Talk:Jacksonville Landing shooting

Footage

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzfK-ir1Zt8 has the audio and for a very brief moment you can see a laser dot. I don't know if there's any fair-use material to get out of that, I don't think it would be respectful... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, we currently have a video linked, but I am rather sure I am against it; I feel it runs into serious BLP issues. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Map of Florida added, doesn't seem to be a map of Jacksonville. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Shooter's name

What is the shooters name it needs to be confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.152.157.112 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A source is included next to the name, like this - [1]. Read it for yourself. Dreigorich (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Injuries

BBC just reported that there were 14 injuries, 12 from gunfire, but the article has different numbers (also just updated). Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

BBC updated numbers to 11, including multiple gunshot wounds. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Victims

I've deleted the 'victims' section for now. It was grossly inappropriate to give such weight to a single individual with a minor injury. Wait until there are details of more serious injuries and/or fatalities, and a more balanced coverage should be possible. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Time of shooting

It seemed the shooting occurred around 12:30 pm Eastern Daylight Time (on August 26, 2018), but do sources re the live game feed report another time? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirect or Article?

Hello. I'm currently creating an article for the perpetrator of the mass shooting over at (no longer being made, CSDing under G7. If anyone wishes to assist me in creating this article please do so. And before anyone mentions notability - the fact this shooting is widespread in the news makes him pass WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you now that you are wasting your time. Such articles on nn perps are inevitably redirected back to the attack article. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Shifting to just making a redirect. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, since multiple people are creating articles on this guy, I think we should discuss this. Who thinks that the shooter is notable enough for a separate article or should just be redirected to this one? Kirbanzo (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Not notable enough, and it's unlikely you'll get enough information to make an article anyway. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The individual has no notability independent of the shooting. A separate article would serve no useful purpose, and merely lead to duplication. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Is he notable independent of the shooting? If not, then it seems unlikely that he would be deserving of his own article at this time - he's just a part of this incident. Most spree killers don't have sufficient notability to have their own articles, with only a few particularly famous exceptions (like Klebold and Harris) due to the sheer amount published on them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Presidential response

Trump's responded to the shooting by calling the Florida governor: http://www.jacksonville.com/nationworld/20180826/president-trump-calls-florida-governor-after-mass-shooting-at-jacksonville-landing.

Since it's technically not official, should it be included?

Kirbanzo (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Included as it's notable, official or not. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link at Perpetrator section

The 2017 tournament must have been for Madden 2017 or 2018, not 2019. Can someone please find sources? I don't have the emotional strength after those events to delve into it any more. Sorry! That hit too close to home (as an avid video game player myself, albeit not professional). --Con^spiration 19:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

According to Forbes it was Madden 17. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect motive

The two witnesses at the scene both stated that the motive was not due to losing, as both the people he lost too left unscathed. Also certain big name Madden players (Dubbz Trueboy Spotme) where targeted over other players, as confirmed by witnesses. Katz was also emotionally distraught, wearing shades, wore the same clothes for three days, and not talking to anyone during the tournament which suggests the shooting was premeditated and not spontaneous. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Exadajdjadjajdsz: Do you have any reliable sources to support that information? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Witness testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jtH8cCtK3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXDBTWNuTvQ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/27/jacksonville-killer-stalked-victims-2-handguns-laser-sight/1113893002/

Also multiple people within the Madden community who where there like https://twitter.com/JoelCP_ refuted the claim that he killed people because he lost. "Not even close to what happened stop reporting on shit you don't know about for clout", - JoelCP in response to Keemstar stating he shot up the place because he lost. His bracket was with Rice and the witness from that first link. Both of those individuals left the tournament unscathed, instead witnesses stated he targeted certain individuals, (likely the more famous madden players). Also it would be highly unlikely in a room filled with 150+ people to hit Trueboy, Spotme, Dubby, Drini (Big names within the Madden community for several years) with a 9mm pistol unless they where targeted. Also you have to consider this individual had a laser sighted gun which he attempted to point at Trueboy's heart prior to the shooting. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mass shooting"?

There's obviously been some back-and-forth on the question of whether this should be described as a "mass shooting".

I think the only reasonable answer to that question is "maybe". As the article on mass shooting makes clear in the first sentence, there is a grey area. Insisting that it is or it isn't is not going to improve the article.

