Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Birth date

The narrative says July 2, 1991. The infobox says c. 1991. Which is correct? They should agree. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question. While both locations in the article give the full date now, the cites provided don't actually provide a reference. I've added a cite needed, and will keep looking for a source to back it. --joe decker^talk 21:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Heavy.com reports finding the July 2 date on his Facebook, for what it's worth. His age is widely reported. Probably true, we could wish for a stronger source, though. --joe decker^talk 21:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Best to leave it just 1991 until a real confirmation of his birthday, unless someone wants to knock on his mom's house and ask her. But who really wants to go to Mesquite. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday...

Yesterday this article claimed that the shooter had committed suicide using his own gun. What happened to this statement, why was it removed only hours later to be replaced by this "bomb set off by a robot" business? Seems rather suspicious to me, frankly. Then again I have a natural distrust of government officials so I'm a bit biased in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.42.140 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Information from sources regarding current events often changes rapidly. That is the case here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time asking this question and hoping for an answer that satisfies you. We're not a conspiracy theory forum. Parsley Man (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A local television station (KDFW) in Dallas originally reported that he had committed suicide. This was then picked up and repeated by all kinds of other sources for a while. During one of the media events by the Dallas Police Chief, he described the incident with the robot and that has been the trusted story ever since. There was never any official source, so far as I've been able to find who went on the record saying it was suicide. Its also best to remember that nearly all the details of the story changed between late last night and this morning. At points last night, there were said to be multiple shooters and triangulated fire. There were claims that multiple people involved were in custody and all sorts of other things. The reason the police department has the chief speak to the media is to set down what the actual facts known are. If you just have reporters calling their friends at city hall and the police department for story information, most of what they are going to hear is going to be wrong. And honestly, if you don't trust government officials, you should have even less reason to trust reporters claiming things without any sources attached. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It is quite a problem for us though when otherwise reliable media make up facts or mindlessly copy others, apparently because they are in a hurry to publish news. A single shooter was explicitly ruled out for quite a while in the article, rather than merely considered unlikely, and this is something to worry about at least. Things we could do is listing certain sources as unreliable, or using a higher than usual standard for sourcing for very recent events (i.e., requiring several reliable sources for key facts). Gap9551 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The single shooter was ruled out in the beginning because the shooter utilized Rule #1: Cardio and used a shoot, run to another location and shoot again. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that its never been a good idea to create Wikipedia articles covering events that are less than even a day old. Even using the best sources, stories tend to evolve for a few hours or a few days after they break. But these articles ironically do serve a good purpose in that they become a sort of clearing house for who is claiming what in terms of emerging news stories. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a very good idea to make current articles. The fact that people on this article have to reconcile a few different accounts ... boo hoo. You could be editing about the theory of turbulence. There are difficulties to everything.

In this instance, the initial false report seems like a mere footnote... probably best to put it there then. Put in a reference citing the retraction of the first version someplace. You don't need text about it; a reference is good enough for the control-F crowd. Wnt (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bomb vs. explosive device

I noticed this was going on for quite a while, so I thought I'd start a talk page discussion about it. So, what's more suitable and encyclopedic for this topic? "Bomb" or "device/explosive device"? Parsley Man (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources say bomb, additionally authorities have found "bomb making materials". E.g. CNN Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"Explosive device" is a term that refers to any contrivance that will explode, for whatever purpose (for example, to demolish an unwanted building, to provide a visual effect in a film production or to loosen rock in a mining operation). Railway torpedoes and firecrackers are also "explosive devices", by the way. It is not very specific and we strive for accuracy here on WP. "Bomb", on the other hand, is a word for a weapon, a thing designed to harm. The C-4 contrivance used against Micah Xavier Johnson was so intended. Therefore, "bomb" is the right word here. It is not a matter of register (formal/informal), but rather one of greater accuracy (general term/specific term). The military and law-enforcement in the US are to blame for the widespread euphemistic misuse of the term "explosive device". Kelisi (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In general American usage, a "bomb" is a malicious weapon intended to illegally cause harm. It was necessary to make it clear that the explosives were attached to the robot by the police. "Police deployed a bomb" leaves open the possibility that the bomb was brought to the scene by the perpetrator. Roches (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! Nothing that the police ever "deployed" would be something of the perpetrator's. They would only deploy whatever they had brought to the scene, namely their guns, pepper spray, tear gas, or whatever else they had in their arsenal, because, of course, they could trust it to work in the way that they wanted. Is it the word "deploy"? You seem a bit unclear on what that means. Kelisi (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true - I imagine if a suspect threw a grenade at police one of them might throw it back. Anyway, the sources are saying "bomb" so we say "bomb", no deep thought required, or indeed, even permitted. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say "explosive" rather than device or bomb. Bombs generally have shrapnel or other components designed to wound. Same is true for a device. This seems to be raw C4 that is used by EOD techs to destroy items believed to be a threat. There are no sources that say the C-4 was fashioned into a bomb or device. --DHeyward (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the definitions as being that different, so I'd go with "bomb" per WP:EUPHEMISM. --joe decker^talk 00:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Racism and racial hatred

