![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
So, an IP editor added content related to this piece by Gawker ( [1]). In sum, it alleges that Mateen was a regular at the club and used a gay dating app. I removed the IP's addition as it was loaded with OR as well, but wondering what to do about this source. Gawker, to me, is WP:QUESTIONABLE, but I'm curious what others think. If this gets picked up by other more reputable sources, seems like something we should include? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The following sections in the article give conflicting information.
"Once the officers got in, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside.[19][24]"
"At least 49 people were killed; approximately another 53 people were injured in the shooting, with many requiring surgery in local hospitals.[34]"
"Thirty-eight people and the perpetrator were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven people pronounced dead later at hospitals."
The first count, 39+2=41. The second states at least 49 were killed. The third, 38+1, indicates 39 dead at scene, plus 11 at hospital for 50. If you add the hospital total to the first count, 41+11=52. I know numbers are going to be off until all details are in, but we might want to add a note that counts are an estimate at this time, because I'm not certain which count here is right. Coolgamer ( talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A determined editor has re-added conservative political commentary, ignoring the rough consensus here: Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. - Mr X 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we can't even dispute the POV of this section as the tag keeps getting removed. Did we reach a consensus? Flipper9 ( talk) 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like we are going whole hog and including political reactions. How about including reactions by other third parties, prominent Democrats and Republicans not aligned with the presumptive nominees? To keep a NPOV, not that anyone seems to care about that anymore, we need to make this the biggest section of the whole article including debates over gun control, religion, etc. Flipper9 ( talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Flipper9 ( talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Should it be noted at the end of trump's section that Federal agents have confirmed that the gunman's wife knew well in advanced about the attack?
[2] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
15.203.233.86 (
talk)
17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The above post was misplaced within the section "Trump's reaction". I have moved it here for visual clarity and to break it out from the general Talkpage hubbub.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The lead now refers to the shooting a "terrorist attack", although the sources I checked say that President Obama called it an "act of terror". Should we prominently call the shooting a terrorist attack, when so many sources are still speculating on motive? I think we need to establish some consensus for this.- Mr X 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I did a top-to-bottom reading and it's a great article. I saw three items that could be improved.
Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
-- Marc Kupper| talk 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we rename the Political responses section to Responses from journalists to political responses? If not, why is it that a direct quote from a politician is "much too much" to be included, but analysis by journalists of such quotes are fine? (see diffs: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725291547&oldid=725289680 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725294197&oldid=725293719)
Please remove your bias when editing, it's not helpful for anyone and it reeks of animosity. Zaostao ( talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Seeking comment on these two edits by Zaostao:
It seems fairly sensible to state the country where such an incident has occurred, but someone keeps removing "United States" from the opening sentences. I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The lead should say United States. There are English speaking readers from all over the world and they need to have complete information. Its not our job to guess at whether most people know where Orlando is or not. I suggest that assuming everyone knows where this city is, is a US centric position. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC))
Do we know yet if this supporter of Muslim Violence against Americans, Omar Marteen's vest was of the explosive variety, like those of many of what these Islamists have used against the citizens of western democracies in the past? It seems as this has been silenced by the government agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.218.67 ( talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So we still do NOT know for sure???
I've noticed this little conflict going on in regards to the Current template, so I thought I'd address it here. Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template, or as a terrorist attack? Parsley Man ( talk) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This is absurd. The chief of police and the President called this a terrorist attack. Sources[ [5]] seem not to matter any more? Mootros ( talk) 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Terrorist Attack Sources say it, it is one. Jadeslair ( talk) 22:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Object to the binary choice presented. It can be both terrorism and mass shooting, and it is both. But it's no longer clear what exactly is being debated here, since this started as "Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template ({{ Current}})", and that template is no longer in the article. This leaves us with infobox fields and body text, which are very different animals and should be discussed separately. The body already refers to terrorism many times. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
On June 12, 2016, 49 people were killed and 53 others were wounded inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States by a gunman before he himself was killed by police after a three-hour siege. 204.99.118.9 ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to another ongoing RM regarding this same article. Also a SNOW situation. (non-admin closure) Chase ( talk | contributions) 23:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → Orlando massacre – The name '2016 Orlando nightclub shooting' is very long and cumbersome, and 'massacre' has fallen into widespread use both colloquially and with the media ~ Henry TALK 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Several people have attempted to change the lede paragraph from
The Orlando nightclub shooting, also known as the Orlando massacre, was a terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting. It occurred at the Pulse a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016. The attack was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
to
On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were murdered and fifty others were wounded inside the nightclub by a gunman before he was killed by police after a three-hour siege. The attack, which has been deemed terrorism, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
The original is the better one, as per MOS:BEGIN, and MOS:BOLDTITLE. If you wish to discuss this, please reply to this section. ~ Henry TALK 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The "also known as" is not necessary because WP:BOLDTITLE uses this for situations where two different names are common, like "Mumbai, also known as Bombay". Here "massacre" is just a less-specific, more sensational form of "nightclub shooting." Also, there is information present in the second version missing in the first. So I suggest:
The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
This includes the number of people killed and wounded.
