajectory, we'll have a 2016 Democratic Skype bed-in next week. Let's already not include that one here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Broadway for Orlando

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Here's another discussion about the necessity of an article related to this incident. Is Broadway for Orlando notable enough for its own article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd give it 3 lines in the reactions article. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree exactly with Bmclaughlin9. The article is mostly an exhaustive list of names and the subject likely doesn't have much enduring value.- MrX 22:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree about 'a few lines in reaction', and that probably does not deserve own article at this stage. Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Revenge killing claim

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've no idea about this, probably premature unless picked up by other sources, but thought I should bring it to people's attention. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It was also covered by The Daily Mail. I agree that it should be left out until it's covered in more sources.- MrX 14:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
A rather absurd claim, but the Daily Mail isn't the most reliable of all sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC input welcomed

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

People might be interested in this RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ex-wife's name

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed mentions of the ex-wife's name in the article in this edit. My rationale is WP:AVOIDVICTIM which directs us avoid any prolongation or continuation of harm to victims and, perhaps more importantly, per WP:BLPNAME which states:

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

I proffer that she is only loosely involved, low-profile, and is not relevant to the reader's complete understanding of the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur. Minor role, as contrasted to his then-current wife. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly why I didn't remove then-current wife. Should have mentioned that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The AVOIDVICTIM rationale is a bit thin as she was not a victim here (aside from having her name plastered all over the news, which is not how I interpret that meaning of "victim"). But BLPNAME is more than enough to omit (as you indicated by your "more importantly"). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand it's a bit thin, but my thought is that she's (allegedly) a victim of abuse by Mateen. Associating her name unnecessarily with him is furthering harm. Don't need to buy that rationale if you don't want. I think BLPNAME is sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

HIV Status from autopsy

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion

Do we know the Islamist shooters HIV status from the autopsy yet? Could help to explain why this religiously unhinged person became even more unhinged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.9 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is related to the claim in the news today that Mateen acted out of revenge after finding out one of his partners was HIV positive. This is all rather speculative as it is linked to a single source (in Spanish), leading to problems with WP:V and WP:DUE. The autopsy hasn't been made public yet. The Spanish source says "Univision Noticias no pudo confirmar este testimonio", "Univision Noticias cannot confirm this account of events" so it isn't suitable for the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
User:ianmacm, Univision story is already raised above 'Revenge killing claim'. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen this. Perhaps more importantly, it has been added to the article although the sole sourcing was the Univision news story which contains a disclaimer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Now removed by MrX.Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Stuff about Mateen's alleged ex-lover, HIV status, etc. are all hearsay and rumors. We cannot, at this point, include anything about it. Just some rando anonymous person claiming things. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Mononymous, technically. It's better than nothing. But yeah, still not great. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Univision is actually a reputed channel which includes news reporting. And reliable secondary sources have mentioned the interview with him as well for example Telegraph in this article:(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/omar-mateens-gay-lover-claims-orlando-shooting-was-revenge-again/). Besides it's just a claim, not a proven fact; just like all other claims of Mateen being gay. The alleged 'gay-lover' of Mateen even says it clearly that he "believed" Omar did the shooting to take revenge after having sex with HIV-infected men. He never said it is 100% true. 117.199.88.199 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia doesn't need to put every. single. thing. that is asserted about the shooting and that is asserted about the perpetrator into this article. If the FBI makes a statement about this person and their assertions on Mr Mateen's activities then that would be different. Shearonink (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: It is a serious claim about possible motivation. Something as serious as this which is reported by multiple sources is definitely NEWS; not an irrelevant undue thing. Unlike most of the stuff of his alleged homosexuality in the article; this claim of his possible motive should be there instead of the other claims that he uses to date men, had men-dating apps etc which by the way should be removed. 117.199.88.199 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is still an aspect of editorial discretion about what is included and what is not included in every Wikipedia article. I still think, at this point, that including this interview verges on WP:NOTNEWS and, at this point in the process, gives an assertion by an unnamed individual WP:UNDUE prominence. That being said, if more and different information about this issue becomes available then I'll give this some more thought. If the editorial consensus is that this information should be included at this time - I might disagree with that inclusion at this time - but then that's the way it is. Shearonink (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If and when these claims can be verified then they are certainly worth including. For now it is a perfect tabloid scandal. The Telegraph article even states "It was not possible to independently verify the man's claims." Computationsaysno (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

From a legal point of view the HIV claim isn't much better that hearsay. It isn't cited to anyone who actually had an HIV infection or a gay relationship with Mateen. It may have been given to Univision in good faith and reported in good faith, but that doesn't mean that it is true.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Besides being hearsay, it looks like law enforcement officials do not consider it credible that Mateen had gay lovers, at least according to information that currently exists. But it is notable that there is supicion about the integrity of the FBI's investigation, though, for what it's worth. maslowsneeds🌈 11:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing hearsay or rumour about it. Multiple reliable sources have reported it and even a video shot of Mateen entering a room with his "alleged gay-lover". Unlike the statements like he had "gay tendencies"; he used to date men etc.; this claim by the alleged "gay-lover" should be there. I don't understand how people sometimes can disregard such serious news but at the same time regard and consider news which shouldn't even be there in the first place. Anyway. 59.89.101.84 (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting post from a one-time contributor. Note your multiple use of the word "alleged". So, no proof that it ever happened. WWGB (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but it simply hasn't developed enough one way or the other to say anything. Right now we have claims of an anonymous person who claims to be an ex-lover. We have reports of a video (but no actual video for us to look at) that shows the perpetrator checking into the hotel mentioned by the anonymous person. In the report I saw, the video does not show them together. It could develop into something more concrete, but there's very little right now. The HIV revenge part is complete hearsay and speculation, and not just hearsay and speculation, but hearsay and speculation from an anonymous person. That part should be given zero consideration unless we get more solid information. As of now, the FBI is saying there is no credibility to the gay angle. They were given the hotel video on Jun 21, so that may or may not change.Dansan99 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

attack attack in the Casualties section

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We have "and the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since the 9/11 attacks in 2001". Perhaps there is a way one of the attacks could be removed. Not sure what might work better. Anyone? Computationsaysno (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just call it 9/11, I say. A very common noun for the whole shebang. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"Since 9/11" is also a very common frame of reference, since 9/11. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Computationsaysno (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

FBI: OM wasn't gay

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

They have found no evidence for a secret gay life.[16] --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's actually "law enforcement sources" saying the FBI hasn't found any evidence suggesting he was, not the FBI saying he wasn't. It's already in the Perpetrator section. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I've turned your article-style reference into a simpler talk-style link. Hope you don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Article needs more recent photo of Pulse nightclub for Infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There was some discussion early on that the photo of Pulse being presently used in the inbox is way out of date. The building is now painted black, the signage has changed, etc The article would greatly benefit to have a more recent photo. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The most recent Google Street View of the nightclub is from March 2016 and is here. Unlike news media, Wikipedia would have to get this as a free image. Help requested again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hate crime against bombs?

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Per the FBI, Mateen was "out here right now" because America bombed Syria and Iraq. If it had anything to do with gays or Latinos, he either didn't find it worth mentioning, or the FBI didn't find it worth revealing. Should the lead be reweighted to reflect this motive? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Few days old and there's more allegations of revenge etc... I think it's okay for now until something more definitive comes up. That they left it out is not necessarily a sign it wasn't a factor. I changed the snarky title btw. No need to minimize hate crimes EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't snarky. He hated the bombings enough to kill 49 people and himself in an attempt to stop them. Apparently, anyway. Your change minimized the bombs. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If only it were that easy to minimize the bombing of Iraq and Syria. Anyway, I think these edits you made are a perfect balance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's crazy easy. Simply never name the dead or killers. There's only so long anyone can care about the number 25. Or 18, whatever, doesn't matter. It's also very easy to literally minimize bombing, shooting or anything, by just sitting around all day. Gets great exposure, to boot. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: Can you think of a way to express a terrorist's motive that isn't political? I can't, but it still seems very leadworthy to me regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm was trying to when I removed the piped links, but I see you have edited it since. We have to be careful not to go beyond Mateen's actual words. I will look at the sources again to see if we are accurately representing what he said. BRB- MrX 23:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If we must include this material, I think we need to add that he told the negotiator “to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq.” in addition to saying that that was why he was “out here right now.”.- MrX 23:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That would make the lead bit just as detailed as the part it's meant to summarize. I don't really have a problem with that, but I thought you did. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, no matter how we slice it, it's a little too detailed in my opinion, especially since the lead lacks summaries of other important points.- MrX 00:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Such as? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I think MrX's edits were good and restored balance. The big question is whether this is some variant of homophobia/some variant of 'terrorist'/ some variant of crazed loner. If we include every quote that tends to point in one direction, we have effectively decided the answer before either the authorities (or even the press?) have done so. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That certainly was the big question. As far as I can tell, it's been answered. Continuing to frame it as something controversial is good for the press (especially the 24-hour press), because it allows talking heads to share split screens and fill time "debating". Your sister can share LGBT opinion pieces, your brother can share Latino ones, your dad gets anti-radicalization and your mom gets gun control (your family may vary). All probably stimulating food for thought, but what sets Mateen's declaration of motive apart from the rest is that he did the thing and didn't say "allegedly", "supposedly", "apparently" or anything like that.
Wikipedia, as an encylopedic outlet that retains its Google ranking regardless of clicks and shares, gains nothing by including every quote pointing in every direction. But it does its job well by relaying only the correct information. As retaliation for the bombings is the only motive put forward by the actual killer, per the top investigative agency on the case, that's the one that stands high above those posited by former co-workers, Breitbart or The Masked Miguel as the apparently correct one. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Elementary my dear Watson! Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
If that's a backhanded way of calling me an original research genius, thanks, but nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Your link is still one source, which is emphasising the 'Islamist' element, perhaps there are many such. It is still OR to reach any definitive conclusion on the basis of implications in that/those sources, or to give undue weight to those implications. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
There are a few sources for this (bathroom hostages, police, FBI and Mateen) cited in various sources, but none indicating Islamism. No typical talk of punishing infidels or apostates, establishing an American foothold or waging jihad. Just sick of the bombing, which happens to happen in the Islamic State, to Islamists and "innocent women and children" alike. Various groups are sick of that.
Family says he wasn't particularly devout, and probably didn't grasp the difference between Hezbollah, al-Nusra and ISIS. The shout-out to Baghdadi was more "enemy of my enemy"-style political shit, which helped retain the media spotlight and ensure his demand was heard.
This has all also been covered by more reliable sources than me, including in this article. And telling a negotiator why you're terrorizing a nightclub isn't an "implication", but a straight-up declaration. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?

