![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Its official - Marquez has been charged for illegal straw buying: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-man-charged-conspiring-provide-material-support-terrorism-and-being-straw
This completes the debate and demonstrates that the rifles were not purchased legally, as has been asserted in the article. I tried to adjust to show the charges filed in the main article but need someone more Wiki Savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.152.172 ( talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As of 10 December - the rifles are now being reported that they were not only illegally transferred but that they were a straw purchase by Marquez - which is illegal under Federal Law. I think the weapons section needs some substantial revision because it (falsely) claims all of the weapons were purchased legally and smacks of bias. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.56.30.14 (
talk)
00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
NPR: "a law enforcement source and an intelligence source tell NPR that a dealer was not involved in transferring the assault-style rifles between Enrique Marquez and the shooters. And they say Marquez could be charged for an illegal transfer." Gotta love the "assault-style" subjective style assessment injected by NPR. Well, since the terrorists wore ski masks, will NPR be henceforth calling them "assault-style" ski masks next time they report on how's the snow in Vail this year? ....mmm... maybe the black Ford Expedition SUV is now being called "assault-style" by NPR? http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it XavierItzm ( talk) 03:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The La Stampa "interview" with Farook's father has been discredited, and no other mainstream sources have picked up that story. I have removed it, per previous discussion Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_attack/Archive_3, and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Please do not re-add until consensus emerge for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The father was not involved in family affairs as, according to reliable sources, he was an alcoholic and a bit "out there". We have an interview by La Stampa, which was not picked up on other sources besides making comments about the reliability of that interview. Per WP:BLP (which applies here) we need high quality sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Edits continue during discussion that are uncorroborated. Objective3000 ( talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (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.
I am closing this discussion. The conversation here has wandered extremely far afield of discussions of article content, and has drifted (as the participants seem to acknowledge) into a generalized forum-style discussion about Islamic theology over six days. While very erudite, this is not particularly helpful to article content matters. If users want to discuss use of the term in this article (e.g., in the infobox or elsewhere), they are welcome to open a new section on this talk page below. Let's try to keep any new conversation focused. Neutrality talk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I think care should be taken in the use of the word jihad, which basically means struggle. Certainly there are those that use the word to indicate religious struggle in various manners. But, the popular media has used it so often to indicate violence that I would guess this is the meaning that most people think of. Objective3000 ( talk) 19:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
no freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, in predominantly Muslim countriesto Saudi Arabia. But, you are still cherry-picking phrases from the Quran to broad-brush a billion people. You can do the same with the Bible. As for me having a pro-Muslim bias, I'm Jewish. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
what I believe to be factual information, i.e. that Muslims believe that the Quran is the Word of Allah, as given to Muhammad and the Hadith are the instructions that tell Muslims how to interpret the Quran and live their lives. You didn’t say some Muslims. You said this is what Muslims believe. This is like saying Christians believe that you must accept Christ as your savior. Only about 40% of Christians believe this. Or that the Bible is the actual written word of god. A similar percentage of Christians don’t believe this. You are claiming that you know for a fact the reason the attack was carried out because it was carried out by Muslims and that means there can only one reason. You are using this bias to slant how you think the article should be written. As for the meaning of jihad, I’ll go with the Islamic Supreme Council of America over your definition. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
82.169.162.44 ( talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) From a positive point of view I have some questions about this wikipedia page.
1) How can we have the picture from the passport on the wikipedia page, where does it come from? 2) How can we have the picture of the driver's license on the wikipedia page, where does it come from? 3) Can we have a section on expert video and photo analysis of the event? This is a sound research method to question the FBI event narrative. 4) Can we have a section on eyewitnesses? And if yes can we involve following sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHtYBUqnLuY http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/multiple-video-evidence-san-bernardino-false-flag-attack-01-plan-multiple-false-flags-justify-martial-law-arrest-truthers.html 5) Can we have a section about the psychology of how we perceive such an event? 6) Can we have a section about how Donald Trump uses this event in his policitical rhetoric?
Thanks for the answers and for making this a better encyclopedia article. Currently I would rate it a 5/10
82.169.162.44 ( talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge proposal - resolved
|
---|
It has been proposed by SMcCandlish that the page Enrique Marquez (US citizen) be merged here, with the reason "If the perps don't have their own articles a minor suspect, not notable aside from this event, doesn't need one either." Creating the merge proposal thread (step 1) on his behalf. Note that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Marquez (accomplice). Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 13:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The following information was not found in the reference. I moved it here pending finding a wp:rs to support its inclusion.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This material seems excessive. It's enough to say it was a sham marriage. I left the reference in the article.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Should the article include the names and other biographical information of the victims (killed, or wounded)? 22:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(6-day Tally) Highly premature, RFCs go for 30 days and we are barely a week in.
NOTE: This is not an AfD. AfD runs for 7+ days. |
---|
Tally Include: 15 "Do Not": 5 Remove: 1 Exclude: 1 "Exclude Wounded": 4 Bod ( talk) 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Please note that this tally was merely provided for convenience and does not imply that the RFC has ended before uninvolved closure or that it is a WP:VOTE. LjL ( talk) 00:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
MEMORIAL POLICY
|
---|
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. |
If the perps and their names have been made notable by killing, then the killed and their names should be made notable as well.- That is your opinion, and it's an emotional one at that. It's not policy and has no place in an encyclopaedia. The event is notable. Someone committing mass-murder and mayhem makes them notable. Unfortunately, simply being the victim of a mass-casualty event does not make someone notable. There are multiple wiki-policies that are clear on this. - theWOLFchild 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As the USA v. Marquez criminal case gets underway the court documents are very rich sources of information.
Notes for active researchers
Public access for US Court documents are $.10 per page. However if you use less than $15 worth in a quarter that usage is free. (Note - if you go over $15 in usage in a quarter you indeed will be billed for it all.)
There is no copyright on US Court Documents so, once retrieved, they may be freely shared and archived.