The danger, when you put "mass shooting" in the first sentence of the article before you state how many fatalities there were, is unintentional bathos. People read "mass" and they think of a large number, probably double figures. Then they read "two", and they think, "okay, this was a surprisingly good mass shooting compared to other mass shootings, then". Clearly, the friends and loved ones of the people injured and killed in this attack would prefer readers not to take away that impression.Chi Sigma (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The one goal here is to follow the sources. Those call it a "mass shooting".[1][2][3][4][5] A mass of people (13) were shot, so it's also common sense. I'm restoring the line and it shouldn't be removed unless the sources shift in the way they describe the shooting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The goal is absolutely not to follow the sources. Where in the Wikipedia policies are you finding that? If 5 newspapers said that a town had been hit by a tidal wave, and the town had in fact been hit by a tsunami, which is a different thing, then we would report the accurate version of the facts, not the version that followed the sources. Chi Sigma (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chi Sigma: Please see verifiability, not truth (and by extension Wikipedia:Verifiability). What Cuchullain said is correct. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. Firstly, WP:VNT was dropped in 2012. Secondly, even under WP:VNT, a source that describes an event as a mass shooting but takes no position on what exactly a mass shooting is, or what criteria determines whether something is a mass shooting, can't be taken as a reliable source on the specific question of what a mass shooting is. Multiple sources incorrectly describing a tsunami as a tidal wave would not make it a tidal wave. See WP:OTTO for why a little understanding of WP:V is a dangerous thing. Chi Sigma (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The goal is absolutely to follow what the best available sources are saying. Here there are many high quality sources that are calling this incident by the widely known and easily understood descriptive term "mass shooting". There are none that I've seen that say it's not a mass shooting. As such, there's no reason to avoid the phrase. People interested in specific definitions of "mass shooting" can visit the mass shooting article that's linked in the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying that, and I keep giving examples why it's nonsense, and you keep simply restating your original point. Many high quality sources have called Donald Trump a buffoon, in fact I can't find a single one that calls Trump "not a buffoon"; is that therefore a verifiable fact? I don't know how else to explain this. What can possibly be wrong with inserting a sentence that references the lack of a universal definition of "mass shooting"? You clearly aren't using the words "mass shooting" in their plain-English sense if you're linking them to an article that defines mass shooting in a specific way, so that argument is just a non-starter. Chi Sigma (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Two people were killed, but "Double figures" of people were indeed shot. It was, in fact, a mass shooting. The sources say it was a mass shooting. A mass of people were in fact shot. The fatalities were not high, but, as it turns out, humans can be shot without being killed, and it seems the fellow in question was not a particularly good shot, if his aim was to kill. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Chi Sigma, you’re a bit all over the place. This is plain and simple a mass shooting according to pretty much any definition of the term, and that’s verifiable by so many sources that it’s not a controversial point. The mass shooting article discusses several definitions of the term, and the likely minuscule proportion of the readers who don’t understand what “mass shooting” means can go there for more info. At this point several editors oppose your change, so there’s no consensus for it and it’s time to move on.—Cúchullain ^t/c 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How is a ‘mass shooting’ defined? Depends on who is making the argument. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You've obviously read the mass shooting article and realised that under "pretty much any definition of the term" this is in fact not a mass shooting, and that the "more info" they get from the mass shooting article is going to confirm that, which is why you're now turning to bluster and personal attacks. I'm going to the dispute resolution process. Chi Sigma (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Indeed, by one of the definitions on the page mass shooting (specifically "Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of five or more people"), this event is most definitely a mass shooting. The sources are running with it, and we should follow the sources. Verifiability over Truth. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You have picked out the unofficial definition from the bottom of the lead section, and deliberately ignored the two official definitions that precede it. You also keep referring to a policy that was abandoned five years ago. I'm struggling to assume good faith in the face of that kind of black-is-white behaviour. As I said: dispute resolution. Chi Sigma (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You say “official definition” as if an official definition is going to trump the commonly used ones. No one has made personal attacks. If you chose not to assume good faith, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t change the facts. If you want to seek dispute resolution, go ahead.—Cúchullain ^t/c 12:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect it to "trump the commonly used ones". The correct answer is "maybe", as I said right at the start. This article, for example, uses the phrase "The Cumbria shootings occurred..." which avoids identifying the attack as any particular thing, other than "shootings". See, no facts harmed! Just a reasonable and constructive approach to emotive language. Chi Sigma (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The verifiability policy section on neutrality states that what we're looking for is "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." If the majority opinion in reliable sources is 'mass shooting,' as evidenced by the continued use of the term, we too should refer to it as a mass shooting in accordance with the majority viewpoint of the reliable sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, the Cumbria shootings match every definition of a mass shooting that we have. That article should be update to say mass shooting. Thanks for pointing that out. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chi Sigma: "You also keep referring to a policy that was abandoned five years ago" - You keep bringing this up, do you mean that Wikipedia:Verifiability is abandoned, or just Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth? Either way, where did you see that? They have both been edited extensively within the past 5 years (ignoring for a second that the latter is technically an essay explaining a policy and not a policy itself). I have also checked with a couple other administrators and it is news to all of us. If this is the case, please link it. I am genuinely curious. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Is it not clear from the above where I said "WP:VNT was dropped in 2012" what I was referring to? WP:VNT states very clearly that the not truth part is a former interpretation of WP:V that was removed in 2012. There is no longer any requirement for information that is verifiably false and contradicts other parts of Wikipedia to be included simply because it's in the sources. The general understanding of WP:V among both admins and editors has gone downhill over the past 14 years. It used to be a starting point for a discussion, now it's an end, it's an argumentum ad baculum. Chi Sigma (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I see now what you are talking about Chi Sigma, but also that the DRN request was closed as being outside the scope of the noticeboard. That said, I would recommend reading the comments made on it before the close (and the closing statement). As was stated by Winged Blades of Godric at the DRN request, "I am not seeing much scopes of a compromise (and hence a DR-process).We don't second-guess sources and thus, if an abundance of sources refer to the incident as a mass-shooting, we call it so.To delve into the intricacies of whether the incident really satisfies the definition of mass-shooting is original research and prohibited.". I would recommend considering opening a Request for Comment on the matter (whether or not it should be called a "mass shooting" in the article). What I will say is that WP:VNT always has been an essay that is supplemental to a policy (WP:V). While the wording itself was removed (you are quite correct), the intent is still there (in WP:V): We report what reliable sources say. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Theoretically, shouldn't all parties in the discussion be formally notified when a DRN case is filed? I've not seen much use of DRN, but I thought that was the protocol. I do not believe we were properly notified of this. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Back to the discussion, I think it fits as a mass shooting because a gun was being fired at multiple people together, with there being no motive to shoot the people individually, only as a group or as a random mass of people. Lots of people shot at once + group motive = mass shooting. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• As the DRN volunteer who made the comment about aspects of VNT and OR, I stand by my statement.Practice is policy and the current practice is that we go by the version used by reliable-sources (with due aspects to weightage and numbers, in case of contradictions).If you wish to see the viewpoint of the community, launch a RFC.∯WBG^converse 04:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Godric asked me to comment here. The English Wikipedia goes based on what the consensus of reliable sources refers to something as. There are different quality of sources that we do have to weight according to their quality(for example, a multiple peer-reviewed sociological studies are much higher quality than random articles in local newspapers), but generally speaking, if we have a bunch of sources roughly the same quality, and the majority of them call it one thing, we go with what the sources say.
  To do otherwise is original research and substituting our judgement for the judgement of the sourcing. Wikipedia's value is as a tertiary source, which means that when we start substituting our judgement for the judgement of reliable sourcing, we lose the value we bring to our readers. I have no thoughts on this particular case: I stay away from anything like this on-wiki, but I did want to lend my voice to the framing of the policy considerations here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, Thank you:-) That completely aligns with my thought-line. ∯WBG^converse 05:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about the article