Latest comment: 8 years ago33 comments20 people in discussion
Clear consensus to include a summary of statements. There is no consensus to include any specific statements or detailed quotes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved? - MrX 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has happened many times, and after the initial fuss has died down, the exhaustive flagcruft lists are pruned back to a few notable examples in plain text sentences. This will happen here in due course.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with ianmacm. Let it run its course, and it will be fixed later. I, for the record, am in support of keeping that section short. United States Man (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
That isn't true. There have been many attempts to sneakily "prune" after the event, most have failed. Attempts to "prune" at the Paris or Brussells articles have failed. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Only in summary form. I support only two or so sentences along the lines of my formulation here (the current status quo at the article):
Many people on social media and elsewhere expressed their shock at the events and extended their condolences to those affected, including presidential candidates, members of Congress and other U.S. political figures, foreign leaders, Pope Francis, and celebrities. [citations]
I do not support a list (with flags or otherwise), and I especially do not support direct citations to Tweets. Neutralitytalk 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding an addendum to my remarks: If we do end up keeping reactions from political figures, we must ensure that we rely on reliable secondary sources to summarize/contextualize/synthesize the figures' remarks, and not on videos of speeches directly (some users inexplicably keep adding text on Trump, citing only to a 30-minute long Trump speech - totally unacceptable under WP:PRIMARY). Moreover, if we cite the presidential candidates, we must ensure that content is of roughly corresponding length (i.e., if we include Trump, we must include Clinton). Neutralitytalk 03:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This question is far too open-ended. I think, in accordance with long-standing precedent, the article should include some reactions from major/neighbouring world leaders such as the Prime Ministers of Canada, India and the United Kingdom and the President of Brazil for example. The reaction of the first Muslim Mayor of London would arguably be notable. Reactions of every senator or candidate is obviously not notable. The usual contentious problem of whether to include the reactions of minor countries may not be as present as there has been far fewer reactions than there was for the Paris attacks. I question why the reactions list was removed pending the outcome of this discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    The question is: what is encyclopedic, about a listing of predictable comments from uninvolved people? The answer is: WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. You might as well just copy-paste the same section from an article about a plane crash, and change "plane crash" to "night club shooting".- MrX 20:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No If someone announces they've become directly involved somehow, beyond thinking and praying, sure. But nobody gains by hearing that so-and-so was as shocked and saddened as the next guy, except so-and-so. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Only in summation as per the others. Ian is correct, and many of us have seen exactly the same thing. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Where? AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking through my contribs trying to find it—it was a while ago, sorry. (Edit: I know it was terrorist-related, but I can't find it. You'll just have to take my word for it—or not.  ) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Only in summary form. I'd agree with summary form only as a list notable people making generic statements and not really pertinent to the article though listing a summary of some key statements later on might make sense such as "World leaders such as () and as far away as () gave their condolences."—--Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The summary form may be acceptable as displayable alongside international reactions. — With an addition, that Republican legislators and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate who reacted, were widely and strongly criticized:
  • for having previously expressed sentiments against LGBT people and causes,
  • for voting against legislation expanding LGBT rights, and
  • for voting against more stringent regulations of firearms, including assault weapons.
-Mardus /talk 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Find the sources and feel free to throw them in. No one's opposed to that. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, in summary form I don't see why any particular public reaction should be censored from the article, as long as they are from prominent people and given in summary form. If not, why is the Tony awards ceremony given mention? They weren't directly involved, but I think we can all agree it would be the wrong move to take that down. Similarly, conservative media (and mainstream and liberal reactions to it) are buzzing with talk of political correctness etc. This should be mentioned. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Since the vast majority of votes here are in favor of summaries, I'm going to reinstate my edit to mention conservative reactions until such a time as the consensus changes. It is not my intention to edit war, and I hope no one perceives it as such. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to introduce you to WP:BRD. - MrX 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Since you insist on having an attitude about it, what a good idea! From WP:BRD#Discuss:
"Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert: These sometimes get overused on consensus-based wikis"
Take a look at the votes here, and compare to the edit. Exactly one "No" vote, lots of "(Only) summary form" votes. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Current format as of June 13. This version provides a good split between a summary of reactions in the main article, and a second article contain a more detailed list of reactions. This version keeps the main article short, while still covering the full range of reactions. --Zfish118⋉talk 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we are being asked two distinct questions here, one is about the 'standard' messages of condolence, which should necessarily be very, very, heavily summarised here. The other is about the 'political fallout', which in an election year is inevitable. I don't see how that can be kept out, but coverage should be kept to a minimum. Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, its quite UNDUE, and there already is a separate article for reactions. Maybe if the reactions page gets deleted then it might be worth adding. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 05:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Only in summary form, and with CAUTION - These past few debates over including the whole of Donald Trump's reaction have left a sour taste in my mouth regarding the topic. We must be careful about what we include, how we go about deciding what to add, and the verification of the truth behind these reactions. Parsley Man (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Summary only, erring on side of excluding - A small paragraph summarizing them seems like a decent compromise (though I say we exclude the Trump/Clinton stuff for now). Err toward excluding things like the Alaskan governor's response (as an example from edits last night). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Summary Summary form seems good; There is little need for quotes, but I do feel we are making progress. I mean, at least we no longer have a paragraph per candidate. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As usual, only responses from those directly involved. That's a matter of editorial judgment, which is typically not exercised until long after the event, but so be it. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We need to include Trump's reaction (pro-LGBT, immigration ban) as well as Clinton's (anti-gun) as either one will be the next POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not meant to predict the future; Neither Clinton nor Trump is presently the president, and Wikipedia is not for campaigning. Respectfully, I believe we should recognize here that what someone may be in the future is not editorially relevant in the present. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Even if we knew for sure that Clinton is a lock, we also know that election promises may or may not indicate what a person eventually does or says as President. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Reactions should be limited to those directly involved: President, governor, possibly state senators, mayor, police chief, sheriff, doctors, noteworthy local LGBT and Muslin advocacy groups, Pulse club owner, the shooter's family, per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:QUOTEFARM. All other reactions can be summarized as in the fourth paragraph of the Reactions section in this version. Any exceptions should require prior discussion and firm consensus. Since the reactions article will likely be kept as "no consensus", that will make a great place for politicians to express their heartfelt condolences (with a flag icon, of course) and for political candidates to promote themselves as the better leader. - MrX 11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
How is an advocacy group any more involved than a multi-issue political group? Oh, local. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: List of victims