RECAP
Strongly suggest anyone doing doing US Court Research (i.e. willing to register for a retrieval account, willing to provide a credit card, etc.) install the RECAP browser extension (Chrome or FireFox) first. [ RECAP]
This will quickly and painlessly give you:
RECAP is 100% legal, totally above board, and academic/research oriented. see Wikipedia's coverage of RECAP
AFTER you install RECAP, then sign up for a public access account at the US Court site [ PACER] (Reminder $.10 page, but free if under $15 usage PER QUARTER)
Search by Case No. 5:15-mj-00498 then navigate to the Docket section to look for filed documents.
Free access, no account needed
This is NOT guaranteed to have all the USA v. Marquez criminal case documents, (only by registering at PACER above, can you be sure you have everything, up to the minute. This only has documents preserved to a free archive)
It does have the Complaint which is 37 pages of detailed FBI sworn information, directly relevant to Marquez and the entire event. [ Complaint at archive.org] Document #1 contains the FBI affidavit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment 1 above
Not sure if an affidavit filled out by an FBI officer, which is based on other primary documents (such as lab reports, chemical analysis, multiple written accounts by field officers, etc.) wouldn't be properly classified as a secondary document. Its obviously a compilation made up from other primary sources.
Note that the FBI affidavit, referred to above, speaks under full penalty of perjury on behalf of the entire FBI, and not just that one author's personal opinion. Such statements are carefully reviewed internally before being sent out the door. Likewise, lies and half truths to the U.S. Court system, by another branch of U.S. government would certainly run counter to all traditional notions of justice. Not asserting it never happens, but the reliability factor here is way above a highly regarded TV anchor or newspaper writer.
Even if the affidavit were deemed primary by consensus at Wikipedia, it would still be usable. Here is the policy (which is subsidiary to the better understood "No original research" policy) see wp:PRIMARY. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
There is also a Wikipedia guideline (has less authority than a policy) wp:USINGPRIMARY which strives (and I would add largely fails) to delineate between primary and secondary sources, as uniquely seen by WikiPedia. (It notes: 'Wikipedia is not the real world...Wikipedia, like many institutions, has its own lexicon. Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them. )
The guideline goes on to say: Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for. ...You are allowed to use primary sources carefully. ...Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles...Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does.
Conclusion: Sworn affidavits from the FBI filed at PACER have an extremely high degree of reliability, and are entirely permissible to draw from directly. There is no need for corroboration / publication by mainstream media to quote from these documents directly.
Comment 2 above
Would not agree that all detail in the FBI affidavit is reported faithfully in the current Wikipedia article. Of course how to carve down a 37 page affidavit to what's relevant to include in a Wikipedia article is a judgement call.
Comment 3 above
Every page (currently filed, there will be many more fillings as the case progresses) would cost under $5.00. However, for the moment (last time I checked), all pages currently filed are accessible free (see above, Internet Archive link).
Comment 4 above
Pretty sure RECAP has no knowledge of your login credentials at PACER. The software only becomes active as you search. Its open source, maintained by Princeton University. per Wikipedia: In 2009, the Los Angeles Times stated that RECAP cuts into PACER revenue about $10 million. At .10 per page that would mean about 700 million pages have been downloaded using RECAP since 2009 without any reports of credit card fraud. It's open source, so the best place to look for possible security issues is directly at at source code: [ freelawproject]
Comment 5 above
Not recommending, or not recommending, using RECAP on, behalf of Wikipedia. Just providing references to it (as Wikipedia itself does). Had the US Court system desired and had been able to shut it down, that would have occurred long ago since its been active for more than six years, and it puts a 10 million dollar per year dent in the PACER revenues. I doubt Princeton University would risk a lawsuit on behalf of PACER were there any legal exposure.
Comment 6 above
See #1 above. The US Court documents as filed on PACER should be directly quotable per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 05:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
One other thing, though it may not yet apply here There is no copyright on US Court Documents so, once retrieved, they may be freely shared and archived.
- while the documents the courts generate and the FBI, documents generated by lawyers that are not works of the government may very well be subject to copyright even though they are public documents. --
DHeyward (
talk)
04:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Searched Marquez case docket at: [ Archive] (see above, can be out of date). Since no documents after 12/21/2015 I searched on PACER (Case No. 5:15-mj-00498). Again no documents on the docket past 12/21? Seems odd no documents were filed related to his reported plea of not guilty and demand for trial?
Also noted in the Order of Detention (refusing bail) by David T Bristow, US Magistrate Judge's findings as to danger from release on bail were:
Not so sure the article's coverage U.S. Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered Marquez held without bail, saying that Marquez would pose a danger to the community if released[142] (as reported by pe.com) was all that great at reporting what Bristow, in his own handwriting, actually expressed?
I don't disagree with mentioning terrorism as one possibility that is being investigated, but I don't see proof it is not an ordinary workplace shooting. I am wondering if the article is assuming it is terrorism when it is not clear. "seriously injured in a terrorist attack " should read "seriously injured in a workplace shooting ". If they were not Muslims their attack would not be considered terrorism, just a workplace shooting. I am not arguing it is impossible but it is far from clear they shot up their co-works for reasons distinct from the other workplace shootings in America. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War, as such, I'm disputing the gratuitous use of the sanction on this page. -- Kendrick7 talk 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it really that necessary? I personally don't think so. The victims' names are all basic, and there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic value for revealing the genders. If people are confused, they can just look it up elsewhere. Parsley Man ( talk) 00:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Victims of a terror attack on U.S. soil merit their own article, or at least more detail than given here. First of all, murder is rare and is usually notable. Murder by terrorism is even rarer, and therefore even more notable. Extensive media coverage of murders and specifically terrorist murders establishes both points. Second, murder of one person - if covered in the media - generally entitles that person to specific mention of his life in the article about the murder [see: Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates, Murder_of_Lee_Rigby] and the same often applies if more than one person is murdered [see: Levi_Bellfield#Victims, Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Killed, Virginia_Tech_shooting#Norris_Hall_shootings]. Many more examples can be brought. Third, some of the victims of the San Bernardino attack are more notable than others, quote from the article itself: "Three of the deceased victims—Isaac Amanios, Bennetta Betbadal and Tin Nguyen—had come to the United States to escape violence or persecution in their home countries". At the very least, these three should have an article about them. Fourth, the ethnicity of the victims is needed, because terrorist murders by Muslims against non Muslims are a hate crime. Summing up, I propose creating an article entitled "Victims of the 2015 San Bernardino attack" or at the very least, expanding the existing section to include professions and ethnicity. Yabti ( talk) 17:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Placing this in the category for ISIL attacks was reverted. Since upon editing this article there is a bold warning about reverting specifically stating "Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the sanctions regime as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." If this attack has nothing to do with ISIL then the warning ought to be removed, if it does, the category should be restored. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
for notes on court document research see: these notes
Judge Jesus G. Bernal
Counts
Docket #: 5:15-cr-00093
Docket #: 5:15-mj-00498
Enough time has passed to "pull back" and take a top down look at the entire article. In particular how space is devoted to each topic, and overall organization and balance. Somehow it seems to be "off center" of where a good encyclopedia article on this event would be.