Roches ( talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) @ Mootros: I was going to say the second/former version is also acceptable. Per your citation of the MoS, the version beginning "On June 12, 2016" is better than the version I suggested. Roches ( talk) 18:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Both terms are used, but the terms are synonymous. Roches ( talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't need clumsy sentences like The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting... Please read the beginners guide Mootros ( talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The Orlando massacre was a terrorist attack that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
On June 12, 2016, a terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States.
I was trying to paste the suggestion above in to avoid edit conflicts and didn't see the relevant part of the MoS until after. So yes, that's right about repeating "shooting". I really think "massacre" is sensationalistic and I certainly don't think it should be the only title. Since there is no formal title, there does not need to be any bold tile. (Nearly all the leads I edit have formal bold titles.) Roches ( talk) 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there somewhere else where this has been discussed? There seems to be a huge lack of consensus in the naming of such articles (see Columbine High School massacre) and the lead of Virginia Tech shooting is near identical to the previous versions of this article. Seems like the type of thing which would need arbitration. Zaostao ( talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@
HenryMP02: I don't think The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting...
is natural wording, but the practice of using the article title in the lead of mass murders (like
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or
Columbine High School massacre) is pretty well established, thus why editors may be compelled to have such a wording as The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting...
.
Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (
talk)
19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I like the current first para as shown in this revision. In this case, any attempt to shoehorn in the article title, based on a convention that too many incorrectly see as something required by guidelines, will result in awkward and cumbersome language. No matter what we settle on for this title, it will probably not be a "household-word" name like, for example, Oklahoma City bombing. If such a common name eventually emerges, that will take at least a couple of months, and we can revisit this at that time. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like Seddique Mateen is giving interviews to the press. Some of these interviews gives the impression, that Seddique Mateen is living or has been living in a state of denial. I have not read any of the English language interviews, yet, but I am confident that there must be something worthwhile adding to this article. After reading the interviews with Omar Seddiques father, I feel more enlighted about what state of mind Omar must have been in all of his life - in case he actually was gay. Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There are not degrees of "deadly". It is an absolute term indicate the causing or being able to cause death. Every fatal shooting is deadly, by definition. A proper description, of a mass killing of more people than in any other mass shooting in the given time/locale, may take more than a tagline-length sentence. LowKey ( talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is "most deadly" a more acceptable term (or sounds better) to the most scholarly qualified persons who might answer this discussion, than "deadliest". I actually think that LowKey might be on to something; either an attack is deadly, or it is not. Suggestion for replacement text: "This deadly attack, counted 50 deaths and 53 injured survivors; such an attack has not had a higher death count since ...". On the other hand, this is not a website only for the Rain Man movie character and Mensa members with a major in English and perhaps also Boolean algebra. 46.212.55.223 ( talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, as we predicted, introducing candidate-by-candidate breakdowns in the "Reactions" section is not going well.
An editor is repeatedly changing our summary to characterize the remarks in a way directly at odds with the sources (NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist), and in a way that makes no sense as well (i.e., this newly added text is gibberish: "radical Muslim immigrants posed a danger to U.S. security and asserted they must form a partnership with the Muslim community"). Neutrality talk 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The article needs to provide perspective by mentioning that Hillary wants to violate the Bill of Rights by attacking the civil rights of all Americans because of the actions of terrorists - since that is what she means by "gun control." In the Trump section there should also be a list of recent terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims, as Trump has quite valid arguments, as evidenced by what is called.....reality. As it stands, the article makes it appear that Wikipedia is in the paid propaganda branch of the Hillary campaign, and Wikipedia is against the Bill of Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMan ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have undid this edit, which removes (with no policy-based reason whatsoever) the text that notes that no evidence supports Trump's claim that American Muslims were somehow complicit in the attack. To include what is effectively a slur on a whole community community—without noting that no evidence supports the claim—diverge from the sources and actively misleads the reader. Neutrality talk 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how the fire at UpStairs is unrelated as both acts were acts of violence specifically targeting homosexual people so the link is relevant to this article. -- 1.52.121.50 ( talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please restore:
News outlets noted the controversial federal blood ban that does not allow gay and bisexual men to donate if they have been sexually active with other men in the past year, and characterized the ban as being homophobic in nature. [1] [2]
Computationsaysno ( talk) 00:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the entire attack is brimming with homophobia, as also reported by news sources, this seems on point and a suspicious omission on Wikipedia's part. Computationsaysno ( talk) 00:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
I'll look when I have more time to find even stronger sources. I saw it on the news so I know it's being covered. Computationsaysno ( talk) 01:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
More, showing this issue being reported worldwide by news sources (Ireland, England, Russia, Australia):
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
References
Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen’s wife under investigation by grand jury. "Noor Zahi Salman, Omar Mateen’s second wife, was by his side as he bought ammunition and even drove him to the Pulse nightclub once to scope out the site of his sickening act, officials told NBC News." I think that calls for a section under "investigation" about the second wife? [1]-- Élisée P. Bruneau ( talk) 00:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
From NYT:
Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with little history of embracing radical Islam.