Latest comment: 8 years ago109 comments51 people in discussion
I count 22 !votes to include vs. 16 to exclude. However, several arguments for excluding are temporary opening the possibility of having separate page listing the victims. The argument against is WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which suggests that wikipedia should not memorialize people who are not themselves notable biographic subjects. Arguments for allowing, suggest that WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to embedded lists in articles, and point out the precedentfor having such lists in other articles about mass shootings. I think that there is a conflict between WP:MEMORIAL and the existing precendent, but this should be addressed in a separate RfC about the general interpretation of the WP:MEMORIAL. In such an RfC i would vote to exclude lists of victims in articles on mass deaths (especially given the inequal possibilities afforded different kinds of victims in different pats of the world), but in this case the local consensus regarding this article in specific is to allow the list untill it is either removed to a separate article or a higher level consensus abolishes the use of such lists acrosss wikipedia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a list of victims of the mass shooting incident in Orlando, Florida, in the article. Shall we allow the list or remove it? --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of full lists of victims, but some people may insist on having one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow for now. As noted in the other RfC, these things tend to trim themselves in time. Based on what I've seen, it will eventually become a summary paragraph with details of the most notable victims. (Full disclosure: I tend to argue for, anyway, based on the argument that these articles can too easily become shrines to the perpetrators.) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • For clarity purposes, my !vote refers only to a listing of the dead. If an injured party were to have earned sufficient and encyclopedic notability, that person would get a passage, rather than a spot on a list of injured (that I would oppose). 🖖ATS / Talk 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No - not unless any victims were notable in their own right. There looks to be about a hundred dead and injured, and how do we select which to list? All of them? This is going to be some time before a complete and accurate list is available. And what if we list someone as dead according to an early report, and they later pop up unharmed, having nipped out for a private party elsewhere? Or vie versa. We can have a seperate article with a list of victims later on. It will be a long list, sadly. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow for now. I'd have to say that maybe a separate article listing the dead might be better than listing them in the main article. (yes, yes I know the whole "wikipedia is not for lists" thing) I do think a simple list of the dead is an important part of the article itself, they are part of the event just as much as the name of the perpetrator and the name of the club are. You can then link to notable victims off that if they have their own wikipedia article about them. Just simply linking to the Orlando city website may end up losing the list of dead when it changes. --Flipper9 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow listing of dead. In previous such cases - alas, not this one! - my thought has been that the living are more numerous, so it costs more space to list them; also the BLP and privacy issues are considerably greater. For a living person to have been in a shooting (perhaps especially at a gay event) can be a matter of privacy, but for a person to have died in a place and time is purely a matter of public record. Also, with wounding there are degrees ranging from vegetative state to some cuts from broken glass - with death, there is no debating the severity. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If It's Wiki's Policy Then Yes. All the victims' names are listed on the Virginia Tech shooting page, as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I would assume we'd do the same for the murdered here. As an encyclopedia it would seem logical that this sort of information would be presented. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Xenomorph erotica: To be clear, you're talking about the dead victims only with that article. There are almost certainly going to be some truly heartbreaking, ghastly living casualties here, which we will want to discuss in prose; but we should be somewhat more cautious about dragging living people into this unless they have significant press coverage, which is to say, abandoning the formal requirement to fill out every single name for the wounded as a matter of format. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow for now – A am not the biggest fan of including a list of names, but at this point it seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow for now and if the article needs trimming later, or if we find notability of a murder victim here we can offload. I seriously object to "privacy" comments above, like going to a gay nightclub is shameful while going to a rock concert in Paris or taking a bus in London or attending a party in San Bernardino isn't. Shame on shaming. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment BLP policy applies to the recently dead. Should we be naming people that were at this nightclub? Also, at least one of the named victims, Kimberly Morris, was employed by the nightclub as a bouncer.[17] Should be employees be separated out from guests? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No - this is a clear violation of privacy rights, of the victims as well as of those they leave behind. We must not give lunatics the option to seek out these victims' families to be harassed for having and tolerating gay family members. Also, a list of names holds no encyclopedic information value. Exceptions would only be such victims, who are the subject of existing Wikipedia articles. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I can understand that argument for the living. But deaths are public record - cold, hard, immovable statistics, inevitably cruel, but necessarily so. The argument that the family might be harassed seems ridiculous. The tiny amount of data we give is such a weak starting point for harassment, that anyone capable of doing so is, with absolute certainty, capable of looking up this data for himself. We serve the less determined readership that might simply want to cross-index in a few years whether a particular person who died in Orlando died here, or check whether a local memorial is for someone on this list. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow and expand (for the time being), or eventually move into a new article. A published list of victims means that the victims' families have been contacted. Otherwise, the amount of data about the perpetrator is greater than information about the victims. That doesn't mean that information about the perpetrator (in an article about him) should in any way be reduced. -Mardus /talk 07:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No per Cush. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, not for terror attacks that are untargeted. the victims list in the Umpqua Community College shooting included non-religious people and a Jewish professor, showing that it was not targeted at Christians as some in the media were asserting. The victim list in that article made some sense. In this case, there's no indication that the victims were targeted in any way. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the only purpose of a victims list is to show characteristics about the victims (eg whether they were targeted on the basis of religion, or whether they were known to the perpetrator) - not to create a memorial for them. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment. The victims were targeted simply because they were people. At a well-known gay nightclub. The perpetrator did not go shoot up an empty building during the day when perhaps cleaning/maintenance was being done and a small number of people were present - he chose a month/time/day when a large number of people would be present so he could kill them. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
How does it contribute to understanding what happened to list the names? These are people, sure, who had names, friends, families, but we are specifically NOTMEMORIAL, which is the principal function of a names list. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be well-established to have a list of victims of mass shootings, see the articles on Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. While some think that it's shameful to have been in a gay club, or be gay, that's homophobia and WP shouldn't countenance it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Because WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable here, so everything related to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I would also like to mention that WP:BALASPS applies in this case - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject"[bolding mine]. To use the perpetrator's name extensively in the article without mentioning his victims' names appears to give the perpetrator undue weight. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per MrX and WP:5P1. Very little encyclopedic value. I see little rationale for listing the victims that is not emotion-based, "don't elevate the perp above the victims", or "well that's what we did in these other articles"—all extra-policy rationales. A quick visual scan for blue caps shows no policy links in Yes !votes. The list may not be precluded by the letter of NOTMEMORIAL, but I guess the spirit of a policy, added to 5P1, beats no policy at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment. If 50 people hadn't died, then Mateen would have no notability. His act was notable, the deaths that occurred are what engender his notability, why aren't the names of his victims notable enough to be included within the article describing the event? In the spirit of WP:5P5, "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions". Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment Most of the pages on mass shootings in the US do have the victims listed, you are correct that 9/11 and most plane crashes do not have the victims listed (and neither does the Oklahoma City Bombing page) but those have such a large number of causalities that it is not practical to list all of the victims, 50 victims does not seem like too many to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Individual victims should not be listed here unless there is something else worth noting about them. The perpetrator is a notable figure because of the act, not the individual victims. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow: A major reason for the notability are the deaths; Alternative: Add list of those killed to Wikidata, and reference in article. --Zfish118⋉talk 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow: not only is inclusion of a list by name of confirmed fatalities consistent with similar articles (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech), it provides the reader with a valuable overview of ethnicity, gender, and victims' ages, information that is not otherwise easily paraphrased. Please also consider that many people are still scouring news sources for information about the welfare of people they know in the area, and this list is helpful. Lots of people turn to Wikipedia first. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment I thought we didn't know the sexual orientation of individual victims. Because I visit, or work in, a mainly heterosexual bar, that means I'm heterosexual does it? Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow This is not merely a disaster, like a plane crash, an earthquake, a tornado, or a tsunami. In those disasters, the prime cause did not seek out and kill people because of some characteristic they had. In this case, the killer apparently hated the victims and killed them because of some characteristic they apparently shared. Additionally, the news media are giving bio details about many of the victims, which is not as common in some natural disaster or plane crash. There has been much more detail than a bare list of names.Edison (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow. I do not usually support the addition of victims' names. On this occasion, I think it illustrates the skewness of the deceased, that is, most of the deceased were male and Hispanic. That is a defining feature of the event. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, but there are easily ways to show that without listing the names of the victims. For example, the way we already do: "Most of the victims were men, with eighteen of the victims being 25 or younger. Over 90% of the victims were of Hispanic background, and half of the Hispanic victims were of Puerto Rican descent." ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with MandrussBrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow If he had not shot these people, the perpetrator would be wholly non-notable. I agree with the comments above that, because the fellow who shot them is, in fact, notable, the victims are worthy of a mention, as well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow but only for the dead not the injured and only basic data besides name like gender and age. It should be a list of fatalities not a list of victims. Living victims have more blp concern about their privacy and what happened to them is less notable. For all I know one of the 53 was shot in the pinky toe. Ranze (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Ambivalent leaning toward exclude - Part of me wants to allow focus and coverage of the victims to honor them, but at the same time Wikipedia is NOTMEMORIAL. We now has an external link to the list of names which is good, and should the list of names be excluded from the article I think that link is sufficient. At the same time, I don't see a whole lot of harm at the moment in keeping them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow if you read the WP:NOTMEMORIAL section it is referring to not creating memorial pages for non-notable people. We aren't creating individual pages or large sections to memorialize each person. It is simply a list of the deceased, which is an important part of the story and is notable. If we started adding non-relevant stuff about each person such as found on some new articles listing what the person did for a living, or that they were a gifted musician than that would be creating a memorial. Flipper9 (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow The invasion of privacy holds no merit as the names are publicly released, and can be seen online, and has been shown on TV. It also gives information, and many tradgedies has showed victims name. And why should we only include notable victims? Are some lives more important than others because they're more notable? No. Keep the list as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick2crosby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure from whence those arguing that wikipedia is "Not a Memorial" are getting their data. If one reads the policy, in the sections of what wikipedia is not, it primarily disallows the creation of pages for non-notable individuals, and seems to have absolutely nothing to do with lists of victims of a terror attack. If someone could elaborate on their interpretation, that would be appreciated. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, very briefly, it isn't what we do, or should be doing to memorialise the dead. Doing so may be an honourable thing to do, but it isn't what we do, it isn't encyclopaedically useful. Of course each of these individuals is probably 1000 times more 'worthy' than the shooter, but we aren't including info about him out of any sense of his merit.