First a look at the stats, all the "hot" interest is long gone:
Early on, coverage of every instance of significant "breaking news", was of primary concern. And, those were shoe-horned in quickly and sequentially. The early "news", which was generated rapidly received zealous and broad coverage. Yet in hindsight much of what was "sensational" up front fades to nearly insignificant in the context of a much more calm and reasoned whole article. Yet the "remnants" of the "early-on" archaic content seems to linger with too much coverage.
For instance, early-on there was a huge bias towards not labeling it a terrorist event, not showing any potential tie to radical groups, asserting "it'll never happen again, it's an isolated incident, a one shot deal". The attitude of the editing crowd was to label it as somehow a spontaneously arising mental illness, or a simple case of irrational hot-headed workplace rivalry gone bad. Yet the preponderance of the evidence, revealed slowly and later on, as the formerly Monet style mosaic came into greater actual focus, shows a much more learned account of what actually happened and why. Early editors promising to "go back later" when adequate evidence was finally in have long since lost any continuing interest, and vanished from participating. So, very little wholesale refactoring thus far.
For instance, now that much more is known:
So, perhaps time for a "top down" realignment and tune up. These things are best done with some crowd wisdom and consensus. So, what content and coverage needs adjusting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 16:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Article is missing the two FBI surveillance planes.
Dec 2
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/672179495995076608/photo/1
N404KR OBR Leasing CESSNA 182T (FBI)
Article
http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/167329-homeland-security-deployed-a-spy-plane-above-san-bernardino-after-shooting.html
N497PC Platus PC-12/45 US Dept of Homeland Security
(article has this one listed)
Dec 3
Article
http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/05/fbi-activity-san-bernardino-attack/
N657TP PXW Services Cesna 182 (FBI)
Dec 4
Article
http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/05/fbi-activity-san-bernardino-attack/
N404KR OBR Leasing CESSNA 182T (FBI) (same as Dec 2)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.242.4.225 (
talk)
01:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The reasons this statement is clearly incorrect are not very difficult to understand, and it wouldn't take me very long to elaborate on other problems with the source as well.
It's beyond obvious this is an issue of re-branding the word "terrorists" post-9/11 to exclusively refer to Muslisms. Just six years before that, however, the Oklahoma City bombings were only called an act of domestic terrorism, and Timothy McVeigh, someone who also acted alone and advanced his own political agenda, a terrorist. An act of terrorism is defined adequately in its own Wikipedia article:
It doesn't matter that US federal officials never referred to Seung-Hui Cho as a terrorist in the media, because Wikipedia is impartial and the avoidance of this term was questioned in its own time by international observers based on this warranted suspicion. That the article sourced is exclusively about Muslims is the perfect indictment of any counter-argument that this isn't the case. That's verification both independent of the source previously linked and clearly written in opposition to that opinion piece's stance to indicate that terrorism was a uniquely "Muslim" problem.
Because there's nothing intrinsically Islamic about terrorism at large, the premise of that article is false, and citing it to source the claim that this was the "biggest act of terrorism in the US since 9/11" was both deliberately misleading and transparent. If you contend otherwise, feel free to talk with me here, or open an issue in Arbitration. Thanks. Hexagon70 ( talk) 01:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
In view of the broad scope of possible implications of a legal precedent that would be established if the DoJ's action against Apple is successful, I propose that at some point this legal battle will need its own article. Layzeeboi ( talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly support a new article. Both sides are dug in for a long fight that will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The issues go far beyond both the San Bernardino attack and Apple's business interests, and the story has generated lots of press, so a separate article on the case is inevitable. Might as well start it now and make it easier for editors to contribute. I would suggest FBI v. Apple as a title for now until the case gets a formal legal name.-- agr ( talk) 18:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've now done that, starting by copying the section from this article. The subject more than meets notability requirements for a separate article. People here can decide how much to trim the section in this article.-- agr ( talk) 12:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently some editors are not required to explain their reverting of other editors. They also have their talk page locked so only committed editors can post there to ask for an explanation. I can only imagine some find the accurate term offensive for some emotional reasons. A long time ago in place far away people forgot this was a encyclopedia where facts are to reign and Political correctness should be shoved up their fat arse. But I digress in to potty humor. Radical Islamist is an article on wikipedia. It describes the terrorists as they claimed to be doing this for Islam and thus are radical. Nothing complicated, just the facts mammy. 172.58.137.140 ( talk) 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You guys manage to have this anti- WP:AGF conversation without stating what change is being discuss. I see IP 172.56.12.251 tried to put in and link Radical Islamist in the first sentence with this edit. I have added Islamic terrorism to the See also section as it is not linked anywhere in the article. Would that suffice? Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
"Perpetrators Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik left their six-month-old daughter with Farook's mother at their Redlands home the morning of the attack, saying they were going to a doctor's appointment."
is the first sentence of the text of the article as it stands right now.
It is also proof of the bias of editor "Neutrality", who has obliterated my edits, using the following pretext:
"This early statement was quickly superseded by subsequent investigation. We're WP:NOTNEWS."
to delete the following perfectly sourced sentence, which used to be part of the article months ago:
Previously, on December 3, the President had indicated "It is possible that this was terrorist-related, but we don’t know. It’s also possible that this was workplace-related." [1]
Cheers, XavierItzm ( talk) 08:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Examine the evidence.