Several editors have added racism as the motive for the shooting to the infobox and the lead. One editor even added "racial hatred" to the lead. The cited sources do not say that the shooting was racism motivated, so any such interpretation is original research. Also, we can't make such claims in Wikipedia's voice unless there is some degree of consensus among sources per WP:DUEWEIGHT. That means "I wanna kill some white people" ≠ "racism", and cherry picking a fringe source that happens to agree with a conclusion already reached by an editor is not allowed.- MrX 15:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What? "I wanna kill some white people" ≠ "racism". Let's try "I wanna kill some black people" ≠ "racism". Is it racist now? Rmhermen (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"I want to kill white people" is from multiple credible sources. It's racial hatred and it's not cherry-picking. It's clearly a part of the killer's motive. Take your heads out of the sand, MrX. 24.15.165.125 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If I say I want to go to the moon, does that make me an astronaut? The WP:OR policy is very clear on this:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Note the phrase directly support is emphasized. BTW, adding clearly to a fallacious argument does not magically make the argument any less fallacious. We can take this to WP:ORN to get some more outside views if either of you wish.- MrX 19:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems the statement from the perp about wanting to kill white people, especially white police officers was reiterated by the Dallas police chief and has been reported by news agencies does not equal original research as you want to claim. Now whether stating that one would like to kill white people = racism, ask yourself this, if they said they want to kill black people, does that equal racism Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Heyyouoverthere, the answer to your rhetorical question if they said they want to kill black people, does that equal racism? is simple. Yes it does, when a significant number of WP:RS explicitly say it does. … … btw, there's another article here, which doesn't mention the race of the accused! Pincrete (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, if someone that screams "I want to kill black or white people" and gets blown the fuck up by a robot, does that equal dead? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

if someone screams "I am the tooth fairy", it equals dead, when a significant number of WP:RS explicitly say it does. It's simple. … btw the quote IS in the article, coming to conclusions about it isn't, one is RS, the other is WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So for the record, you are officially stating that the Micah "Blown the fuck up" Johnson is dead but not because he wanted to kill whites, esp white police officers. Got it. (edit conflict screen popped up so if I overwrite someone else, my bad) Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not get in an edit war with some Wikipedia editor douche. Every article that cites "police shootings" as motive also lists his hatred of white people and intent to kill them. Whatever fits your narrative, though. 24.15.165.125 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

We already have a number of sources saying that Johnson alleged he "wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers". The police chief himself said that. Isn't that enough confirmation that this guy at least had it in for whites? Parsley Man (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

A number of sources are quoting one source that said that. I think it's probably a roughly accurate quote, but it might be a little lacking in nuance. "Motive" can be hard to describe, and I think we need more explicit sourcing before adding this. Some mass shootings don't have a motive listed at all, so it's not something we need to have our hair on fire to add.

Regarding that specific descriptor: a (admittedly imperfect) DBpedia query only turned up two other cases where the motive was described as "racial hatred". Browsing around, it seems like many entries of racially motivated violence use more detailed descriptions than that: Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting lists "Extremist white supremacist beliefs", Joseph Paul Franklin lists "the desire to start a race war", David Lane lists "White nationalism". Once we have more detail, we can add a more precise description. Nblund ^talk 00:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Threats against Dallas officers, incident

Could be unrelated and trivial, but we've now got threats made against the Dallas Police Department, and now two police buildings have been blocked off while officers search for a "suspicious person" in the headquarters' parking lot. Parsley Man (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Shit has been going on for almost 2 hours now. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/07/09/threat-made-on-dallas-police-headquarters-swat-on-scene/ Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

From above news article: "Dallas police said shots were not fired and the headquarters was not on lockdown.". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

After a search of the area, nothing was found and the all clear was given, despite the credible threat from a group in Houston. Guess the robot Killy McBombface didn't get to be used tonight.....yet. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"Robot"?

While the term "robot" is used colloquially for this type of device, it seems to have been more of a bomb disposal remote control vehicle of a kind that has been around in various makes since World War II. This is not autonomous and not a "robot" under the normal definition. Some reports have suggested it was a MARCbot, though I guess it could have been anything in Category:Bomb disposal robots.--Pharos (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In thinking about it, "telerobot" would perhaps be a more accurate term.--Pharos (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Dallas police has an Andros unit, which they showcased in a public display earlier this year and during last years state fair. I hope the robot is ok. Wonder if they get a kill marker like planes did in WW2? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ETA: Killy McBombface was a Remotec, Model F-5, with a claw and arm extension. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This article should reflect what the reliable sources say, and if for now, "robot" is the term most commonly used in reliable sources, then we should use that term as well. We should make it clear that the device was remote controlled like an airborne drone, not self-guided like a cruise missile. Our job is to summarize the reliable sources, while avoiding misleading oversimplification. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

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

The consensus is that the article should not include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 18 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 17:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions

• #Political campaign statements
• #Newt Gingrich

Comments

• No - Reactions should be limited to those directly involved: President, governor, possibly state senators, mayor, police chief, and the police union per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:QUOTEFARM. Any exceptions should require prior discussion and firm consensus. An article about a shooting is not a great place for politicians to express their trite sentiments or for political candidates to promote themselves as the better leader.- MrX 17:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• No - Qualified with, If international leaders begin commenting, we can put those comments down.--Beneficii (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Qualified No - if there's some particular quote that receives significant press coverage, it would be worth adding, but most of this stuff would fall under "x, y, and z expressed condolences/called for unity" with a little bit of criticism thrown in. WP:DUE says that we represent viewpoints in rough proportion to their prominence - that doesn't mean we have to literally quote every expression of opinion. Nblund ^talk 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• No - Per above comments. I'm still having memories about the exact same debate that happened over at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Parsley Man (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Qualified Yes. If the quote would add new information, or provide a historical/sociopolitical context for the shooting, the quote should be included. Adraeus (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Follow precedent. International heads of state and government as well as people directly involved in the event may comment. In the United States, I suppose state governments and heads of major law enforcement agencies might be quoted. And I suppose the presumptive presidential candidates can get a few words in, but no more than their in-office counterpart. Caution should be taken not to ascribe to whole communities the opinions of individuals described as "community leaders", as is often done in mainstream journalism. Roches (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• No No outside politicians, singers, horses, athletes, pundits, lobbyists, actors or even highly intelligent horses. Useless this time, useless last time, useless next time. Anything Clinton or Trump say this past year gets heavy media coverage; these reactions getting press has everything to do with that obsession, nothing to do with the words themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• No and I'm sick of having to have an RFC every time about this. Their condolences and platitudes are not notable, just like 99% of all other condolences and platitudes. The governor, president, maybe the mayor... the FOP and NRA in this case. That's it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• No everything EvergreenFir said with lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and THIS on top.Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• No as per what the above Hulk said. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• No to celebri-cruft, of course. User:MrX and User:EvergreenFir have the right idea. Emissions from celebrities and politicians, who have no direct connection to the event and no responsibility to respond, is unencyclopedic worship of nothingness. We should all re-read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (it's very short!), and remind ourselves that our goal here is to maintain a real encyclopedia, not a daily journal of whatever noise came from the loudest speakers. Limit coverage to analysis and action that rises to the level of educating in a legitimate encyclopedia. To be more precise:
  1. OK: Commentary from Dallas officials, world leaders, legitimate representatives of the protest/parade in Dallas, and things like might be useful; maybe even from historians and well-qualified analysts.
  2. OK only if careful: A very broad summary of general feeling from politicians, and the general feeling from civil rights leaders, and police representatives, would be OK only if some reliable source with expertise has stated that it's the general feeling. But Wikipedia editors should wait for an expert like that to say it, and shouldn't be using WP:SYNTH to conclude which way the wind is blowing themselves: Sources of 10 people saying individual things won't prove that it's the general feeling; it just means someone else didn't source 20 other people saying the opposite yet.
  3. Not OK: There's no point in enumerating what specific celebrities and politicians (or probably their publicists) dribble out whenever a tragedy or a potentially politically-sensitive event happens. 99% of it is unencyclopedic; has no relevance to the opinion of the public, and maybe not even the person whose name is on it; and is there only to suck on empathy from the public; and wastes 10 seconds of your life every time you hear it, and again if it appears on Wikipedia. Opinions by news pundits paid to fill the 24-hour news cycle are not all that useful either, unless there's widespread WP:RS consensus that a specific analysis by a specific pundit was particularly insightful or indicative. --Closeapple (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

What about world leaders who are also celebrity politicians with no direct connection or responsibility? Donald Tusk may be "deeply sorry", but it wasn't his fault. Not sure if he counts as a celebrity where you are or leads that part of the world, but he's definitely a politician. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe something like "International leaders that expressed condolences included Donald Tusk of the European Council;..." with a limited number of very important organizations like that; the EU, UN, etc.? On the other hand, I'm not sure his opinion about the matter is relevant to the article, unless the opinion he expressed on behalf of the EU was particularly unique or insightful. Really, I'm sure that almost everyone in an important position generally said that the tragedy is a tragedy, and sends their regards, and all of that is routine and taken for granted these days with an event like this; listing the examples isn't really that informative. --Closeapple (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to include his nothingness. More just wondering where (and why) you draw the line between uninvolved politicians and elected leaders of the distant world. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 11 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.

Washington Post says Johnson called himself "Fahed Hassen" on his Facebook page

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/08/what-we-know-about-the-suspected-shooter-in-dallas/

71.182.241.55 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay? I've got a handful named after xmen characters. Not sure that his Facebook name is exactly notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm ... well, as someone whose Facebook says (incorrectly) that he was born in Argentina, and lives in Iceland, and that his name is pronounced more or less like "kumquat Haagan-Dazs", .... I'd urge a bit of care with FB-based self-reporting. --joe decker^talk 06:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it does no such thing. It says that the police says that "The suspect’s Facebook account included the following names and information: Fahed Hassen, Richard GRIFFIN aka Professor Griff, GRIFFIN embraces a radical form of Afrocentrism, and GRIFFIN wrote a book A Warriors Tapestry,” - thanks in part to the atrocious grammar, it's unclear what that is even supposed to mean. It's certainly not enough to claim that he is "also known as" Hassen. If it were, it would be equally relevant to also call him "Richard Griffin" or "Professor Griff". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Biggest attack on law enforcement since 9/11

Was 9/11 really an attack on law enforcement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.92.224 (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

9/11 was an attack on the United States of America. CarsonsDad (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but this article says it was an attack on law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.92.224 (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

...Hence "...the deadliest attack to U.S. law enforcement since the September 11, 2001, attacks". Meaning this was the deadliest attack, with the loss of life of U.S. law enforcement, since 9/11. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the sentence says. September 11 was not an "attack on U.S. law enforcement". The sentence either needs to be reworded or removed. Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Kaldari (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a bit of an issue with the wording as well, although I think the information is significant. I think the "loss of life" phrasing works well. Perhaps something like "the most significant loss of life to US law enforcement since 9/11"? Y phelan (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I would state it like that, since sources are saying it's the deadliest since 9/11. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As I recall there were some law enforcement offices targeted with the World Trade Center attacks, whether or not they were the main point. Remember, the WTC attacks came on the heels of an attack on a federal building in Oklahoma City that was widely viewed as an attack on law enforcement, even though not every office in the building was law enforcement, so this characterization seemed like a natural extension. But all of this is irrelevant really; if a source calls it this then we cite that and print it, and if not, we don't. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Here's a source: [1]. WP:OR is WP:OR, whether you use it to put stuff in or take stuff out, so don't do this. Wnt (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I still dispute that the preponderance of reliable sources on the 9/11 attacks would describe them as an "attack on law enforcement", and consider the wording here suboptimal. --joe decker^talk 15:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Why you dispute 9/11? 80% know what it was.