Some people above have said that people may consult WP to find out whether someone they know is on our list. That's fine, but what happens when they find someone with the same or similar name IS on our list? Are we prepared to accept responsibility for that? No one would object (I think) to our linking to official lists and/or help services, but IMO we should not take on functions which others do better, regardless of our sympathies. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment Arguably, it is what we do. As mentioned above, victims for many mass shootings are listed on the pages of the articles in question; It's a fairly standard practice, at this point, and I believe it is common practice on Wikipedia to match the style of other articles on similar topics. The purpose of the list is not to memorialize the dead; Simply to list them, which, arguably, helps provide context. (Some of the articles even include how the victims died, in detail, but I rather strongly believe we should not include that particular thing.) Further, speaking of things we do not do, I do not believe we are meant to make assumptions about the readership. Generally, I believe it is accepted best practice to not assume certain individuals may or may not read the articles on which we work, and to write as objectively on a matter as we are capable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can only say that I would oppose a list regardless of the event, particularly at the head of the article. It appears to be the case that they are more common on US events. How does it inform to say that each of these people had a name? Of course they did, and friends and families and all the other ordinary accroutements of being human. It is pure memorial and that IMO should be done elsewhere, not on WP. Careful, well researched, factual info is what we try to do. My remark about someone consulting our list was more of a response to earlier comments in the discussion, but some responsibility does attach to our publishing a list. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No - not unless the victims were notable themselves, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The victims do not currently have encyclopedic value and we don't want to intrude on the family's privacy if it is not warranted. In my opinion it seems like a violation of privacy rights if we include it. Like I said before, if the victims are not notable, then we should not include a list. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we might be able to compromise using something similar to the Sandy Hook discussion. I don't believe NOTMEMORIAL is a good argument (as we're not making individual pages for the list of victims as stated previously). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since all the WP:NOTMEMORIAL "arguments" against exclusion are obviously based on a wrong interpretation of the policy (and I've said this before!), I agree with Penwhale that maybe we should compromise. Let's "downsize or revamp the list of victims to make it less of an eyecatcher" (like in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), maybe make it into a collapsible wikitable. Again, I repeat, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is supposed to be "This is not a place to add In Memoriam, RIP, and stuff like that", not "This is not a place to put victims' names at all and if you include it you're wrong." We can definitely include victims' names so long as they're sourced to a reliable source. Victims' names on mass shooting articles have precedents. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I think we normally let the closer decide who makes the strongest arguments as to how we should interpret policy Secondly, I think reformatting per Sandy Hook would be do much to lessen the 'memorial effect' of leading with that section and hopefully would satisfy the 'keeps'. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I concur that reformatting, as per Sandy Hook, would be a good compromise, and would lessen the eyecatching effect that others have mentioned. 24.35.112.83 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
(Apologies, that previous IP was me; I had not realized that I was not logged in.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the best course is to delete the list but add a link to a memorial site that has the full list of all the victims in the External Links section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw an argument (by none other than Shearonink, in fact) in the Sandy Hook archives that might also be true here: It might be impossible to integrate the list of people killed in the text of the article as it may be impossible to establish a timeline (which was doable in the VTech shooting case). So I don't think that would work, Meatsgains. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of providing a link to a list, rather than included the actual list or attempt to establish a timeline. Either way, I still maintain keeping the list out. Meatsgains (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
VTech shooting was able to incorporate the names of those killed into the article because a timeline is able to be established (since the killer went through different buildings on campus); here it probably can't be done, so timeline cannot be established. I'm assuming you mean an external link to a list, because a standalone list on the wiki that isn't on this article page would straight up violate NOTMEMORIAL. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Just a side comment here. I was trying to go through the !votes to see how they were leaning, and I found it much harder because there is no consistency in the use of the bolded word at the start of each !vote. We have Yes and Allow, and we have No and Remove, and so on. I could figure it out, and so can the closer, but why make things unnecessarily more difficult? The RfC question is: "Shall we allow the list or remove it?" A No !vote to that question, taken literally, means, "No, we should not allow it or remove it." Yes means, "Yes, we should allow it or remove it." The two answers to this question, unless your !vote fits neither, are Allow and Remove. I confess that I got it wrong myself, because I copied the example of a !vote I agreed with, instead of reading the question more carefully. So my bad, too. I have now fixed my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • remove, do not allow They had no choice about being killed, let their families have a choice about having them on Wikipedia. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • remove, do not allow except for victims who would be notable by themselves. The victims where "random" targets as far as we know, so we need a general description. Could be how many male/female, young/old, etc, whatever clarifies why this victims, but their names add nothing to the understanding of the events. - Nabla (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A great deal of the above discussion is good faith disagreement about whether NOTMEMORIAL applies. Can I point out another, even more basic logic, that there needs to be relevance for the addition of any material, that adding such material adds something of value to the article. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think there's wide agreement on that. The problem is the disagreement as to whether this adds value, and that often gets us deep into philosophical debates about encyclopedias (encyclopædiae?) and stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow (for the dead) similar to other shootings, I think it's appropriate to list the dead, the example in the "Recrafted" subsection below seems most appropriate and encyclopedic. For the injured/survivors, I think privacy issues (including but not limited to BLP) dictate exclusion, particularly considering the controversial views many people have concerning the lifestyle choices that resulted in these folks being in said venue. (in response to RfC) --John, AF4JM (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - @AF4JM: and all: The most recent version of the box is at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft#Casualties. I think we can disregard everything in the "Recrafted" subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia policies say not to name the victims if they or their relatives don't want it disclosed and if it might lead to victimisation and stigma. Although no one seems to have protested that doesn't mean they're ok with it. It can lead stigma to the victims for being homosexual or their family from homophobic/people who don't like homosexuality. Not just that the names are largely irrelevant to the article; and they serve no informational purpose. Potentially therfore, the names qualify as WP:UNDUE as well; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Based on the aforementioned policies about not including names of victims and UNDUE, I request the names of the victims to be removed. Thank you. 117.199.88.199 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Names and ages humanize people who would otherwise be statistics. A large part of this topic's notability comes from its vileness, and a large part of the vileness comes from understanding that each victim had their own identity and their own timespan. Fifty unique deaths, not just one bad night. Detailing their lives beyond that would tend toward sappiness, though. This is just far enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should "humanize" the statistics about wars? Lets add a short list of all the victims of the First World War, just for starters and to celebrate its ongoing 100th anniversary? I don't like to know of 50, or 5, or 5 million dead. Period. If they were someone I knew, that would make a difference, that their name is John, Artur, Pierre, Karim, Mary, Fatima, or whatever adds little to nothing. - Nabla (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It is my impression that Wikipedia tries to be dispassionate rather than "a kinder, gentler" encyclopedia. This is clearly seen in WP:NOTMEMORIAL, whether its letter applies here or not. What tenuous policy connection do you have?
Further, the good point has been made that we can't know whether these people would want their names immortalized in this article (I certainly would not), so this "humanization" is also potential disrespect. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Appreciating humanity and how events like these affect it needn't come from or lead to kindness or gentleness. I just like it because it helps convey the nature of the topic. Disrespecting dead people by ignoring their (possible) wishes doesn't bother me because it doesn't bother them. Recalling what they liked while human (fly-fishing, helping the homeless, not being listed as murder victims) is what I'd consider memorializing.
This is just bare-bones, straight-laced "So-and-so was here for so many years" stuff, like they use on filing cabinet-style war graves. Technically remembering something, but every Wikipedia page does that. No cheesy epitaph, no deer for outdoorsmen, no flowers for Flores and no justice for Justice. I'd like the same for wars that kill under a hundred people, but any more than that and people start thinking they're reading a phone book instead. That's distracting, not illuminating. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
My tenuous connection is thus WP:TLDR. It's a guideline, not a policy, but this list is not too long, so readers will read it. Sound enough logic? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand your point, we should remember. But I doubt this is the place. By the way, on one hand, it feels not normal that 50 deaths are "list-wise notable" but 5,000 are not. What makes people people worth remembering is the size of the paper sheet we have?... weird... On the other hand, if we got some killer which shot the first random guy that turned around that random corner, citing their name would probably be a no brainer. So in part I understand your TLDR argument. All in all, at least my red hat still says no to the list. - Nabla (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What makes people worth remembering is the identifiable victim effect. Lenin said it best, despite not saying it. That's not quite the misinformation effect, but it sounds close enough to fool some of the people all of the time. Anyway, my yellow hat thinks you've made a fine choice and hopes you have a nice day. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Recrafted" List of victims
Newer version available at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft#Casualties - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per some of the suggestions above, I got up a List of victims but put the names in a quote box, similar to the Sandy Hook names. Since this article moves so quickly and people have such strong opinions re:changes, I thought I would post it below. So here's a redrafted list. See what you think:

People killed[1][2]
  • Stanley Almodovar III, 23
  • Amanda Alvear, 25
  • Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26
  • Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33
  • Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21
  • Martin Benitez Torres, 33
  • Antonio D. Brown, 29
  • Darryl R. Burt II, 29
  • Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24
  • Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28
  • Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez, 31
  • Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25
  • Luis D. Conde, 39
  • Cory J. Connell, 21
  • Tevin E. Crosby, 25
  • Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50
  • Deonka D. Drayton, 32
  • Mercedez M. Flores, 26
  • Juan R. Guerrero, 22
  • Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22
  • Paul T. Henry, 41
  • Frank Hernandez, 27
  • Miguel A. Honorato, 30
  • Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40
  • Jason B. Josaphat, 19
  • Eddie J. Justice, 30
  • Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25
  • Christopher A. Leinonen, 32
  • Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49
  • Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35
  • Akyra Monet Murray, 18
  • Kimberly Morris, 37
  • Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27
  • Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20
  • Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25
  • Eric I. Ortiz-Rivera, 36
  • Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32
  • Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25
  • Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37
  • Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24
  • Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24
  • Xavier E. Serrano Rosado, 35
  • Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25
  • Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34
  • Shane E. Tomlinson, 33
  • Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25
  • Luis S. Vielma, 22
  • Luis D. Wilson-Leon, 37
  • Jerald A. Wright, 31