Dec 2
Date of the actual shooting. That same day CBS aired an interview with the president. This is important to get the context of what followed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLNnL7VlJDA
The president plays up mass shootings, downplays terrorism and mostly advertises a need for gun control.
Dec 3 (prior to 11 AM)
President holds a meeting with his "national security team" (as reported by the official White House blog).
The "national security team" here most likely means:
National Security Council: chaired by the President. Includes: VP, Secretaries (State, Treasury, Defense), Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Advisory (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence), Invited Guests (President's Chief of Staff, Counsel, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy), and if relevant (AG, Director OMB).
Plus, in this case, Directors of: DHS, FBI, and NSA
Published later but referring to that meeting
Here is an article accusing substantial spin. By itself perhaps not "conclusive" but examine it in context of other trustworthy information, presented here.
http://sofrep.com/45079/fbi-san-bernadino-investigation-stymied-by-politics/#ixzz3z2JoOJeI
Article notes the event was considered a terrorist attack from the very outset, and the president was well aware of that. States the immediate NSC meeting at the White House and SIGINT aircraft launch are totally inconsistent with "mass shooting" or "workplace incident".
Dec 3 11 AM EST
Shortly after the "national security team" meeting, the president issues a statement from from oval office.
Video: (scroll down)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino
transcript:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/03/statement-president-shooting-san-bernardino-california
...I just received a briefing from FBI Director Comey, as well as Attorney General Lynch (White House blog reported the meeting as considerably larger - "the national security team") We don't know why they did it...It is possible this is terrorist related but we don't know. Its also possible it was workplace related. [The second half was oriented entirely towards "mass shootings]...make it harder for individuals to get access to weapons."
Preparations for a press conference
Do you think after sitting in on that "national security team" meeting in the early AM, that James Comey might have had a chat with his man on the west coast, David Bowdich, FBI Assistant Director in Charge, to inform him how the President wanted things presented to the media? Would David in turn share that info with San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan? After all, they were both to stand side by side at the podium in just a couple of hours, in front of a huge swarm of news hungry media. Service oriented government employees tend to closely follow chain-of-command and direct orders.
Dec 3 12:42 EST
Police/FBI press conference 9:42 PT
The press conference was huge, covered by virtually all major media. Oddly, it was quite delayed in getting started. And, it absolutely "set the tone" for all the early media reporting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccMK5Q_RDIU
FBI: [very interested in an analysis of the digital media] we are trying to determine motive, we do not yet know the motive, we cannot rule anything out at this point. We are hoping that some of the digital media exploitation will help us and assist us in obtaining some of that. Again it would be irresponsible of me, it would be way too early for us to speculate on motive on why this occurred...if you look at the obvious amount of preplaning that went in, the amount of armaments that he had, the weapons and ammunition, there was obviously a mission here, we know that. We do not know why. We don't know if this was the intended target or something triggered him to do this immediately. We just don't know. And again that's going to take time to get that answer. We know there was some international travel. They came into the U.S. both he and, she was not his wife at the time, but she is now, they both came in to the U.S. in July of 2014. They have since had a baby together, he is a U.S. person. She is here on a K-1 visa. ...don't know all the countries he visited but Pakistan was one of them. She is here on a K-1 visa under a Pakistan passport. [Why was she involved?] we don't know enough...again it would be irresponsible and immature of me to call this terrorism. The FBI defines terrorism very specifically, and we are still, that is the big question for us, what is the motivation for this. First and foremost, the integrity of this investigation again, is paramount. Secondly, its ultimately to determine, the motive, and the inspiration for this attack...[relating to bombs] there is some level of sophistication, certainly, when you are tying them together, and you have, seemingly, a remote controlled car that is attached to the device. [Is there any evidence the design was based on Inspire magazine?] We knew that question would come up and we are looking in to it as we speak.
Dec 5
President convenes a meeting in the Situation Room to discuss the terrorist attack. An official photo is taken by White House photographer Pete Souza and posted to the White House blog.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino Use of the Situation Room is inconsistent with mass shootings/workplace incidents, especially several days after a shooting incident is totally over.
Conclusion
Based on the above trail of evidence it appears early information flow was indeed quite actively "shaped". (check historical versions of this article and the inflamed discussions about it in the talk archives. It remains quite colored by that early shaping.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of news consumers loose all interest quickly as the early sensationalism fades out just days after a major news event. Those consumers leave with the shaped presentation, as their perceived absolute reality.
Unlike TV news and newspapers however, an encyclopedia has the ability to go back and set the record straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
for notes on court document research see: these notes
Judge Jesus G. Bernal
Counts
Docket #: 5:15-cr-00093
Docket #: 5:15-mj-00498
Who ever wrote this, thanks.
Winterysteppe (
talk)
02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
All importance=low ?
Death
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
51 | 384 | 2,151 | 15,505 | 30,664 | 26 |
Crime-related
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
97 | 662 | 2,834 | 21,716 | 32,600 | 0 |
United States articles
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
209 | 2,951 | 16,316 | 370,362 | 261,204 | 44,334 |
(Is it really an article about the United Sates?)
Terrorism Articles importance=unknown - isn't "importance" established at this point?
Terrorism
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
51 | 279 | 664 | 4,618 | 4,421 | 2 |
Add?
Category:Islamic terrorism (as old Marquez article was categorized)
Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States
Title?
2015 San Bernardino shooting and attempted bombing
Investigating agencies note it's a priority to keep the surviving shooting victims and their family members updated on the investigation.
Week of 1/18 they met with >100 people for an update and Q&A. In attendance were:
Bowdich (FBI)
Decker (U.S. Attorney)
Burguan (San Bernardino Police Chief)
McMahon (San Bernardino County Sheriff)
Any additional facts emerge at that meeting?