Huh? Parsley Man (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Corrected. Never use a headline for content.--TMCk (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please remove this sentence? The Dallas shooting had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you have any references to show that this was the lar shortly after thgest number of law enforcement officers that died during an incident since 9/11 ? How many died due to 9/11 ? Dr. Universe (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The claim is sourced, though I agree that it is not widely covered as such and is not lead-worthy. I'm reminded of a claim after the recent 'Orlando' shooting that the Orlando incident was the worst attack on gay people since the holocaust. Even if either claim is true, there is something false about the analogies IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Victims and perpetrator

I swapped these (victims are now first) as I see no need to concentrate more on the perpetrator than on the victims. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

"The shooting took place less than half a mile away from where former US president, John F. Kennedy was assassinated back in 1963." You should remove the word "back" making it "John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963." It seems unnecessary to have that extra word there, seems very unwikipedia. 75.130.23.50 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire sentence has recently been removed, making this request redundant. Thanks anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Y it looks like the whole sentence was removed, perhaps not being relevant to the shooting. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Reaction addition for travel warnings

Should travel warnings posted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain be included into the Reaction section with the Bahamian statement about warning it's citizens visiting and abroad in the United States? Sources reporting: Aljazeera, MSN, Reuters Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the article bodies, it looks like all of those sources are only focused on the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings, not this one. Parsley Man (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just added the info into the Sterling and Castile articles. If there's anyone else who thinks this info should also be included in this article, do weigh in. Parsley Man (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Other police bombings?

Between 1985 and now, have American police used bombs on suspects? If so, that might be good to note, somewhere around the part where Stoughton said they typically don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not that I know of. This incident and the 1985 one are the only ones I have heard about as of now. On a side-note, thank you for educating me about the 1985 situation. It seems you do learn something new every day. Parsley Man (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I only heard about it this April. Way easier to bury a story in 1985. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I did know about the 1985 incident. I've also heard that the LAPD had requested authorization to use a grenade launcher on their first deployment (1960s/70s), although that did not pan out (the folks surrendered before the DoD could clear the weapon for use). I've heard rumors that the 1960s LAPD had used dynamite against Black Panther personnel, but that could be merely a rumor or perhaps exaggerated for shock effect. It should be noted that this is not the first ever use of explosives, as the SWAT teams usually carry flash-bang/tear gas grenades or door breaching charges if they feel its warranted, and on rare occasions bomb disposal teams will use explosives to detonate bombs discovered in their jurisdiction.

Aye. Suspicious packages bear the brunt. There was...something...in LA this same day that took several explosions. I'd heard about Black Panther suitcase dynamite killing a cop in the '60s (I count 1970 as the '60s), but not the other way around. Many sides to that story, though, wouldn't be surprised if one is the other way around. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Racial hatred - original research in the infobox

"Racial hatred" has been added to the infobox here and here cited to these two sources: [2] [3]. These edits wantonly violate one our bedrock content policies, WP:No original research.

I invite Norden1990 and Tolea93 to justify these edits by pointing out where exactly in these sources do the journalists use the words "racial hatred" when describing Johnson's motives.- MrX 15:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it. I've removed the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

...and now it's been re-added with an edit summary appealing to common sense. - MrX 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, "common sense" is just another term for original research/synthesis. If it truly is common sense then you should be able to find a reliable source to support it. Augurar (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if it's common I would think that almost everyone would agree with it. They don't.- MrX 00:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Current version is better saying "anger toward" imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even the wordy version is better than the OR version. Enjoy it while it lasts. There's 4-5 editors tag teaming to keep "racial hatred" at the top of the article. - MrX 01:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Johnson previously tried to participate in an anti-Trump rally

[4]

Is this considered notable? KERA (FM) is a local source, just to refresh anyone's mind. Also, if it is, I'm not sure where exactly it could be put. I'm quite hesitant to create a subsection devoted solely to this new tidbit of info. Parsley Man (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If you see the words "Trump" or "Clinton" in any of the mass shooting stories from here till November, and it's not about Trump or Clinton shooting a bunch of people, ignore it. Just part of being ubiquitous. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, shame on me for only reading your headline before judging and shame on you for not saying he wanted to bring a gun to a protest. That seems at least a bit relevant, probably in "Planning". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this should have better/more sourcing before we should consider including it.- MrX 13:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. Anything in particular strike you as fishy? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Black Lives Matter"

None of the current references given in the article state that the Black Lives Matter movement had anything to do with the shootings. I removed the Info Box link to "part of Black Lives Matter" and the related article category. If this needs to be in the article, it needs reliable references. Please use due caution - and reliable references - before readding. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know that anyone intended that meaning. The shooting occurred during a Black Lives Matter protest and will inevitably become part of that story. I'm not of the mind to re-add it myself. Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For now, the shootings appear to be separate from the protest. If some link is established they should be well referenced. Thanks, Mackensen. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Encyclopedias do not jump to conclusions. In particular not conclusions that are unsourced, potentially politically motivated or plain wrong. RhinoMind (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • Actually, the article now rightly states that this was NOT a Black Lives Matter event. Not sure why the fact that sometimes BLM met at Belo Park is relevant. LOTS of groups use Belo Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.98.101.203 (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Alternative media is starting to report that he was a member of BLM. If so, the BLM box needs to be readded. 152.130.16.22 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
        • As we're learning the attack was premeditated, would using the protest to facilitate the attack not link it to the protest, regardless of the shooter's affiliation? TRyne84 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I added well referenced material from a variety of political spectrum for BLM. I don't think it belongs in the infobox, but it is background material. It leeps getting reverted though I believe the above conversation confirms it should be added. There are 4 sources I used but they can be found everywhere. [5]. Please review and restore it. Like many places, BLM organizes through loosely affiliated organizations even if they are not BLM but this was a clear BLM event coordinted throught the country. --DHeyward (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies BLM's connection to the Next Generation Action Network? Parsley Man (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing states that they are connected. The reliable sources state it was a BLM protest and organized by the local Next Generation Action Network. No affiliation is provided or stated (or required) so why are you needing a source for that? Why do you dispute 4 reliable sources attributing the protest to BLM? --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