Perpetrator

  • Omar Mateen
References
  1. ^ "Victims". City of Orlando. June 12, 2016. Retrieved June 12, 2016.
  2. ^ Teague, Matthew; McCarthy, Ciara; Puglise, Nicole (June 13, 2016). "Orlando attack victims: the lives cut short in America's deadliest shooting". The Guardian. Retrieved June 15, 2016.

I have signed my content here, below the References section, so hopefully it will all make sense visually. Now, on the article page, the bit of "References" listed above will be down at the bottom of the article with all the other article references. The Quote box would be to the right side of the article-page, near the Casualties section. Shearonink (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If you hate it, if you love it...comment below. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm. (1) Like the Sandy Hook list, let's (begrudgingly) add Mateen to the list as this is a list of casualties and not just victims (alternatively rename the list as list of victims); (2) Feels like the font for the list is still a bit large - Since we have a longer list, we probably should keep the font size similar if possible as the list would span multiple main article sections, perhaps. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Casualty can means those injured as well. That's a list of the dead/killed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Which, considering the names weren't released, we would just lump them together in 1 line? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for lack of clarity. My comment was mostly regarding the title of the list to the right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted the font-size to "small", changed the list title to "List of people killed" (for now - not sure what the List should be called...) and included the perpetrator's name separately. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

We generally avoid stating the obvious (List of). We don't begin the captions of photo images with "Photo of". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
adjusted to "People killed". Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this one fits the article better than the latter; As it could go in an unobtrusive sidebar, I feel it would better placate any who might complain about the list being too attention-drawing. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Recrafted" List of victims too
Newer version available at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft#Casualties - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Another alternative for your consideration. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Fatal victims
I don't like "fatal victims" ... it seems like a misuse of the adjective, and an unnecessarily convoluted way of thinking about the situation. "List of casualties" is also wrong because wounded are casualties. Simply "Killed" would seem starkly appropriate to me. Also, by using that term, it is possible to accommodate Mateen in the list as Penwhale suggested - though it would seem appropriate to put the name at the end, italicized or something, just to be clearer ... there will probably be some kid solemnly reading off this list of names at some point as a gesture, and we don't want him to have a humiliating mishap. Wnt (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the title of the List I put up to "List of people killed". It is possible that some of the nightclub guests were killed by friendly-fire. Also, changing it to "killed" allows the inclusion of Mateen's name if the consensus is for including his name. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Fatal victims sounds a bit strange, maybe just 'Deaths'? This would also allow for "Omar Mateen, 29 (perpetrator)" to be included and for there to be two symmetrical columns of 25. Zaostao (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Though "Deaths" is not incorrect - all these people did die - I think "Killed" might be more precise. So far as I know, no one succumbed to a health incident, like a heart attack. They all died because of another person's actions. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Another person's actions - yes, specifically the mass shooting which the article is about and which all other information is related to... Zaostao (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
These people died. They were killed. Whatever wording the community decides is appropriate for the List I have no problem with. We're all here just trying to build an encyclopedia and doing the best we can. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me! Kinda wondering why the table header font color is #252525, but that seems to be something on Wikipedia's end. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to #000000? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


Remove - Not to come across as cold hearted, but per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the individuals involved do not meet notability requirements. DrkBlueXG (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Allow At least for fatalities. It's not a question of memorialization, but of fully describing the impact of a crime. How many people does a murderer have to kill before we stop including their victims' names and replace them with just a body count? 5? 10? 25? 100?--agr (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
A hundred. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the mass shooting be called a "terrorist attack" in the first sentence?

Latest comment: 8 years ago99 comments33 people in discussion
The consensus here seems to be to include mention of "terrorist attack" in the definition sentence. There is precedent for doing this and no clear policy arguments against doing so. Arguments against inclusion seem to be based on speculation about motives and about the meaning of the word "terrorism" - here we need to follow sources instead. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This has been a contentious label, so I'm trying to establish a firm consensus here.

Should the mass shooting be called a terrorist attack in the first sentence of the lead? - MrX 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I clarified the question in the heading and the opening. I'm very confident about this change because of earlier interaction with MrX about this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, and the article should remain this way because both journalistic and government sources refer to it this way. However, it should be called a lone wolf terrorist attack, because that is specifically the type of attack it was. Government sources refer to it this way. See for example https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/12/florida-gunman-omar-mateen-fbi-lone-wolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avangion (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should. Mateen pledged allegiance to the Islamic State prior to his attack, and as such the attack was most definitely terror-motivated. --PatientZero talk 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - per WP:NPOV reflection of reliable sources. Sources refer to it this way, and we should too. Unless the investigation concludes it was not one, I say we keep it in the lead. If such a conclusion is reached, we can describe the conflicting descriptions in the body of the article and remove the label from the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - per EvergreenFir. Parsley Man (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - per the pledge & the reliable sources. I'd also call it a hate crime per reliable sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Considering the above^ and the reliable sources this incident should be referred to as a terrorist attack. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Certainly it needs to be called terrorism per sources, and probably in the first or second para. But putting the word in the first sentence without context presents the same problem as putting it in the infobox without context. It's without context. Sure, they can and should read on for the context, but that reasoning would also apply to the infobox. First sentence, as the most important defining thing in the article after its title, should be limited to that which does not need context. The nuance that needs explanation is the fact that ISIL is not at all like Al Qaeda in their methods, so we need to explain what we mean by terrorism in this case, which we cannot do in the first sentence. I have zero problem with calling it terrorism soon after the first sentence, with clarification, as I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The "officials" has declared it as a terrorist attack, and multiple other Wikipedia versions even call it "The terrorist attack in Orlando 2016". I do believe we call 9/11 a terrorist attack i the lead of the article - don't see why not here. It is, it is called, and it will stand. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    9/11 is hardly an apt comparison. Proven to be Al Qaeda financed and planned, beyond any doubt, no nuance like that presented by the ISIL situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    The fact that a group or a single individual did the attack does not matter. It is a terorist attack. That's aleady settled by reliable sources and official investigators. The question is "Should it be in the lead". And since most news sources refer this as a terrorist attack, I believe it goes to the heart of this subject, and should therefore stay. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    The question is "Should it be in the lead". - No, the question is should it be in "the lead topic sentence", meaning the first sentence. I got the impression from some of the !votes that others misread that, too. It's clear that at least one of us !voted without understanding what was being decided. The need for this RfC arose from this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No per Mandruss, news sources are still full of speculation about how much homophobia and or 'Islamism' and or 'disturbed fantasist' are prime causes, and the term is inherently loaded. Until it is clearer what the motives and intentions were, and whether anyone else was involved, we should err on the side of caution, we know it was a mass murder, everything else at the moment is speculation. Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, but as long as people think terror is a synonym for terrorism, or pledging to ISIS makes you a terrorist, that's what it's going to say. Fun Fact: Almost every surviving civilian in ISIS territory has also pledged loyalty to ISIS, and virtually none are terrorists. Just terrified. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Hadn't noticed this FBI statement. The lead sentence should say terrorist attack and hate crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
And No again, per "doesn't suck" diplomacy below (further below than below). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Is there something shady about Ron Hopper? In the absence of a trial or inquest, he seems the next best thing to a judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but he appeared to be speaking for Ron Hopper, not for the FBI. An official FBI position will come from someone like an FBI spokesperson, the FBI Director, maybe an FBI Deputy Director. Not some unknown Special Agent contacted by phone by Faux News for a comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
When an agent speaks to the media and isn't called "law enforcement source" or "official", that indicates he's authorized to speak publicly on the case. And he's not unknown, he's been talking from the start. We already mention him here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You might be right. In my experience U.S. government agencies do not release official positions on matters of such import in that manner. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
They very often don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an unauthorized agent on Mateen's cellphone, and another (or the same) on his browsing habits, an hour ago. That is shady. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I still stand by my vote. There is a great amount of emphasis on the terror aspect of this shooting and I think it should therefore be addressed as such anywhere and everywhere in the article when necessary. Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd still call it a terrorist attack & a hate crime. There are reliable sources for both of those. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Responding to ping. I Stand by my no in the opening sentence/para. That some sources are using this term, I don't object to saying next para. It is precisely because it invites immediate comparison with Paris, 9/11, etc that I think the term should not be used in Wiki-voice at the beginning. It is still very unclear whether proper comparison is with a school or similar shooting by a deranged individual with a grudge, or who had a sick wish for notoriety, who happened to put an Islamic 'spin' on his deed. The deed bears none of the hallmarks of the other clear, conscious, organised attacks by people who were part of networks, such as Paris. As regards 'hate crime', probably yes and probably the focus of that hate was gays, (rather than Americans in general, since the victims were substantially of Latino extraction), but the same caution should be used about use of that term. Pincrete (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No. – Terrorist attacks generally involve organizations directing from without. This was a single person – evidently a very conflicted person – essentially acting on his own, his last-minute allegiance to the so-called Islamic State notwithstanding. (Note second sentence of second paragraph.)