I confess to not knowing that until now. So there can be no direct ISIS "involvement" yet to be uncovered and reported. What, then, could ever justify "Islamic terrorism" in our Motive field, if ISIS inspiration is not enough? What exactly are we waiting to see? ― Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is the argument simply over whether terrorism that is "ISIS-inspired" but not "ISIS-directed" counts as radical Islamic terrorism? Evercat ( talk) 12:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, but the case needs to be made for why lone-wolf terrorism doesn't fall under "Islamist terrorism" or whatever the term is. Evercat ( talk) 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Meh, perhaps this is pointless argument over semantics. The article is actually in a reasonable shape, given that it explicitly says all this in the 2nd paragraph (currently). Evercat ( talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The reaction section is like kudzu vine... and it's become overgrown again. Visually, it's about 1/4 of the article. I fear I'm being too overzealous on this matter and will not edit the section tonight, but I'd like some discussion about what should be included per WP:WEIGHT. IMHO, the father's comments and the pope's comments can go. The former is tangential at this point (possibly relevant later as details emerge) and the latter is a standard condolence. Frankly I say nuke the political responses for now as NOTNEWS. I cannot imagine any being notable a month from now. And since there's no deadline, if they are notable, we can add them later (e.g., if any political action actually occurs like with Sandy Hook). Commentary by the NYTimes and WaPo about gun control and politics are really UNDUE and coatracking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Holy crap it's gotten worse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Father's comments to be relevant to the subject matter. Although the condolences can be trimmed down to one sentence. Listing the notable people that having given condolences and just cite sources for the readers if they wish to read further. DrkBlueXG ( talk) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
In the couple hours I was working the section has grown by 10% and added another subsection. I'm gonna take another hack at it. Please note, I realize I've been editing that part a lot and do not wish to appear disruptive. If anyone disagrees, please revert me. At the same time, that section really needs to be kept in check per our policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This is quite a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue where it's concerned. Is it really necessary? Parsley Man ( talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
::Well, after Democrats' reaction was added, it does seem necessary now for a
WP:DUE standpoint.
Parsley Man (
talk) 00:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind.
Parsley Man (
talk)
00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If we include Trump's reaction then we might as well also include Clinton's reaction, and maybe even Gary Johnson's reaction. Just so we know we have all bases covered. FallingGravity ( talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again Trump's reaction (especially regarding the American borders) has been included in the "Reactions" section, and people keep trying to emphasize it. Is it REALLY necessary? Parsley Man ( talk) 00:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Kendrick7 is continuing to push for the inclusion of Trump's reaction, and has called every reversion attempt an act of "vandalism" despite my insistence for him to read this section. Parsley Man ( talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that in addition to Trump saying we should ban Muslim immigrants, we should include that the shooter was born in the US, and wasn't an immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.198.163 ( talk) 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There have been various version of the following added to the reactions section:
Yeni Akit, a Turkish newspaper close to the current Turkish government published a headline calling the victims as "deviant" or "perverted" [1] which in turn was criticized by foreign media outlets. [2]
The seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS to me. The reactions of one newspaper in Turkey is trivia and does not warrant their own mention ( WP:WEIGHT), even if the reaction is counter to the norm. Unless this becomes bigger news, I don't see the need to include this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Pinging Callinus regarding recent edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone has gone overboard with the portal links. 203.118.164.94 ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I read that he made three separate calls to 9-1-1. And I think that one -- perhaps two -- were hang up calls. This should be included in the article. I do not see any mention of it there. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
News reported first two were him hanging up then 911 called him back. Computationsaysno ( talk) 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the final sentence of the Trump material in this article.
