Talk:Nashville Waffle House shooting

Jim Cooper

Isn't he a Dem? Why is the info wrong on the title?71.209.220.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

His quote includes incorrect and misleading information. an AR-15 is not a "military-grade assault weapon" I believe he's confusing it with something like an M-16 (similar looking rifle used by the US military) which is already restricted. Obviously the reaction of a politician is still notable. But how are factually incorrect quotes by notable people handled?Spoonlesscorey (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I see the quote in question was sloppily removed and then re-added. I went ahead and appended a note that his statement contains misleading information. Citing a proper source article, of course.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted. An opinion piece (and especially a letter to the editor, such as you cited) is not a proper reliable source. Do not restore this material without firm consensus here. Neutrality^talk 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There is firm consensus in the next section below that the language used by the congressman is at the very least inaccurate. And the outcome of that discussion is to avoid using those terms in this article. How would you suggest reconciling this?174.230.12.126 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. The section below does not address Cooper's remarks, nor has anyone come forward with any actually reliable source saying that Cooper's statement was incorrect. Wikipedia:No original research. Neutrality^talk 19:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand where your coming form with the whole no OR thing. But when I read through the discussion below (especially John Cline's comment at 22:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)) there does seem to be consensus that it is incorrect or misleading at the very least to call an AR-15 an "assault weapon". Let alone "military grade" (what ever that is intended to mean).

Also to address your comments about source validity: the source that I cited is a USA Today publication. There is an NPR article that says the same exact thing (if you like that more) among many others. I was trying to be careful not cite a random blog or strongly politically sided publication (or at least one without the baggage that Fox News or CNN bring to the table).

Perhaps different wording is needed?Spoonlesscorey (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have a high-quality, non-opinion source that directly says "Cooper was wrong" (and says this in the context of the Waffle House shooting specifically), then link me to it. Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue now. I read the page on WP:SYNTH. That is a good principal to have. It would be inappropriate to just exclude it. And I'm not really married to the idea of leaving the quote and just calling the guy out, even if an appropriate source exists for that. I just wish the presentation of that quote was better. I don't know of a way of changing it without making it sound equally biased in the opposite direction.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

He did not use an assault rifle.

An assault rifle has selective fire which means it can shoot automatic or burst. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Characteristics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3B01:41E0:64E8:ECD9:150:9463 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The source you gave is a Wikipedia article so we take it with caution. It nevertheless says it must be capable of "semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic". The "or" conjunction literally means that any one of those modes is enough by itself to qualify the weapon as assault class. The weapon shown in pictures released by the police is certainly capable of semi-automatic fire. Aside that, reliable sources have reported it as an "assault type rifle" as well.[1]--John Cline (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Selective fire means you can SWITCH between semi and auto or burst. If you we use YOUR definition of an assault rifle which is capability to shoot semi, then EVERY rifle that is not bolt action would be an assault rifle which is false. No army in the world has semi auto rifles that do not shoot full auto or burst. 2600:1700:3B01:41E0:64E8:ECD9:150:9463 (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different things. On one hand, what kind of weapon would a standing Army be equipped with and on the other hand, what does "selective fire" mean regarding the definition of an assault rifle. To be clear, you can not purchase a military grade weapon except on the black market. You can, however, legally purchase an assault rifle (as defined) in many places. Not every rifle that is not bolt action would be assault class by my comments about selective fire either; there were three other bullet points of required criteria (which this weapon also satisfies).

With regard to "selective fire", I checked the source[2] to make sure the Wikipedia article wasn't mistaken, and it was not. The source writes it as: "semi-automatic, multi-short burst, and/or automatic firing mode"; it is by the presence of the serial comma that all three elements share the conjunction. If it were meant as "semi-automatic and multi-short burst and/or automatic firing mode", it would have been written that way, or it could have been written: "semi-automatic, multi-short burst and/or automatic firing mode". That's the grammar behind the punctuation. And I presume it was written how it was meant. Lastly, I included a reference from CNN (a quite reliable source) which showed a picture of the weapon, and called it an "assault type rifle" as well. Friend, that's a "hat trick" in my book, and a wrap. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

lol so you are ignoring the definition and taking CNN's word for it. lol Is this an assault rifle?... https://www.sportsmanswarehouse.com/sportsmans/Marlin-Model-60-Semi-Auto-Rifle/productDetail/Rifles/prod99999042178/cat100003