In the article motive is listed as under investigation. Are those agencies actively pondering and investigating motive at this point or is that considered established?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Its official - Marquez has been charged for illegal straw buying: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-man-charged-conspiring-provide-material-support-terrorism-and-being-straw
This completes the debate and demonstrates that the rifles were not purchased legally, as has been asserted in the article. I tried to adjust to show the charges filed in the main article but need someone more Wiki Savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.152.172 ( talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As of 10 December - the rifles are now being reported that they were not only illegally transferred but that they were a straw purchase by Marquez - which is illegal under Federal Law. I think the weapons section needs some substantial revision because it (falsely) claims all of the weapons were purchased legally and smacks of bias. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.56.30.14 (
talk)
00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
NPR: "a law enforcement source and an intelligence source tell NPR that a dealer was not involved in transferring the assault-style rifles between Enrique Marquez and the shooters. And they say Marquez could be charged for an illegal transfer." Gotta love the "assault-style" subjective style assessment injected by NPR. Well, since the terrorists wore ski masks, will NPR be henceforth calling them "assault-style" ski masks next time they report on how's the snow in Vail this year? ....mmm... maybe the black Ford Expedition SUV is now being called "assault-style" by NPR? http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it XavierItzm ( talk) 03:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The La Stampa "interview" with Farook's father has been discredited, and no other mainstream sources have picked up that story. I have removed it, per previous discussion Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_attack/Archive_3, and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Please do not re-add until consensus emerge for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The father was not involved in family affairs as, according to reliable sources, he was an alcoholic and a bit "out there". We have an interview by La Stampa, which was not picked up on other sources besides making comments about the reliability of that interview. Per WP:BLP (which applies here) we need high quality sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Edits continue during discussion that are uncorroborated. Objective3000 ( talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (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.
I am closing this discussion. The conversation here has wandered extremely far afield of discussions of article content, and has drifted (as the participants seem to acknowledge) into a generalized forum-style discussion about Islamic theology over six days. While very erudite, this is not particularly helpful to article content matters. If users want to discuss use of the term in this article (e.g., in the infobox or elsewhere), they are welcome to open a new section on this talk page below. Let's try to keep any new conversation focused. Neutrality talk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I think care should be taken in the use of the word jihad, which basically means struggle. Certainly there are those that use the word to indicate religious struggle in various manners. But, the popular media has used it so often to indicate violence that I would guess this is the meaning that most people think of. Objective3000 ( talk) 19:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
no freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, in predominantly Muslim countriesto Saudi Arabia. But, you are still cherry-picking phrases from the Quran to broad-brush a billion people. You can do the same with the Bible. As for me having a pro-Muslim bias, I'm Jewish. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
what I believe to be factual information, i.e. that Muslims believe that the Quran is the Word of Allah, as given to Muhammad and the Hadith are the instructions that tell Muslims how to interpret the Quran and live their lives. You didn’t say some Muslims. You said this is what Muslims believe. This is like saying Christians believe that you must accept Christ as your savior. Only about 40% of Christians believe this. Or that the Bible is the actual written word of god. A similar percentage of Christians don’t believe this. You are claiming that you know for a fact the reason the attack was carried out because it was carried out by Muslims and that means there can only one reason. You are using this bias to slant how you think the article should be written. As for the meaning of jihad, I’ll go with the Islamic Supreme Council of America over your definition. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
82.169.162.44 ( talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) From a positive point of view I have some questions about this wikipedia page.
1) How can we have the picture from the passport on the wikipedia page, where does it come from? 2) How can we have the picture of the driver's license on the wikipedia page, where does it come from? 3) Can we have a section on expert video and photo analysis of the event? This is a sound research method to question the FBI event narrative. 4) Can we have a section on eyewitnesses? And if yes can we involve following sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHtYBUqnLuY http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/multiple-video-evidence-san-bernardino-false-flag-attack-01-plan-multiple-false-flags-justify-martial-law-arrest-truthers.html 5) Can we have a section about the psychology of how we perceive such an event? 6) Can we have a section about how Donald Trump uses this event in his policitical rhetoric?
Thanks for the answers and for making this a better encyclopedia article. Currently I would rate it a 5/10
82.169.162.44 ( talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge proposal - resolved
|
---|
It has been proposed by SMcCandlish that the page Enrique Marquez (US citizen) be merged here, with the reason "If the perps don't have their own articles a minor suspect, not notable aside from this event, doesn't need one either." Creating the merge proposal thread (step 1) on his behalf. Note that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Marquez (accomplice). Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 13:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The following information was not found in the reference. I moved it here pending finding a wp:rs to support its inclusion.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This material seems excessive. It's enough to say it was a sham marriage. I left the reference in the article.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Should the article include the names and other biographical information of the victims (killed, or wounded)? 22:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(6-day Tally) Highly premature, RFCs go for 30 days and we are barely a week in.
NOTE: This is not an AfD. AfD runs for 7+ days. |
---|
Tally Include: 15 "Do Not": 5 Remove: 1 Exclude: 1 "Exclude Wounded": 4 Bod ( talk) 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Please note that this tally was merely provided for convenience and does not imply that the RFC has ended before uninvolved closure or that it is a WP:VOTE. LjL ( talk) 00:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
MEMORIAL POLICY
|
---|
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. |
If the perps and their names have been made notable by killing, then the killed and their names should be made notable as well.- That is your opinion, and it's an emotional one at that. It's not policy and has no place in an encyclopaedia. The event is notable. Someone committing mass-murder and mayhem makes them notable. Unfortunately, simply being the victim of a mass-casualty event does not make someone notable. There are multiple wiki-policies that are clear on this. - theWOLFchild 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As the USA v. Marquez criminal case gets underway the court documents are very rich sources of information.
Notes for active researchers
Public access for US Court documents are $.10 per page. However if you use less than $15 worth in a quarter that usage is free. (Note - if you go over $15 in usage in a quarter you indeed will be billed for it all.)
There is no copyright on US Court Documents so, once retrieved, they may be freely shared and archived.