I suggest simply deleting the rather clunky phrase terrorist attack and hate crime from the lede, which already is overlong at almost 100 words. That still leaves us with a mass shooting, which it certainly was. Sca (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Still Yes I think that the word terrorist attack should remain in the lead sentence. This was most clearly a hate crime however, regardless of perp. motives, this incident was designed to cause terror and fear. Reliable sources and public officials have not hesitated to label this a terrorist attack. This may change but right now, given the immense trauma, terrorist attack is an apt description. I mean isn't june supposed to be all about LGBTQ pride? I understand the opposition to labelling it as a terrorist attack though. I do not think the organizational control of the incident matters, whether it was directed or just inspired by islamic terrorism is immaterial for me because of the impact of the incident. The cause matters little, what matters is the effect it has had, on Orlando, the LGBTQ community, and the US as a whole. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes as it was an attack by a terrorist. How he became a terrorist is irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. There's a different between terrorist-inspired and terrorist-committed; this is the former of these, a terrorist-organization-inspired mass shooting. It is not directly committed by the terrorist group. If so, we can call Adam Lanza a kid-hating terrorist who kills kids. Or we can call Aaron Alexis just a plain terrorist. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That's certainly true, but the FBI didn't call it a terrorist attack because it was inspired by terrorists. Rather because “This was an act of violence born out of hate that inflicted terror on an entire community". Presuming Mateen's Facebook posts are legit, that inflicted terror seems fairly likely designed to pressure America into stopping the bombing policy. It won't, of course, but intentions matter more than results in defining terrorism. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The definition of terrorism doesn't make any distinction between group or individual action. Terrorist acts are violent acts intended to intimidate the civilian population and/or influence government policy. Per the perpetrator's Facebook posts made during the attack, it clearly fits the definition. Dansan99 (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think it can be difficult to write well when you look only at individual words and phrases, because you can lose sight of how the whole paragraph fits together. Such is the case in this talk section regarding the first paragraph of the lead.
"On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime occurred inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. Fifty people died, including the gunman, who was killed by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff. An additional 53 people were injured. It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001."
Please consider the following replacement and note how it removes redundancies such as: "terrorist attack" redundancy in the first and last sentences; "hate crime" in the first sentence redundant with "violence against LGBT people" in the last sentence; "mass shooting" redundant with "Fifty people died including the gunman"/"additional 53 people were injured". Also note that the proposed version doesn't use the awkward phrasing "a mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime occurred". Another advantage is having the victim casualties of 49 dead and 53 injured together, instead of separate.
"On June 12, 2016, a gunman killed 49 people and injured 53 others inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. The gunman was killed by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff. It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001."
Please see the reverting diff [18] and consider whether restoring the edit would improve the lead. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying your arguments are without merit, but you are completely reframing the question of this RfC. Do we do that? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
While the words are redundant, the Wikilinks are not. One leads to terrorism, one to American domestic terrorism. One leads to hate crime, one to American gay hate crime. Perhaps that matters, perhaps it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No It is fair and true to say that some have described it as a terrorist incident. There is not enough evidence yet (and given that the only person who ever really knew is dead, may never be) to say that is certainly was such. Newspapers, politician and agencies have motivations for wanting to make hurried declarations, an encyclopaedia does not. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No Use the WP:COMMON title. If you just follow the cites, what they put in their titles is "mass shooting". Even though this will get counted and associated to LGBT violence, Islamic, hate crimes, mass shootings, ISIS, etcetera -- terrorism is not the expected title and WP:SURPRISE leads me to say that's not the right title to have it under. In the titles of the cites, I see that only #82 and #98 use "terrorist", and loosely one has #66 where ISIS claims it (though they did not directly instigate or participate), or a few quote Obama "act of terror and hate". A quick check against Google and Bing also seems to back that up -- Orlando mass shooting is many times bigger than Orlando mass shooting +terrorism. Markbassett (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: Can't tell if you're !voting on the article's title or on the RfC's question. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss - It's 'No' to using that in the first line. The WP:LEAD guidance WP:BEGIN kind of points one to use the title for the firstline. "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Sorry I didn't make the connection more clear before. The first line's existing rephrasing and including of date seem in line with the guidance, putting the word terror into first line does not. Markbassett (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No The atrocity seems to have more in common with a typical American mass shooting than an actual terrorist attack.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No and it is a pity that there is RfC on this because it slows down the editing process to a crawl. The current wording of the opening sentence is poor and there is no need to say "terrorist attack" twice in the opening paragraph. It's looking less likely that this was a terrorist attack and more likely that it was a routine loner with a grudge. Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    You mean there are editors who don't sometimes despair of Wikipedia? Where? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No because it does not read well. I recommend: mass shooting in first sentence. Then in second sentence: In what has been characterized as a terrorist attack and hate crime, the shooter... e.g. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes This is like San Bernardino, a "homegrown violent extremist" as said in that article which says "terrorist attack" in the first sentence.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As I've said, the real problem is poor wording and no need to say "terrorist attack" twice. Also bear in mind that since the RfC started, investigators have moved away from the theory that this was a deliberate terrorist attack and is more likely to have been the work of a typical loner with a hotchpotch of crazy motives.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. The phrase "terrorist attack" is vague. It could be used to mean: (1) "violence worthy of the highest condemnation". (2) "violence inflicted to create fear". (3) "violence inflicted by a civilian." I am not the first person to be concerned that the word tends to be used to mean (4) "violence inflicted by a foreigner/alien/other." If (1), then the claim that the attack was a terrorist one is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). If (2), then the claim needs support. (Does Mateen's declaration of membership in ISIS qualify him as a terrorist? I wouldn't assume so. Not all violence, even deeply reprehensible violence, is designed to create fear. Some of it is done out of retaliation, or a misplaced sense of right.) If (3) or (4), then the word "terrorism" is not encyclopedic. Why not report the facts: "Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS. The attack was widely denounced as an act of terrorism." Omphaloscope talk 08:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Omphaloscope, I endorse your main point, if "terrorist attack" is simply defined as 'that which causes terror', every serial murderer, serial rapist, school shooter etc becomes a 'terrorist', the term loses any meaning. It's probably a sensitive point, but if one's intention was to cause terror among the majority of Americans, a gay nightclub would not be an obvious target. Whatever sympathy and shock a broad swathe of middle-America might feel, it's hardly going to make them cancel their trips to places they would probably never choose to visit anyhow. Pincrete (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Prominently calling this a terrorist attack implies an orchestrated effort to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. There has been no determination by investigators that this is the case in this shooting. The terms "act of terror" and "terror attack" are used far too loosely by the media, pundits, and politicians. As an encyclopedia, we should present the facts as dispassionately as possible, especially in the lead.- MrX 12:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – There was a recent edit of the article (diff), that seems to end this RFC. The reason I mention this is that I would like to edit the first paragraph along the lines of my previous comment of 03:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC). --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    [[ping|Bob K31416}} How does that edit end this RfC? Whether the content is in or out for the time being, the question is yet to be decided. That's what we're doing here. That said, there's been enough participation that I wonder whether we need the full 30 days, or anything close to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Bob K31416: retry. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. (diff) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears that Bob may have interpreted my comment as support for that edit (his edit, the one linked immediately preceding). It was not. Beyond that, I'll stay out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, you can always clarify what you meant by "retry". [19]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thought it was obvious, but happy to do so. I botched the ping in the first comment, as you can see. A ping doesn't work unless it's added in the same edit as your signature, so I couldn't just do another edit and fix the ping. My choices were (1) self-revert and start over, or (2) add another comment with a good ping and another signature. I chose 2. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by linking to a video about "NOT jokes". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It reminded me of a not joke. So I agree it was obvious ....................................................................... not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - It meets most of the definitions of terrorism. While motives still aren't clear, it is pretty obvious that this was an act of terror of some kind. Whether it be Islamic extremism, or some other kind of extremism, it is still terrorism. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 04:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Purely from being called that consistently by reliable sources. I note that some of the objections above seem to be objecting to renaming the article to include the word terrorist/terrorism, which is not at issue. For the first sentence of the lead, saying terrorist is appropriate. Fieari (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per MorbidEntree, it was an act of terror and he pledged allegiance to IS, which is supported in countless reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Meatsgains, an 'act of terror' isn't quite the same as 'a terrorist act'. Whatever the former is, the second is explicitly defined by clear political motive. Do we know that to be true? Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"The motive is very clear...". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A quote from one of the hostages. Great work, Hulk. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
She said everyone in the bathroom heard it. It was later corroborated by the FBI. She was only wrong in thinking a 911 operator was on the other end. Anybody out there with firsthand knowledge saying anything contrary? If not, that's exactly what a terrorist does. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It still doesn't warrant first-sentence-without-context, which is the question of this RfC. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't use the word terrorism. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It makes the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting a terrorist attack. So that makes the lead sentence a fairly reasonable place to define it as such. Context comes later. The "denounced as" line seems a bit too unsure of itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
We treat infoboxes as if some readers arrive, read them, and leave (and that's very likely true). My contention is that we should treat the first sentence the same. In this case, "terrorism" without explanation would be extremely misleading and would not serve to inform our readers. It would serve only the compulsion to label and categorize things in nice, neat little packages that people can understand without spending too much brain power. It facilitates and perpetuates simple-minded worldviews, which should not be a goal here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Something tells me immediately calling it a terrorist attack rooted in America's foreign policy is not an ideal solution. People who can't be bothered to read an entire lead section deserve to stay uninformed. Presuming those who only read the first sentence also read the infobox, any thoughts on adding the motive there? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, June 26, 2016
No one deserves to stay uninformed, and that logic is completely inconsistent with the mission of an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
If you can think of a way to impart the same information to first-sentence readers and whole-lead readers alike, you'll be bigger than Gutenberg. In the meantime, virtually every page of everything will continue to favour the latter. Maybe unfair, but it's the way words work. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that ommitting terrorism in the lead feeds "uninformed." The FBI doesn't investigate routine murders or even mass shootings unless there is a terrorism nexus. There are many sources recognizing self-radicalization at a minimum as the basis for this terrorist attack. Other motives are much more anecdotal than terrorism. --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC).
As I and others have repeatedly said, please do address the terrorism aspect in the lead, with explanation of what it means in this case. Do not place that simplistic, broad-brush characterization in the first sentence without that explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And as others have said, that's not what the lead is for. WP:LEAD is that it summarizes the article with details fleshed out in the article. We don't go into detail about any other angles, either (i.e. why it is a hate crime, the state of mind required and how an allegedly gay person could commit that crime against other gay people - those details are for the article and "hate crime" is a summary). "terror attack" is a summary of a significant viewpoint that is covered in the article. Omitting it is adding to ignorance of a significant aspect of the article. It's broadly a terror attack (and hate crime) with subtleties left for the article. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This treatment, current as of this post, is a fair balance. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with that. It gives the significance you asked for and fits with the other angles of motive. There is a CNN and Atlantic source for it as well. --DHeyward (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't suck to me, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@DHeyward and InedibleHulk: Cool. Now should you change your !votes, or do we depend on the closer to put that together? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Nobody could possibly read all this. Changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting ignoring 'terrorist attack' as covered in RS, nor removing the phrase from the lead. What the RfC is about is lead sentence only. Are we clear that RS are saying clearly that the primary motive was 'terrorist/political' or are those RS still uncertain how much this was terrorism and how much other motives? Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I edited the article so that, at the end of the first paragraph, it states: "The attack was widely denounced as a hate crime and an act of terrorism." (Since then someone has changed 'attack' to 'massacre'.) That is, I turned the claim that this was a terrorist attack into an ascription of a belief. Let me say a bit here about the pros and cons of this choice, as I see them. I made this edit because "X is an act of terrorism" is not a politically neutral statement, and so it is not an encyclopedic claim. It is not neutral because it implicitly includes the claim that the act was wrong. Now, the attack should be condemned in the severest terms, but not in an encyclopedia. That being said, Wikipedia can't totally avoid making implicit claims about what is right and what is wrong. A public, open encyclopedia like this one, by its very existence, carries a very loud implicit claim about what is right. But to get back to the main point: I've said that "X is terrorism" is not neutral. A carnivore will not say, "A cow had to be murdered for this hamburger to exist." That is because "X is murder" carries the implication that "X is wrong." Murder is a morally loaded, thick concept. Terrorism is probably a thick concept too. (See footnote below.) But what about my edit? Is "X was widely denounced as an act of terrorism" neutral? It is not perfectly neutral. It carries the implication that the denouncement was sensible, and the article does not distance itself from this implication. I suspect that is why no one has changed it. It weakens, but does not remove, the condemnatory feel of the opening paragraph. I don't mind that this sentence is not perfectly neutral. Neutrality is an ideal that we can approach, and not something we can achieve perfectly. After all, there is no "neutral" way of deciding which point of view is the neutral one. Long story short: in my humble opinion, you should treat the expression "X is an act of terrorism" as you would "X is an act of violence intended to produce fear for political ends, and may the perpetrators burn in hell." Entirely appropriate in real life, but not in an encyclopedia. (Footnote: See Shanahan, Philosophy 9/11: Thinking about the War on Terrorism, p. 55.[20]. The Wikipedia article on Terrorism stipulates a definition for the term, and this definition is purely descriptive and not evaluative. Does it follow that terrorism is not a thick term? No. The definition there does not perfectly track how the term is used. That article is trying to "show the way": it is trying to encourage people to use the term "act of terrorism" as a social-scientific, morally neutral description. Uses of the word "terrorism" on Wikipedia, outside that article, invoke the widespread, implicitly evaluative version of the concept. That said, I am relying here on nothing more than an informed guess about how "terrorism" tends to be interpreted by the primary audience of this article. Like "murder", the word can cease to "look" evaluative if you focus on the descriptive component of the word for long enough.) Omphaloscope talk 15:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I've changed it to "widely called". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, InedibleHulk. I can see why you did that. At the moment---and maybe it's just the caffeine speaking---I slightly prefer 'denounced as'. I'm not sure why. Maybe because it indicates the emotion that I think is involved in the claim that it is terrorism. Just thinking out loud here... "Described as an act of terrorism", "classified as an act of terrorism", "labeled as terrorism"---these phrases seem inapt, somehow. And I suppose it might have to do with the point I was banging on about above. (Though, I would say that, wouldn't I?) To put that point in a different way: as I see it, we don't tend to use the word "act of terrorism" just to put something into a mental bucket (as we would use "cup of coffee"). We often use it to get our moral opinions and emotions out into the open. I admit that there is perhaps something naive or even cold about trying to expunge such language as "unencyclopedic". As a little thought experiment, imagine that this article consisted of a down-to-the-millisecond, dispassionate description of the attack. It would be a paragon of objectivity. It would also be inhuman. Your edit is very similar to mine. To use a metaphor, these two edits seem to be separated by a few inches. If you draw a line between them, and extend it in both directions, then you get a spectrum of language, ranging from non-neutral to excessively neutral. Omphaloscope talk 16:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You might be right (and I might be misunderstanding you). I prefer a "cold" encyclopedia. As to your removal, I think it should have stayed. Not to demonize or glorify or anything like that, just because Mateen clearly stated his political aims before and during the terrifying action against civilians he flatly associated with them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is another way to see the point. Some people on this talk page have come forward to explain what they mean when they claim that the attack is an act of terrorism. Sometimes, when the claim is interpreted according to these directives, it comes out as neutral and encyclopedic. However, these intentions are not clear from the article itself. I think it is likely that the word sometimes operates as implicitly evaluative. The evaluative and descriptive uses of the term are not often enough clearly distinguished. ("Fascist" seems to be a term whose neutral/historian use and evaluative/schoolyard use are well known to be distinct. Not so with "terrorist"---I don't think people realize that it is often implicitly evaluative.) So I agree with the Wikipedia policy (WP:TERRORIST) of not using this word except when describing what people think or say. Omphaloscope talk 18:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Terrorist" is listed among the "words to watch" at this Wikipedia policy page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels: "Value-laden labels---such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion--may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution [i.e. putting the word in the mouth of a reliable source]." Omphaloscope talk 16:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • include terrorist attack but also should include hate crime Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No The formal and informal, FBI and News investigations regarding the mass murder are not over and there is at least a hint of manipulation to call it terrorism. If, indeed, the murderer did pledge allegiance to anyone it could have been a mask based on the data so far discovered. Evidence suggests he could have been a homophobic gay male whose real or primary motive was to kill gays. Hiding his motive in order to hide his sexuality could have been his underlying real motive. Siding with anyone at this time could diminish the integrity of Wikipedia. Possible motives should be terrorism and/or homophobiaDaviddaniel37 (talk) 09:09, June 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the current "widely considered" language satisfactory, but I don't see why a mass killing by "a homophobic gay male whose real or primary motive was to kill gays" would not be considered an act of terrorism.--agr (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Every murderer's prime motive is killing, usually based in and causing fear. They're just plain murderers. If a murderous homophobe demanded the government expel all gays, repeal a rights bill or some such nonsense, lest the killing continue, that'd make him an anti-gay terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Early close??