Lol, does it fire an intermediate-power cartridge? Is its ammunition supplied by a detachable magazine? Does it have an effective range of 300 meters or more? Of course it is not an assault rifle, rofl. Did you think it was because it can fire in semiautomatic mode alone, lol?--John Cline (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The page on assault rifles even outlines how it is common to mistakenly refer to semi-automatic rifles as being an "assault rifles" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Distinction_from_assault_weapons. While some news outlets have mistakenly given it this designation as well, Wikipedia should strive for accuracy above simple parroting. Conflating the term becomes a political tool wherein some people mistakenly believe that machine guns can easily be obtained and are used in mass shootings. I'd like to disclose that I too had previously removed the "assault rifle" designation to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nashville_Waffle_House_shooting&diff=837747902&oldid=837747644 jayphelps (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm stunned by the above discussion. The rifle was semi-automatic, as EVERY source in this Wikipedia article says! Check the footnotes yourself, as I did, including the main one "Weapon: Bushmaster XM-15[1]" near the top of the page under the map of Tennessee. I simply don't see why there is any discussion going on here. The fact that various people unfamiliar with the current 2nd-Amendment debate call the rifle "assault-type" and similar words, not realizing that their doing so triggers readers to think it's a machine-gun, is irrelevant to what the article itself should call it - semi-automatic - as those in the know, and the sources sited, call it. The sources correctly point out experts' distinctions: assault weapon vs. assault rifle, automatic vs. semi-automatic, and assault vs. "assault-type"/"assault-style"/etc. The article could avoid entering the fray simply by using the NAME of the rifle instead of adjectives and by not bringing in quotes that address those adjectives but don't address the subject of this article - the shooting. I've left all that in for now but fixed the one error.Qc1okay (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't an 'assault rifle.' The crime was horrific enough without adding politically-charged words to the story.198.161.4.63 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. call a duck a duck and just refer to it as and AR-15 or AR-15 Rifle or simply a Rifle. All AR-15s are semi-auto as are the vast majority of firearms these days. no need to confuse people unfamiliar with firearms by including the word automatic. If they want to learn more about the AR-15 they can click through to the page about it.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it agreed that an assault rifle is a gun used in combat during a military "assault"? Naturally, it must be a rifle with a relatively high rate of fire, so bolt-action is out. A semi-auto can be fired fairly quickly and actually you can achieve a burst fire by way of the trigger, though not quite as tight a burst as short-burst. I personally know of two semi-auto guns of war that I would consider "assault rifles, " the M1 Carbine and the SKS, I have used the SKS and I could empty the standard 10 bullet capacity in 5 seconds. With extended clips and hollow points especially, imho, these are assault rifles. Persistent Corvid (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That being said, I'm ok with just saying "AR-15 type" and leaving it . Persistent Corvid (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"A semi-auto can be fired fairly quickly and actually you can achieve a burst fire by way of the trigger" This is an incorrect definition of burst fire. Following this definition a double-action revolver, fired by someone with a quick finger is capable of "burst fire". Burst fire only means firing multiple rounds with just one pull of the trigger. Spoonlesscorey (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not agreed that an assault rifle is a gun used in combat during a military "assault" and an AR-15 should not be thought of as an exact equivalent of the M-16, it most certainly is not. There are plenty of definitions for an assault rifle including the one used for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a subsection on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.[3] Bear in mind that it is separate from, and does not effect the 1986 ban on automatic weapons, chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code called: "Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms".[4] There are no political motivations in calling the weapon used in this attack an assault rifle as it is called in a preponderance of reliable sources. There very well may be such motives in forcing its removal, without reliable justification.--John Cline (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it is my opinion. Last time I checked, wiki editors' opinions aren't RS and are OR, that's why I posted a follow up saying I supported only including "AR-15 style." And when did I say an AR-15 is an M-16? Also, thank you for the correction on burst fire, Spoonless. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that you said they are equivalent. I am pointing out that there is no inconsistency with the definition of an assault rifle simply because it is not consistent with the characteristics of its military counterpart. Such arguments have been made; I am hoping to dissuade your being influenced by them.--John Cline (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

External Links - Press conference

Hello,
Thoughts on adding this video link to the article, under --External links--? Waffle House Shooting Press Conference - YouTube
Vwanweb (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely this should be part of this article! Qc1okay (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree.--John Cline (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Somebody do it! I don't know how, and the various other Wikipedia articles I've checked don't seem to have an External Links section. Qc1okay (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. You hang in there, however, you'll be a pro in no time at all if you do. You've given a good contribution with this, in my opinion. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsements and adding it to the article! Vwanweb (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Why no photo of the murderer, who is on the run!

1. The murderer is as of this moment still on the run. Should the main point of the start of the article not be to show a photo and say to, or say police have said to, call 911 if you see him?!