RECAP
Strongly suggest anyone doing doing US Court Research (i.e. willing to register for a retrieval account, willing to provide a credit card, etc.) install the RECAP browser extension (Chrome or FireFox) first. [ RECAP]
This will quickly and painlessly give you:
RECAP is 100% legal, totally above board, and academic/research oriented. see Wikipedia's coverage of RECAP
AFTER you install RECAP, then sign up for a public access account at the US Court site [ PACER] (Reminder $.10 page, but free if under $15 usage PER QUARTER)
Search by Case No. 5:15-mj-00498 then navigate to the Docket section to look for filed documents.
Free access, no account needed
This is NOT guaranteed to have all the USA v. Marquez criminal case documents, (only by registering at PACER above, can you be sure you have everything, up to the minute. This only has documents preserved to a free archive)
It does have the Complaint which is 37 pages of detailed FBI sworn information, directly relevant to Marquez and the entire event. [ Complaint at archive.org] Document #1 contains the FBI affidavit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment 1 above
Not sure if an affidavit filled out by an FBI officer, which is based on other primary documents (such as lab reports, chemical analysis, multiple written accounts by field officers, etc.) wouldn't be properly classified as a secondary document. Its obviously a compilation made up from other primary sources.
Note that the FBI affidavit, referred to above, speaks under full penalty of perjury on behalf of the entire FBI, and not just that one author's personal opinion. Such statements are carefully reviewed internally before being sent out the door. Likewise, lies and half truths to the U.S. Court system, by another branch of U.S. government would certainly run counter to all traditional notions of justice. Not asserting it never happens, but the reliability factor here is way above a highly regarded TV anchor or newspaper writer.
Even if the affidavit were deemed primary by consensus at Wikipedia, it would still be usable. Here is the policy (which is subsidiary to the better understood "No original research" policy) see wp:PRIMARY. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
There is also a Wikipedia guideline (has less authority than a policy) wp:USINGPRIMARY which strives (and I would add largely fails) to delineate between primary and secondary sources, as uniquely seen by WikiPedia. (It notes: 'Wikipedia is not the real world...Wikipedia, like many institutions, has its own lexicon. Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them. )
The guideline goes on to say: Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for. ...You are allowed to use primary sources carefully. ...Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles...Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does.
Conclusion: Sworn affidavits from the FBI filed at PACER have an extremely high degree of reliability, and are entirely permissible to draw from directly. There is no need for corroboration / publication by mainstream media to quote from these documents directly.
Comment 2 above
Would not agree that all detail in the FBI affidavit is reported faithfully in the current Wikipedia article. Of course how to carve down a 37 page affidavit to what's relevant to include in a Wikipedia article is a judgement call.
Comment 3 above
Every page (currently filed, there will be many more fillings as the case progresses) would cost under $5.00. However, for the moment (last time I checked), all pages currently filed are accessible free (see above, Internet Archive link).
Comment 4 above
Pretty sure RECAP has no knowledge of your login credentials at PACER. The software only becomes active as you search. Its open source, maintained by Princeton University. per Wikipedia: In 2009, the Los Angeles Times stated that RECAP cuts into PACER revenue about $10 million. At .10 per page that would mean about 700 million pages have been downloaded using RECAP since 2009 without any reports of credit card fraud. It's open source, so the best place to look for possible security issues is directly at at source code: [ freelawproject]
Comment 5 above
Not recommending, or not recommending, using RECAP on, behalf of Wikipedia. Just providing references to it (as Wikipedia itself does). Had the US Court system desired and had been able to shut it down, that would have occurred long ago since its been active for more than six years, and it puts a 10 million dollar per year dent in the PACER revenues. I doubt Princeton University would risk a lawsuit on behalf of PACER were there any legal exposure.
Comment 6 above
See #1 above. The US Court documents as filed on PACER should be directly quotable per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 05:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
One other thing, though it may not yet apply here There is no copyright on US Court Documents so, once retrieved, they may be freely shared and archived.
- while the documents the courts generate and the FBI, documents generated by lawyers that are not works of the government may very well be subject to copyright even though they are public documents. --
DHeyward (
talk)
04:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Searched Marquez case docket at: [ Archive] (see above, can be out of date). Since no documents after 12/21/2015 I searched on PACER (Case No. 5:15-mj-00498). Again no documents on the docket past 12/21? Seems odd no documents were filed related to his reported plea of not guilty and demand for trial?
Also noted in the Order of Detention (refusing bail) by David T Bristow, US Magistrate Judge's findings as to danger from release on bail were:
Not so sure the article's coverage U.S. Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered Marquez held without bail, saying that Marquez would pose a danger to the community if released[142] (as reported by pe.com) was all that great at reporting what Bristow, in his own handwriting, actually expressed?
I don't disagree with mentioning terrorism as one possibility that is being investigated, but I don't see proof it is not an ordinary workplace shooting. I am wondering if the article is assuming it is terrorism when it is not clear. "seriously injured in a terrorist attack " should read "seriously injured in a workplace shooting ". If they were not Muslims their attack would not be considered terrorism, just a workplace shooting. I am not arguing it is impossible but it is far from clear they shot up their co-works for reasons distinct from the other workplace shootings in America. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War, as such, I'm disputing the gratuitous use of the sanction on this page. -- Kendrick7 talk 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it really that necessary? I personally don't think so. The victims' names are all basic, and there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic value for revealing the genders. If people are confused, they can just look it up elsewhere. Parsley Man ( talk) 00:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Victims of a terror attack on U.S. soil merit their own article, or at least more detail than given here. First of all, murder is rare and is usually notable. Murder by terrorism is even rarer, and therefore even more notable. Extensive media coverage of murders and specifically terrorist murders establishes both points. Second, murder of one person - if covered in the media - generally entitles that person to specific mention of his life in the article about the murder [see: Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates, Murder_of_Lee_Rigby] and the same often applies if more than one person is murdered [see: Levi_Bellfield#Victims, Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Killed, Virginia_Tech_shooting#Norris_Hall_shootings]. Many more examples can be brought. Third, some of the victims of the San Bernardino attack are more notable than others, quote from the article itself: "Three of the deceased victims—Isaac Amanios, Bennetta Betbadal and Tin Nguyen—had come to the United States to escape violence or persecution in their home countries". At the very least, these three should have an article about them. Fourth, the ethnicity of the victims is needed, because terrorist murders by Muslims against non Muslims are a hate crime. Summing up, I propose creating an article entitled "Victims of the 2015 San Bernardino attack" or at the very least, expanding the existing section to include professions and ethnicity. Yabti ( talk) 17:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Placing this in the category for ISIL attacks was reverted. Since upon editing this article there is a bold warning about reverting specifically stating "Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the sanctions regime as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." If this attack has nothing to do with ISIL then the warning ought to be removed, if it does, the category should be restored. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
for notes on court document research see: these notes
Judge Jesus G. Bernal
Counts
Docket #: 5:15-cr-00093
Docket #: 5:15-mj-00498
Enough time has passed to "pull back" and take a top down look at the entire article. In particular how space is devoted to each topic, and overall organization and balance. Somehow it seems to be "off center" of where a good encyclopedia article on this event would be.