NGAN cannot organize a protest that is organized by BLM if both organizations have been stated to not be connected, though... Parsley Man (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't (and the RSs don't) state that BLM "organized" it. It's a movement in that sense and is why the RSs say it is a BLM protest. There is no contradiction. Many types of groups use resources and organizing for causes and it is not officially affiliated in any way. We go by what the reliable sources say and many more report it as a BLM protest vs. Next Generation Action Network organized rally even though it is both without contradiction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so BLM is not an organization? Wow, I always thought it was. Then why does this article keep getting removed from the BLM template every time it's added? Because they keep citing that BLM and NGAN are not related as rationale for removing the example. Parsley Man (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding it's akin to women's liberation movement out the civil rights movement. No governing body or central organization but there are some key groups. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is correct. For other context see March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and review the organizers of the rally and how that fits with MLK's group and the Civil Rights Movement in general. MLK gave his "I Have A Dream" speech but it would be ridiculous to dimish both his organization and the Civil Rights Movement because the organizers weren't part of their groups. But even more importantly for our purposes, we have reliable sources linking it to the BLM movement. User:Parsley Man is synthesing and ORing a relationship requirement that need not exist. Further, the strawman about the BLM template is without merit. The edit is to background on the rally, not a change to the template. Obviously there are no reliable sources linking the movement to the shooting, but there are reliable sources linking the rally to the movement just as many other protest rallies are linked to the movement. --DHeyward (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Being as that BLM is not a formal organisation, I do not see the disconnect between the two.W124l29 (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a formal BLM organization, (http://blacklivesmatter.com/ currently down) but there's also a BLM movement and a slogan. The organizer of this protest has specifically denied that this was a 'Black Lives Matter' protest:

'Thursday's protest was not a Black Lives Matter event, Alexander said. His organization, in partnership with Dr. Jeff Hood, organized the march through downtown Dallas as a call for justice for black victims of police shootings. 'There is no local chapter of the Black Lives Movement,' Alexander said. 'That's just national rhetoric.'.

Dallas News

It's correct to say that this was connected to the BLM movement, so the infobox makes sense, but for accuracy's sake, we should probably just describe it as a protest against the killings of Sterling and Castile in the text. Nblund ^talk 18:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the Washington Post, Black Lives Matter is a diffuse movement that started with a hashtag on social media three years ago. The three women who founded the #BlackLivesMatter organization in 2013 don’t try to control who uses the phrase and it is perhaps more a movement (or a meme) than an organization.(https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/black-lives-matter-leaders-vow-to-continue-the-movement/2016/07/09/b0fec2a6-4537-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html) The Next Generation Action Network was founded in 2014 and is a multi-cultural organization that lobbies “for social change and equality for all, regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender or age.” (http://nextgenerationactionnetwork.com/about-us/) Its orientation is broader than BLM – indeed, I haven’t found BLM mentioned anywhere on its website; although much of its activities have focused on social justice for blacks, its stated purpose is to advocate for all “persons of color”. In searching, I’ve not found any source explicitly linking NGAN and the BLM organization. NGAN organized the march and I’ve not yet found evidence of any BLM leader taking credit for it. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/07/08/dallas-sniper-connected-black-separatist-hate-groups-facebook W124l29 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo of the event where the incident took place should be added

Major events such as this usually has a photo in the top infobox. If anyone has or can find a photo of either the event or the area of where the event took place and can post it here while following the rules of Wikipedia, that would be very helpful. Beejsterb (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I work in TV news and can get one, will probably be an iPhone pic to keep work cameras/ownership issues out of it. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Scratch it. Area was still closed off on Monday. Closest is the DPD memorial outside its HQ, a ways away. Area will not be cleared up/reopened for a while, esp with Obama and Bush attending a ceremony tomorrow. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Civilians

Looking at our article on Civilians, we find the term defined:

In general, a civilian is "a person who is not a member of the military, as defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary.[1] From the U.S. Department of Defense perspective, Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to non-military law enforcement officers as civilians, since they are employees rather than enlisted personnel, and also in order to distinguish itself from military police.[2] … Under the laws of war (also known as international humanitarian law), a civilian is one not being a member of the armed services and does not take a direct part of hostilities in times of armed conflict.

Police personnel are civilians because they are not members of the military. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It only said that because of this guy. Check again. Those who aren't cops are often called civilians. "Member of the public" is long, "others" is vague and "non-police person" is just funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

When discussing civilians and police, civilians commonly describe the people who are not the police. I don't think we need federal law to figure that out.- MrX 13:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary: "a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force." Neutrality^talk 13:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion is divided. Formal and legislative definitions do not include police or firemen in the class of those who are not civilians, although some dictionaries do. [6] is a typical example. Legally, police are civilians. We should not use terms which are imprecise when others are available. --Pete (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That's in an armed conflict context, and this was not an armed conflict, by Red Cross definition. This was an American shooting, and plain American English works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor modification

Can "Johnson was an Army Reserve Afghan War veteran who was reportedly angry over police shootings of black men and stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers" modified to clearly reflect that "...and stated that he wanted to kill white people..." is also police account so far? Maybe break the sentence into two? 50.242.210.195 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

Saw this in the Aftermath section regarding the use of the robot: Security researcher Matt Blaze tweeted that he was concerned about how the control link to the robot was secured.