2. At 12:04 in this press conference: youtube.com/watch?v=bV2MZeO4Wfs the head speaker says the shooter's father admitted to giving the confiscated guns back to the shooter. So "Both the Nashville police chief and the Tazewell County sheriff believe that Reinking's father returned the weapon to his son sometime before the shooting" is FAR too lenient a description of the father's accessorial responsibility for the four murders.Qc1okay (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative phrasing in mind? jayphelps (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes: Delete the first 12 words and keep the last 12 ("Reinking's father returned the guns to his son sometime before the shooting.") or say "Reinking's father admits to returning the guns to his son sometime before the shooting." I don't think his admission is contested anywhere, but if it is, say that (name of speaker in that video) says that the father admitted it.Qc1okay (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

3. Saying that the shooter left no note is incorrect. Facebook/YouTube uploads are "notes." He left a final Facebook post linking to a YouTube video about satanic signs and other bizarre notions. His deranged nature needs to be emphasized by this article, at least until he is captured.Qc1okay (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement in question has a citation. The police meant no notes that specifically mention why the act was done. As far as I've seen, the videos in question were from March and do not specifically mention his intent to harm. If there is proof otherwise, that's definitely important to add. The videos also might be noteworthy regardless to give people an idea of his general mindset, which certainly may have contributed. Feel free to reword to make that fact more clear, but I think it's an important piece of news that he did not leave a note as many people will be looking for a motive. jayphelps (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; if the video is a month old, it's not a note; no change needed there. I fully believe the one source I saw is correct about Reinking's Facebook/YouTube, but I think a full paragraph as to his mental issues is needed, and I am not qualified to do that. Remember, I was away from news when this happened yesterday and woke up this morning to find out that a crazed murderer is on the run from one state away from here (I'm in NC), so I hurriedly checked the details in this article, and only then began to research the various issues.Qc1okay (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

has this article been nominated for deletion (yet)?

I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.216 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What? What does that mean?Qc1okay (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No it has not. There would be no policy based reason for such a nomination.--John Cline (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Historically, that hasn't stopped people from trying for other reasons. Too few dead, wrong grievance, weak TV ratings. But yeah, if that happens, there'll be an unmissable notice at the top of the page for a while, then a slightly less-prominent notice on the Talk about the result. I can't see either of those (yet). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

2 days vs. 1

Why would anyone change "two-day" to "one-day"? I've now changed it back TWICE. The length of the manhunt (in the first paragraph) was two days. They looked for him all day Sunday and found him Monday afternoon. How do we stop someone from changing it back to the wrong number yet again? Qc1okay (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps call it a "34-hour manhunt".--John Cline (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, "34-hour manhunt" reflects the sources and is precise. –dlthewave ☎ 00:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I too agree with this. I didn't realize it was so close to a 1.5 days. That explains why it varies from news source to news source. BTW: I think I was one of the people that reverted your change. Sorry about that, I assumed you where looking at an older, inaccurate, news article.

Address of the shooting in infobox

Sources make clear that the shooting took place in the Antioch branch of Waffle House.[5][6][7]

The correct address of this outlet is 3571 Murfreesboro Pike, Antioch. This address is sourced at the Waffle House website[8] and at various other websites.[9][10][11] I have attempted to add this correct information to the article infobox.

Another editor persists in removing this sourced information, insisting that the address is 3571 Murfreesboro Pike, Nashville.[12] This is both vague and misleading.

I seek the input of interested editors on this matter. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no rule that the Location parameter has to be a City. In general I would consider it appropriate to use Nashville in the article title and the more specific Antioch in the infobox. However, since this is an address, the convention would be to use the name of the Zip code which is Antioch.

At the risk of saying that which does not need to be said, the "city" portion of an address refers to the name of the post office which serves that location, which might not be a "city" in any other sense of the word. In a rural area this might be nothing more than a few houses and a general store with a post office inside of it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The address 3571 Murfreesboro Pike is located in the city of Nashville, so it is neither vague or misleading to indicate the location as such. The location cannot be in two cities at once. The formulation "Antioch, Tennessee" is misleading because it suggests that it is a separate place from "Nashville, Tennessee" - it is not, because Antioch is part of Nashville. The article itself says so! Just because the US Postal Service has created a confusing convention by assigning the name "Antioch" to the ZIP code in this area instead of "Nashville" doesn't mean Wikipedia has to perpetuate the confusion. Readers of the article are not coming here to find out how to address a letter to the Waffle House. Iscoak (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Father returned firearms

In the subsection explaining his arrest it states that after his arrest his father asked to keep the firearms and was granted permission, subject to him not giving them back to his son, it goes on to say the father then returned the firearms to his son just before the shooting.

How can he get the guns after the shooting then return the guns to his son before the shooting??

It's impossible short of being stuck in a time paradox. There's no means I know to report such issues so I will post here Kootenayboy (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

if you read the article in order, you might find he was arrested in a different incident in 2017, preceding this shooting. MartinezMD (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• TravisReinking.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)