I am totally unfamiliar with this world of "gaming". Hence, my question. Is it really that important and/or necessary to include the "gamer names" (i.e., the pseudonyms, the aliases, etc.) of these individuals? I mean, really, who cares? Is this really significant and/or important? It seems quite silly and trivial, to me. But, then again, I am totally unfamiliar with this world of "gaming" and its culture, etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In most cases their handles are more known than their real names. Take the League of Legends player "Faker", no one knows him by his first name, everyone knows him by Faker. tl;dr: gamesr aren't known by their real names, mainly their gaming handles. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I had no idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

TREXHAVAHARTATAK

He also frequently used the name TREXHAVAHARTATAK, as noted by fellow madden player Misery and multiple sources

https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/david-katz/

From Heavy.com "He went by a variety of gamer names, among them Bread, Ravenschamp, and TREXHAVAHARTATAK. He was the winner of the Madden 17 Bills Club Championship in February of 2017 in Buffalo, New York. A video from the tournament captures an announcer saying of David Katz, “He is not here to make friends. He’s all business, he’s focused, and to even get him to open up to talk to you about anything – it’s like pulling teeth, man.”

I also remember watching the Madden 17 Bills Club Championship where the announcer refers to one of his aliases as TREXHAVAHARTATAK, and I remember him going by that name. Refer to anybody that followed Madden tournaments, they all know this is true as well.

Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

References