Including comments from a robot expert is expected but including a tweet from a security researcher? Doesn't seem necessary. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be removed until his tweetpinion is cited in at least one reliable, independent source.- MrX 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is cited in this Politico piece. This is one of the Politico morning email news-rundowns, though, not a full-scale article. Neutrality^talk 20:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

white house petition

there is current a petition to recognize Black Lives Matter as a terrorist organization. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dallas-sniper-shootings-thousands-call-black-lives-matter-be-recognised-terror-group-1569636 should this be added to aftermath section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FB:F900:3D12:6039:5A2A:50FC (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This may be appropriate content for Black Lives Matter, if you can find some more sources to demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 13:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, since it looks like the petition was started before this shooting took place. Had this event not taken place, the petition would still exist on its own. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought organisations were designated as 'terrorist' based on evidence found by competent authorities, not online petitions. Silly me. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at some of the shit proposed via online petitions, either on change.org or the whitehouse. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Photograph allegedly shows Johnson participating in New Black Panther Party march

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/07/08/confirmed-dallas-shooter-member-houston-new-black-panther-party/

71.182.244.182 (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Breitbart is not a reliable source. Please us know if you find this information is a reliable source.- MrX 13:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that article is a reliable and accurate source. --DHeyward (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If I may ask so much of you, where and when was it established that Breitbart is not a reliable source? @DHeyward: @MrX: W124l29 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.click2houston.com/news/report-2-officers-shot-at-dallas-protest is the original story Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's never been "established" as any less reliable than any other source. Some people don't like it. Like most media outlets and our policies and guidelines, the author/journalist is an important consideration as is the quality of sources they use for their story and the topic. The publisher is important too but all is taken in context. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Would someone attempting to suppress such a news media source be possibly considered bias if repeated across various articles on Wikipedia? W124l29 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How were the civilians injured and by whom?

Is it known for a fact that Xavier shot the two civilians? If so it should be cited, and if not "Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and shot twelve police officers and two civilians..." should be modified. 68.225.88.112 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sources say two civilians were wounded along with the officers; NY, WTVD-TV‎, Fox59, The Atlantic, WashingtonPost. The two injured are being reported as those who were injured by Xavier. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Update; The 'Victims' section already has a sentence with two citations "Five officers were killed and nine people—seven officers and two civilians—were injured in the shooting." from The Atlantic and The Independent. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Being injured in a shooting doesn't necessarily mean being shot. The Aurora Batman thing set a record for injuries, by including those who tripped or hyperventilated. Probable this time, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We do have one civilian who was shot in the leg. [7] Parsley Man (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably worth noting. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that 1 of the alleged motives is anger towards white people, should it be noted that the civilian woman who was shot is black? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we've enough racial division here already, without trying to imply anyone who shoots a black person can't be mad at white people. If that's not what you wanted to imply, sorry. In either case, we have no idea if he was even aiming for her leg, let alone whether it had anything to do with the colour of it. Sometimes shooters miss. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My implication was that it seemed ironic given the alleged motive. Personally, I prefer asking questions on an article's talk page before making edits that I think may lead to edit wars. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a ricochet that hit her. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Where'd you learn that? Tried Googling, closest I found was this sidebar armadillo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead, since this Abbott guy was cut by glass, not shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Local access

I'll be operating a camera and TV truck tonight for the candlelight vigil and the Interfaith Memorial Service tomorrow when Obama and Bush will be here. Anything I should look out for to add to this page? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Anything you personally provide for the article without any sources to back it up would probably fall under WP:OR, even if you were actually there. Unless you're actually writing the news article, then... Parsley Man (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but I'll be able to reference/source news stories a bit faster as coverage might be lacking in other parts of the country, especially when the Mayor or Police Chief does impromptu pow-wows with local media, esp with Shaun Rabb who scored a one-on-one interview with the chief today. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Gotcha. ;) Parsley Man (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Heyyouoverthere any images you can get released and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons would be great. Even if you take a break and snap some good cell phone pics. Honestly, cell phone would be easiest to license as the network wouldn't have any claim to them. TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you do that, Wikipedia will own it and can do anything it wants with it. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayor P Boyd (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mayor P Boyd, if you release it into the public domain, which everything ends up in eventually, everyone can use it, and Wikipedia is part of everyone. TimothyJosephWood 10:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the whole rights thing bothers me. But I did get some cell phone pics using a personal phone, will see how they look on a bigger screen when I get a chance. Based on the amount of people last night, sure some can be found and used if not mine. Today the evenst are more cumbersome with everything being locked down for security. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

I have no objection to a somewhat faster archiving schedule due to the activity this talk page is generating, but we need to be careful not to archive indiscriminately. There are open RfCs, which in theory are supposed to be left open for 30 days unless a very clear consensus emerges earlier. These should not be archived before they are closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: There is some way to make the archiving bot skip over the RfCs. I'll look into it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: For future reference (since this is new to me too), you can use the {{DNAU}} template and it will make code like this. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Very clever. The tech version of a Do Not Disturb sign. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Restoring the archive schedule to seven days. There is not enough activity to justify a 24hr setting, which should really not be used even during high editing time periods. That's just too quick and can arbitrarily send important discussions to archives. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Weapon used?