First a look at the stats, all the "hot" interest is long gone:
Early on, coverage of every instance of significant "breaking news", was of primary concern. And, those were shoe-horned in quickly and sequentially. The early "news", which was generated rapidly received zealous and broad coverage. Yet in hindsight much of what was "sensational" up front fades to nearly insignificant in the context of a much more calm and reasoned whole article. Yet the "remnants" of the "early-on" archaic content seems to linger with too much coverage.
For instance, early-on there was a huge bias towards not labeling it a terrorist event, not showing any potential tie to radical groups, asserting "it'll never happen again, it's an isolated incident, a one shot deal". The attitude of the editing crowd was to label it as somehow a spontaneously arising mental illness, or a simple case of irrational hot-headed workplace rivalry gone bad. Yet the preponderance of the evidence, revealed slowly and later on, as the formerly Monet style mosaic came into greater actual focus, shows a much more learned account of what actually happened and why. Early editors promising to "go back later" when adequate evidence was finally in have long since lost any continuing interest, and vanished from participating. So, very little wholesale refactoring thus far.
For instance, now that much more is known:
So, perhaps time for a "top down" realignment and tune up. These things are best done with some crowd wisdom and consensus. So, what content and coverage needs adjusting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 16:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Article is missing the two FBI surveillance planes.
Dec 2
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/672179495995076608/photo/1
N404KR OBR Leasing CESSNA 182T (FBI)
Article
http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/167329-homeland-security-deployed-a-spy-plane-above-san-bernardino-after-shooting.html
N497PC Platus PC-12/45 US Dept of Homeland Security
(article has this one listed)
Dec 3
Article
http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/05/fbi-activity-san-bernardino-attack/
N657TP PXW Services Cesna 182 (FBI)
Dec 4
Article
http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/05/fbi-activity-san-bernardino-attack/
N404KR OBR Leasing CESSNA 182T (FBI) (same as Dec 2)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.242.4.225 (
talk)
01:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The reasons this statement is clearly incorrect are not very difficult to understand, and it wouldn't take me very long to elaborate on other problems with the source as well.
It's beyond obvious this is an issue of re-branding the word "terrorists" post-9/11 to exclusively refer to Muslisms. Just six years before that, however, the Oklahoma City bombings were only called an act of domestic terrorism, and Timothy McVeigh, someone who also acted alone and advanced his own political agenda, a terrorist. An act of terrorism is defined adequately in its own Wikipedia article:
It doesn't matter that US federal officials never referred to Seung-Hui Cho as a terrorist in the media, because Wikipedia is impartial and the avoidance of this term was questioned in its own time by international observers based on this warranted suspicion. That the article sourced is exclusively about Muslims is the perfect indictment of any counter-argument that this isn't the case. That's verification both independent of the source previously linked and clearly written in opposition to that opinion piece's stance to indicate that terrorism was a uniquely "Muslim" problem.
Because there's nothing intrinsically Islamic about terrorism at large, the premise of that article is false, and citing it to source the claim that this was the "biggest act of terrorism in the US since 9/11" was both deliberately misleading and transparent. If you contend otherwise, feel free to talk with me here, or open an issue in Arbitration. Thanks. Hexagon70 ( talk) 01:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
In view of the broad scope of possible implications of a legal precedent that would be established if the DoJ's action against Apple is successful, I propose that at some point this legal battle will need its own article. Layzeeboi ( talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly support a new article. Both sides are dug in for a long fight that will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The issues go far beyond both the San Bernardino attack and Apple's business interests, and the story has generated lots of press, so a separate article on the case is inevitable. Might as well start it now and make it easier for editors to contribute. I would suggest FBI v. Apple as a title for now until the case gets a formal legal name.-- agr ( talk) 18:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've now done that, starting by copying the section from this article. The subject more than meets notability requirements for a separate article. People here can decide how much to trim the section in this article.-- agr ( talk) 12:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently some editors are not required to explain their reverting of other editors. They also have their talk page locked so only committed editors can post there to ask for an explanation. I can only imagine some find the accurate term offensive for some emotional reasons. A long time ago in place far away people forgot this was a encyclopedia where facts are to reign and Political correctness should be shoved up their fat arse. But I digress in to potty humor. Radical Islamist is an article on wikipedia. It describes the terrorists as they claimed to be doing this for Islam and thus are radical. Nothing complicated, just the facts mammy. 172.58.137.140 ( talk) 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You guys manage to have this anti- WP:AGF conversation without stating what change is being discuss. I see IP 172.56.12.251 tried to put in and link Radical Islamist in the first sentence with this edit. I have added Islamic terrorism to the See also section as it is not linked anywhere in the article. Would that suffice? Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
"Perpetrators Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik left their six-month-old daughter with Farook's mother at their Redlands home the morning of the attack, saying they were going to a doctor's appointment."
is the first sentence of the text of the article as it stands right now.
It is also proof of the bias of editor "Neutrality", who has obliterated my edits, using the following pretext:
"This early statement was quickly superseded by subsequent investigation. We're WP:NOTNEWS."
to delete the following perfectly sourced sentence, which used to be part of the article months ago:
Previously, on December 3, the President had indicated "It is possible that this was terrorist-related, but we don’t know. It’s also possible that this was workplace-related." [1]
Cheers, XavierItzm ( talk) 08:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Examine the evidence.