The point of an RfC is to gather a wide range of arguments for the closer to consider. We've had a lot of experienced comments, and I can't imagine there is much left to say that's worth waiting for. There is nothing gained by collecting more "me too" !votes. How about calling for an early close? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Support close, good idea, all the pertinent discussions should probably be closed earlier than 30 days, otherwise events may well make the discussions irrelevant anyway. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually most of the !voting occurred before the significant turn in reporting on the terrorism question. See Ianmacm's comment 06:18, 19 June 2016. In my opinion, that largely invalidates those !votes and we should abort, not close. If someone still felt we needed terrorism in the first sentence, we could start a new RfC based on what we know now. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think those that support inclusion (not my position btw), would object to the idea that any new coverage invalidates their vote. The central question since day one has been to what extent this was terrorism, hate crime, or simply a disturbed person. Media coverage may have calmed down a little, but that question has not been answered, and it may be the case that no clear answer will ever emerge. I don't know what best to do procedurally, but would not oppose an abort. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?

Latest comment: 8 years ago30 comments20 people in discussion
This RfC indicates consensus for Option A: Include both in the lead. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This is a two part question resulting from two previous deadlocked discussions here and here.

  1. Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic?
  2. Should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?

Please selection from one of the following options, or write in your own:

A: Include both in the lead. Example: "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night and most of the victims were of Hispanic descent."
B: Only include that most of the victims were Hispanic in the lead. Example: "Most of the victims were of Hispanic descent."
C: Omit any mention of Latin night and Hispanic victims in the lead
D: Mention that it was Latin Night. Omit the race of the victims from the lead. Mention details in the body of the article.

MrX (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

For the sanity of the closer, please put threaded discussions and responses to votes below in the Threaded discussion section below.

  •  
  • Keep both. Latin night should certainly be in the lead and coupled with that %90 of the victims were of Hispanic descent. If there is anyone who doubts these are salient points needs only to read accounts of the vigils and memorials that touch on both the LGBT and Hispanic aspects and trying to incorporate both into being sensitive to the situation. We wouldn't know any of this if the sources didn't report it. Computationsaysno (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B or modification/extension of B. This is the lead and the note-worthy fact is that over 90% (rather than 'most' I believe) of the victims were of Hispanic descent. When and if known, the fuller 'nationality' figures should also be added to the article body. I have no objection to adding 'Latin night' after the 'victims' sentence, if others feel it adds necessary context, which I personally don't and feel it just distracts from the main point. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • C. Based on the lack of evidence, it seems coincidental. He was not specifically targeting Hispanics. Ionize Me (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Tending towards Option C As I've said before, this isn't WP:LEAD material unless it becomes clear that Hispanic men were being deliberately targeted in the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both. As stated above : I have tried to look at how Wikipedia treated the German bakery bombing as a guidepost for perhaps how this article should be written. Although the circumstances are different, it is compelling that in describing the 2010 bombing in Pune, India, the backdrop of the attack was described in the lead. Although that attack nominally took place at a bakery, the demographic of those, who frequented the bakery, was sufficiently described, including the kinds of patrons for whom the establishment was popular at the time of the attack, as well as the demographic surrounding the bakery. (We don't even describe the demographic surounding the Pulse night club in the lead of the subject article.) The description of the demographic goes to important aspects of the attack : Who died, a., and who died as a consequence of the timing of the attack, b. For the bakery bombing article, this information appears in the lead, either offering a precedent or at least a strong suggestion about perhaps how similar information regarding the Pulse night club shooting should/could be treated. maslowsneeds🌈 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both in the lede. The FBI will give its view of relationship of motives with the results of the crime. 178.232.26.137 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)— 178.232.26.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep both I'm 99% sure this wasn't due to hate against them as a minority group, but Latinos unquestionably were the majority here, which made this a distinctly different and more widely-covered story from those where they weren't. Many reliable opinion pieces make this outcome a defining element, so we should reflect that, as we do with the gay angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)  7
  • C. How much deeper is this to go, what eye colour the victims had? Add if authorities list race and ethnicity as a motivating factor. Zaostao (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • B or A - I don't feel that mere mention in the lead necessarily implies motive. If it does, we should also remove mention of LGBT from the lead (and that actually precedes Hispanic by one sentence). To me, this is merely a brief and concise statement of the demographics of the dead, nothing more.
    For comparison, Shooting of Michael Brown states in the second sentence that Brown was black and Wilson is white, but that does not imply that Wilson shot Brown because he was black (and there has been no evidence of racism in Wilson). Likewise Shooting of Samuel DuBose, except that it's the first sentence. They are not exactly the same situation as this, being included in the larger debate about cops killing blacks, but they are close enough for this comparison. Inclusion in the lead does not necessarily imply motive.
    I wouldn't have a problem with moving "Hispanic" to the second paragraph to de-emphasize it, but the threshold for inclusion in the third sentence is lower than that of the first.
    Latin Night is an explanation for why most of the dead were Hispanic, and seems too incidental for the lead. But it doesn't seem to do any harm, so I could also support A if it improves flow—"Most of the victims were Hispanic" seems a bit terse. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Both. According to the article Orlando, Florida, 28.4% of Orlando residents are Hispanic, whereas, according to this article, "[o]ver 90% of victims were of Hispanic background." This is a huge discrepancy that must be addressed, including in the lead. The media has frequently mentioned the Hispanic/Latino/-a and Puerto Rican background of the victims. So should we. Failing to do so is an egregious case of minority erasure. Many Wiki readers share this background and would very much be interested in this information. The media has consistently mentioned Latin Night in the context of the Hispanic/Latino/-a background of the victims. So should we. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I definitely think option B should be picked, as it seems to be a highly important aspect of the event. It's not like the lead section is currently overly long. Option A may also be picked if it improves on the wording. Actually, listing both may be the easiest way to communicate the context of the event. The article is about the entire event, after all. ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A - This was a crime against the LGBT community rather than Hispanics. So although the information is not relevant, it is factual and informative for the article. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A (use both) - Both are pertinent and importand to the understanding of the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A I don't see a problem with this being included in the lead, or being "lead material," as it seems this is plainly true and correct information and is a big part of the story. United States Man (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • C, or possibly B. It is noteworthy that most of the people killed were Hispanic and it should be mentioned in the article, however there is no indication that that had anything to do with the motivation for the shooting so it should not be mentioned in the lead as it would tend to mislead readers into thinking that it is tied to motivation. The applicable policy section is WP:UNDUE. If the weight of consensus is that it should be included, then there is still no reason to mention that the club was hosting Latin night. It's fairly trivial. Nightclubs frequently have themed event like ladies' night, college night, and so on. It should simply be mentioned as a detail in the body of the article. - MrX 14:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Option D – Keep it succinct in the lead and with no race baiting. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In effect, you are defining any acknowledgment of race or ethnicity as "race baiting." One might call that a microaggression, at the very least. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

"of Hispanic descent" should just be "Hispanic", though. What the victims' parents and grandparents were doesn't matter as much as what the victims were. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Some victims were US of Hispanic background, some were actual citizens of Hispanic countries, a few I think were even 'illegals'. I think that was the original logic of the 'Hispanic descent'. I don't know what term covers everyone and is apt in a US context. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There are no Hispanic countries, just Spanish-speaking countries that make you Hispanic if you or your ancestors come to the US. At least as far as Hispanic and Latino Americans (the current pipelink) goes. If some weren't American, it might be best to lead to plain Hispanic. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, one can speak of "Hispanic countries." See, e.g., Google Scholar and Hispanic. There is extraordinary variety among those with a Hispanic/Latino/-a/Spanish background with regard both to degree of identification with these (and many more such) terms and to degree of identification with and participation in the corresponding cultures. And even that is a stunning oversimplification. "Of Hispanic descent" is a not too unreasonable compromise that makes for halfway-decent prose.  Antinoos69 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Mainly agree with Antinoos69, but the point is that the victims had a variety of 'Hispanic' ancestries or citizenships. In Europe it is sometimes necessary to clarify whether one means actual citizenship (eg Irish) or 'ancestry'. Whatever term includes all victims most accurately and efficiently should be used. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Latinos call themselves Latino or Hispanic. See how Wikipedia handled describing members of League of United Latin American Citizens. If we just looked to precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia for guidance, maybe these discussions wouldn't be so torturous. maslowsneeds🌈 13:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As you begin your first sentence with "Latinos," you set up something of a tautology. If, instead, we begin with something like "those with a Hispanic/Latino/-a/Spanish background," a very different picture emerges. In the U.S., for example, some such people call themselves simply Americans, rejecting these other labels. And, though I tried very obliquely to suggest it, my previous comments didn't explicitly mention the many ways of identifying with the various indigenous peoples of the Americas, let alone discuss the possible relationship(s) between the two sets of identities. Things are far more complex than your comments indicate. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pulse_nightclub_shooting/Archive_6&oldid=1208880112"