I have some trouble with the current entry of "Russian built AK-74 Saiga semi-automatic rifle" for a number of reasons. First, the AK74 and the Saiga semi-automatic rifle are different (if related) weapons. Also, given that AK series weapons are among the most cloned guns in the history of the planet, I find it hard to believe that it is possible to reliably identify the exact make (and maker) of the weapon from a photo. Can we find a reliable source? Should we stick with "semi-automatic rifle" until we find a good source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Followup: CBS says "A law enforcement source told CBS News that Johnson had a SKS semi-automatic assault rifle and a handgun"[8]. CNN says that one official reported it as an "SKS semi-automatic.[9]. Several other sources (some of which seem "gun friendly") repeat the SKS claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This is what I am seeing as well. The Dallas DHS director just says Mr. Jenkins said Mr. Johnson had used a semiautomatic SKS rifle and a high-capacity handgun. . I'm sure there will be better information soon, but for the current sourcing for the statement about the AK-47 in the article seems pretty weak Nblund ^talk 17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I went ahead and removed the statement about the type of gun, until we have better sourcing. Nblund ^talk 17:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing on the SKS information is kind of sketchy, too, and the rifle shown in the photo is kind of obviously not an SKS, which looks like an antique WWII rifle. It is a rifle in the AK category, and your two basic choices are the AK-47 and the AK-74 (and if you have dyslexia it's hard to tell the difference). The shooter had served in Afghanistan, and that's where the Russians introduced the AK-74. The gunshots were obviously not from an SKS either, because it doesn't have the magazine capacity to fire that many rounds without reloading. People who saw it thought it looked like an AR-15, and they would never mistake an SKS for an AR-15, although they might an AK-74. A more perplexing question is, "Why aren't the Dallas police releasing the details of the weapon?" Is there something wrong with this picture? If the shooter had a gun firing 5.45mm bullets, and some of the dead and wounded had a different type of bullet in them, then yes, there might be a problem there somewhere. What don't the police want us to know? Not that I'd want to imply it was anything like the Kennedy assassination or anything.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've not consciously seen any picture (not that I could recognise any particular model) - can you provide a link? I also have to say that my trust in "people" recognising a weapon as one model or another under theses circumstances is quite limited. "It's not a handgun, it's not a shot gun, therefore its an assault rifle, and all assault rifles are AR15s" is just about what I would expect... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd wait for more information on it being an SKS or not. For those pondering if an SKS could have the magazine capacity or not, it does not take long to reload it with ammo attached to metal stripper clips. Or the perp could have modified it to accept detachable magazines. For the photo of the AK47/AK74/Saiga/Etc, need more info on where that photo came from. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Can an SKS be modified to accept detachable magazines? Parsley Man (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it can. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you can learn something every day... Parsley Man (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness and clarity, three points. First, a very small number of (now highly collectible and expensive) SKS rifles were originally produced with detachable magazines. They accept standard AK-47 magazines. Second, while it is possible to modify a standard SKS to take AK-47 magazines, such modifications are rare. They tend to be unreliable. Third, the most common way to change an SKS to accept detachable magazines is to use a sort of hybrid magazine that comes with a forward extension at the top and replaces the fixed magazine. The link provided by Stephan Schulz has a number of links that demonstrate these points.Benenglish (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can modify an SKS to accept AK-47 magazines, but you can also take an AR-15 chassis and turn it into something seriously lethal. I'm not going to go into details because the next thing you know someone will have wiped out an entire street full of innocent people. I've stopped offering hints on what things people shouldn't be allowed to do because sooner or later someone will actually do it. An example would be how to build a suitcase atomic bomb. I'm not going to tell anybody how to do it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a link to the photo [10]. It was in my edit, but if you delete the edit you delete the link. Yes, you can modify an SKS to take AK-47 magazines, but it still looks and fires like an SKS. Why would someone do that if they could just buy an AK-74 at their local gun shop?RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen that photo and website bandied about but where did THEY get it from? It's one thing for the police to release the photo but another for a website to release a photo without info on where they got it from. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I get the impression that they are not supposed to have that photo, and they are not going to release the photographer's name to avoid getting him fired by the Dallas police.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Then it is speculation until confirmation is made publicly. Looking at that image and the current state of the remodel project of my second bathroom, I could easily duplicate that photo and claim whatever. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

They updated the information with the photo:

A source tells thearmsguide.com that when Dallas SWAT made entry after the detonation of the explosive device, they encountered a Saiga IZ-240 semiautomatic rifle on the floor among the rubble. The weapon had a 30 round magazine, single point sling, Magpul folding stock and a rail system with a Primary Arms 5 power scope.

Made at the Russian IZHMASH Arsenal, the Saiga IZ 240 is a hunting style rifle with a black polymer stock and hand guard. It has a 16 inch chrome lined barrel, a side mount rail for mounting optics and comes with a ten round magazine. The Saiga does not use standard AK mags but can be converted to accept them. The IZ-240 fires the 5.45 X 39 cartridge and is legal in all 50 states,

CBS News reported that he used an SKS rifle, while ABC News reported it was an AR-15, so you can see how reliable the media is. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

While the photographer's name is not publicly known, and is unlikely to be known anytime soon if ever I expect, it's worth remembering for BLP reasons that we have no way of knowing who released that photo. Given that it's an ongoing investigation of a major incident and the photos released include one said to be the corpse of the killer of several police officers, I expect quite a few people have had access to the photos before they were posted on the internet. Probably including plenty of people who weren't supposed to have had access (but without necessarily obtaining access from the photographer). In other words, even on a talk page please take great care about who you effectively accuse of wrong doing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I see lots of reliable sources for SKS. None for AK-74 or Saiga. AR-15 was replaced by SKS so we use the latest available reliable source. Whether that picture is accurate or not will play out in due time but for now, either drop the model completely or return to SKS. It can be missing as there is no deadline. --DHeyward (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, NOW we have a CNN article saying that Johnson used "a Glock 19 Gen4 pistol, a Fraser .25-caliber handgun and an Izhmash Saiga semiautomatic, assault-style rifle". Hmmm... Parsley Man (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you guys seriously going to keep the Saiga information out of the page? The rifle from the scene was in no way an SKS. I don't get why you guys still think that the major news organizations that ignorantly post up things about guns are correct? There are photo's of the gun from the crime scene... You cannot make an SKS look like an AK-74. Sorry, for anyone who knows their firearms, you can't fool them... I guess that needs to be stated. As someone that has an old SKS, and an AK-47, I know the difference very well. Yes you can dress up the SKS with composite furniture like I have with mine, but you can't change the sheet metal to make it look like an AK-47 or its cousin the AK-74. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRathorn (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you read your own link? It discusses 3 different reported weapons, and mentions the "Saiga with AK74 magazines – based on a photo of unknown provenance and an anonymous source" as one of the two more plausible options. It does not claim there even is a definitive photo. At the moment, we write "Semi-automatic rifle, Handgun" in the infobox - I find that fully adequate, given the current state of reports. Maybe I'm to European about it, but why does it matter that much? As I understand it, all three candidate weapons are legally available, and are functionally largely equivalent - you point it at someone, pull the trigger, and if you point well enough, the target is seriously harmed. Sure, if we have reliable sources, we can add more precise information, but to me the exact type of the weapon seems to be a minor point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the SKS and AK-74 are vastly different in concept. The SKS is an antique WWII Russian army rifle, the AK-74 is the modern Russian army assault rifle. The SKS is cheap and makes a decent deer hunting gun. The AK-74 is very good for shooting people, but only for shooting people. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to buy a Russian SKS at a Canadian Tire or Walmart store (you can't do that in the US any more) because many people use rifles for hunting. A lot of Canadians own rifles that can knock a moose off its feet at 600 metres. However, you cannot buy any AK variant like the one shown in the photo because, using off-the-shelf parts, you can do what the shooter has done and modify it into a highly lethal cop-killing machine which is not at all useful for hunting.20:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Title is wrong and should be changed