Dec 2
Date of the actual shooting. That same day CBS aired an interview with the president. This is important to get the context of what followed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLNnL7VlJDA
The president plays up mass shootings, downplays terrorism and mostly advertises a need for gun control.
Dec 3 (prior to 11 AM)
President holds a meeting with his "national security team" (as reported by the official White House blog).
The "national security team" here most likely means:
National Security Council: chaired by the President. Includes: VP, Secretaries (State, Treasury, Defense), Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Advisory (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence), Invited Guests (President's Chief of Staff, Counsel, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy), and if relevant (AG, Director OMB).
Plus, in this case, Directors of: DHS, FBI, and NSA
Published later but referring to that meeting
Here is an article accusing substantial spin. By itself perhaps not "conclusive" but examine it in context of other trustworthy information, presented here.
http://sofrep.com/45079/fbi-san-bernadino-investigation-stymied-by-politics/#ixzz3z2JoOJeI
Article notes the event was considered a terrorist attack from the very outset, and the president was well aware of that. States the immediate NSC meeting at the White House and SIGINT aircraft launch are totally inconsistent with "mass shooting" or "workplace incident".
Dec 3 11 AM EST
Shortly after the "national security team" meeting, the president issues a statement from from oval office.
Video: (scroll down)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino
transcript:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/03/statement-president-shooting-san-bernardino-california
...I just received a briefing from FBI Director Comey, as well as Attorney General Lynch (White House blog reported the meeting as considerably larger - "the national security team") We don't know why they did it...It is possible this is terrorist related but we don't know. Its also possible it was workplace related. [The second half was oriented entirely towards "mass shootings]...make it harder for individuals to get access to weapons."
Preparations for a press conference
Do you think after sitting in on that "national security team" meeting in the early AM, that James Comey might have had a chat with his man on the west coast, David Bowdich, FBI Assistant Director in Charge, to inform him how the President wanted things presented to the media? Would David in turn share that info with San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan? After all, they were both to stand side by side at the podium in just a couple of hours, in front of a huge swarm of news hungry media. Service oriented government employees tend to closely follow chain-of-command and direct orders.
Dec 3 12:42 EST
Police/FBI press conference 9:42 PT
The press conference was huge, covered by virtually all major media. Oddly, it was quite delayed in getting started. And, it absolutely "set the tone" for all the early media reporting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccMK5Q_RDIU
FBI: [very interested in an analysis of the digital media] we are trying to determine motive, we do not yet know the motive, we cannot rule anything out at this point. We are hoping that some of the digital media exploitation will help us and assist us in obtaining some of that. Again it would be irresponsible of me, it would be way too early for us to speculate on motive on why this occurred...if you look at the obvious amount of preplaning that went in, the amount of armaments that he had, the weapons and ammunition, there was obviously a mission here, we know that. We do not know why. We don't know if this was the intended target or something triggered him to do this immediately. We just don't know. And again that's going to take time to get that answer. We know there was some international travel. They came into the U.S. both he and, she was not his wife at the time, but she is now, they both came in to the U.S. in July of 2014. They have since had a baby together, he is a U.S. person. She is here on a K-1 visa. ...don't know all the countries he visited but Pakistan was one of them. She is here on a K-1 visa under a Pakistan passport. [Why was she involved?] we don't know enough...again it would be irresponsible and immature of me to call this terrorism. The FBI defines terrorism very specifically, and we are still, that is the big question for us, what is the motivation for this. First and foremost, the integrity of this investigation again, is paramount. Secondly, its ultimately to determine, the motive, and the inspiration for this attack...[relating to bombs] there is some level of sophistication, certainly, when you are tying them together, and you have, seemingly, a remote controlled car that is attached to the device. [Is there any evidence the design was based on Inspire magazine?] We knew that question would come up and we are looking in to it as we speak.
Dec 5
President convenes a meeting in the Situation Room to discuss the terrorist attack. An official photo is taken by White House photographer Pete Souza and posted to the White House blog.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino Use of the Situation Room is inconsistent with mass shootings/workplace incidents, especially several days after a shooting incident is totally over.
Conclusion
Based on the above trail of evidence it appears early information flow was indeed quite actively "shaped". (check historical versions of this article and the inflamed discussions about it in the talk archives. It remains quite colored by that early shaping.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of news consumers loose all interest quickly as the early sensationalism fades out just days after a major news event. Those consumers leave with the shaped presentation, as their perceived absolute reality.
Unlike TV news and newspapers however, an encyclopedia has the ability to go back and set the record straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
for notes on court document research see: these notes
Judge Jesus G. Bernal
Counts
Docket #: 5:15-cr-00093
Docket #: 5:15-mj-00498
Who ever wrote this, thanks.
Winterysteppe (
talk)
02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
All importance=low ?
Death
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
51 | 384 | 2,151 | 15,505 | 30,664 | 26 |
Crime-related
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
97 | 662 | 2,834 | 21,716 | 32,600 | 0 |
United States articles
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
209 | 2,951 | 16,316 | 370,362 | 261,204 | 44,334 |
(Is it really an article about the United Sates?)
Terrorism Articles importance=unknown - isn't "importance" established at this point?
Terrorism
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? |
51 | 279 | 664 | 4,618 | 4,421 | 2 |
Add?
Category:Islamic terrorism (as old Marquez article was categorized)
Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States
Title?
2015 San Bernardino shooting and attempted bombing
Investigating agencies note it's a priority to keep the surviving shooting victims and their family members updated on the investigation.
Week of 1/18 they met with >100 people for an update and Q&A. In attendance were:
Bowdich (FBI)
Decker (U.S. Attorney)
Burguan (San Bernardino Police Chief)
McMahon (San Bernardino County Sheriff)
Any additional facts emerge at that meeting?
In the article motive is listed as under investigation. Are those agencies actively pondering and investigating motive at this point or is that considered established?