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.

---

Why not have the title 2015 shooting of Paris police officers? Because it is not accurate. Police officers shot include DART Police and El Centro College police. They were not all Dallas Police Department people. One or two were even civilians.

Change to 2016 Dallas attacks. Other ideas welcomed. Mayor P Boyd (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Get your facts straight. Also, even if the police officers shot worked with different departments, they all have one thing in common: their departments are all in Dallas. Therefore, they're police officers working in Dallas. That's what the "Dallas police officers" part of the title is addressing. It's not saying that all of the officers shot were working with the Dallas Police Department, otherwise the P would be capitalized for that instance. And also, calling it "2016 Dallas attacks" implies that all of Dallas was subject to terrorist attacks, which is obviously not true. Parsley Man (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

DART is not in Dallas, just as the FBI is not Dallas. DART covers a wide area only which a part is Dallas just as the FBI covers a wide area including Dallas. Also attacks don't have to be terrorist attacks. How about 2016 Dallas police shootings or 2016 Dallas Black Lives Matter Protest shootings? Mayor P Boyd (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhh...DART is short for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, and the lede of that article clearly states as its first sentence: "The Dallas Area Rapid Transit authority (or DART) is a transit agency in Dallas, Texas." Anyway, to call it 2016 Dallas police shootings would imply that it was the police officers who did the shooting. Actually, the article started out with such a title and was renamed for that exact reason. As for 2016 Dallas Black Lives Matter protest/march shootings, that's quite vague. The shooter clearly targeted police officers (even if civilians were shot, but one can easily assume it was from ricocheting bullets or bullets that missed their actual targets) and the article title needs to reflect that. Parsley Man (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh, it s DART, not DRT. Dallas AREA Rapid Transit. Mayor P Boyd (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Still in Dallas, though... Parsley Man (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• 2016 Dallas Black Lives Matter march shootings My current vote. Mayor P Boyd (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This proposed title seems as though people from the march itself carried on with the shootings. Note that this event was not part of the Black Lives Matter march agenda; it was only related. -SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• 2016 shootings of Dallas area police officers My second choice vote. Mayor P Boyd (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems way too wordy there. Parsley Man (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's within the Dallas MSA, I don't think there's much of an issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The shooting occurred on the intersection of Main St. and S. Lamar St. It happened in downtown Dallas - there is no need to add an extra unnecessary "area" to the title. Regarding the plural in shootings, there was an earlier talk about whether the shootout was another "shooting" (which also happened in Dallas). However, I realized it was just one shooting - the shootout came later to kill Johnson. -SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• 2016 shooting of police officers in Dallas or shorter 2016 shooting at police in Dallas --SI 06:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the difference between the current title versus "2016 shooting of police officers in Dallas". The addition of prepositions makes no difference than without prepositions. They're all located in Dallas. -SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Dallas police officers" are only those from DPD <-> "police officers in Dallas" may come from Dallas, DART, El Centro, Texas State Police, Paris, France, ... (HTH?) --SI 12:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep original title - I'm the one that originally requested the title be changed to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, per the archived post here. There was a small talk of whether DART police officers were actually from Dallas, and a Wikipedian from Dallas, Askari Mark, affirmed "that the DART officers are indeed considered to be "Dallas police officers". Their jurisdiction is mostly focused on public safety of the transit system, but have broader police powers." My reasoning behind keeping the title is the same as Parsley Man - all police officers killed/injured seem to be located in Dallas. The current title does NOT specifically mention police officers from DART or from the Dallas Police Department. The generalization of "Dallas police officers" allows people to get an easy and broad grasp of the topic at hand. Plus, many sources mention the shooting directed towards "Dallas police officers" instead of being more specific as described in my reply. -mSomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The target was police officers and they were all employed in Dallas. Quite appropriate. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as is per WWGB, short and sufficiently accurate. Pincrete (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. The shooter’s explicit target was police officers and the locus was downtown Dallas. Most general discussion refers to the incident as the “Dallas police shootings”, so that is likely the main search topic that would be used by the general public looking for information on Wikipedia.Askari Mark (Talk) 14:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - per above, at least for now. Suggested alternative titles are pretty bad. Neutrality^talk 14:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Although I would prefer "Killy McBombface saves the day" Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW Keep per above, and lets move on to more productive discussion. The proposal and single vote in favor seem to be getting into WP:OR territory, and no sources have been provided to establish that anything suggested is more of a WP:COMMONNAME than the current title. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are two votes in support of it, including the nom. Apparently, Schmarrnintelligenz thinks it's a good idea too. Parsley Man (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I counted as 1 proposal and 1 additional vote. Either way, neither come with sources or policy. TimothyJosephWood 15:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Never mind, then. Parsley Man (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as it is, in line with 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers and 2014 killings of NYPD officers, which seem to favor a year-event-city-subject format. There's no need for the addition of unnecessary adjectives or generalizations, as the current title already sufficiently and succinctly describes the subject of the article. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:32, 13 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.