User:Zaostao favors the following text (I'll call it the "Long Version"): Trump opposed calls for gun control measures, defending this position by referencing Paris's strict legislation regarding gun ownership and the November 2015 Paris attacks in his speech. [cites]
I favor the following text (I'll call it the "Short Version"): Trump opposed calls for gun-control measures, calling such policies ineffective.[cites]
Would anyone care to weight in on which version they prefer? I will make my own comment below. Neutrality talk 01:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been reported that the gunman was a regular at Pulse, used a homosexual dating app, and his wife had her suspicions about him. Far too early to claim he was homosexual of course, but if true does this mean the attack is not a hate crime? Surely an attack by a homosexual on a homosexual club cannot be a hate crime right? The claims may of course prove to be false but figured I'd raise the issue since seeing it mentioned in the media. 人族 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course it can still be considered a hate crime just like Homosexuals who oppose same sex marriage are still considered to be "Homophobes" by many (I personally never use that word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 ( talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we may have more sources than just the LA Times at the Omar Mateen article. Parsley Man ( talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a case of internalized homophobia being turned outwards, which is quite common and routinely is violent. The core of it remains homophobia which taught him to hate that part of himself in the first place and was reinforced by society proposing anti-LGBT laws. Computationsaysno ( talk) 11:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trumps-implication-obama-was-involved-in-the-orlando-shooting/486770/ -- Omgtotallyradical ( talk) 22:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the introductory paragraphs states: In a 9-1-1 call shortly before the attack, he swore allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This asserts that the 9-1-1 call occurred shortly before the attack. I believe that Mateen called 911 while in the midst of the attack. No? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 02:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
So, an IP editor added content related to this piece by Gawker ( [1]). In sum, it alleges that Mateen was a regular at the club and used a gay dating app. I removed the IP's addition as it was loaded with OR as well, but wondering what to do about this source. Gawker, to me, is WP:QUESTIONABLE, but I'm curious what others think. If this gets picked up by other more reputable sources, seems like something we should include? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The following sections in the article give conflicting information.
"Once the officers got in, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside.[19][24]"
"At least 49 people were killed; approximately another 53 people were injured in the shooting, with many requiring surgery in local hospitals.[34]"
"Thirty-eight people and the perpetrator were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven people pronounced dead later at hospitals."
The first count, 39+2=41. The second states at least 49 were killed. The third, 38+1, indicates 39 dead at scene, plus 11 at hospital for 50. If you add the hospital total to the first count, 41+11=52. I know numbers are going to be off until all details are in, but we might want to add a note that counts are an estimate at this time, because I'm not certain which count here is right. Coolgamer ( talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A determined editor has re-added conservative political commentary, ignoring the rough consensus here: Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. - Mr X 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we can't even dispute the POV of this section as the tag keeps getting removed. Did we reach a consensus? Flipper9 ( talk) 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like we are going whole hog and including political reactions. How about including reactions by other third parties, prominent Democrats and Republicans not aligned with the presumptive nominees? To keep a NPOV, not that anyone seems to care about that anymore, we need to make this the biggest section of the whole article including debates over gun control, religion, etc. Flipper9 ( talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Flipper9 ( talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Should it be noted at the end of trump's section that Federal agents have confirmed that the gunman's wife knew well in advanced about the attack?
[2] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
15.203.233.86 (
talk)
17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The above post was misplaced within the section "Trump's reaction". I have moved it here for visual clarity and to break it out from the general Talkpage hubbub.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The lead now refers to the shooting a "terrorist attack", although the sources I checked say that President Obama called it an "act of terror". Should we prominently call the shooting a terrorist attack, when so many sources are still speculating on motive? I think we need to establish some consensus for this.- Mr X 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I did a top-to-bottom reading and it's a great article. I saw three items that could be improved.
Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
-- Marc Kupper| talk 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we rename the Political responses section to Responses from journalists to political responses? If not, why is it that a direct quote from a politician is "much too much" to be included, but analysis by journalists of such quotes are fine? (see diffs: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725291547&oldid=725289680 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725294197&oldid=725293719)
Please remove your bias when editing, it's not helpful for anyone and it reeks of animosity. Zaostao ( talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Seeking comment on these two edits by Zaostao:
It seems fairly sensible to state the country where such an incident has occurred, but someone keeps removing "United States" from the opening sentences. I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The lead should say United States. There are English speaking readers from all over the world and they need to have complete information. Its not our job to guess at whether most people know where Orlando is or not. I suggest that assuming everyone knows where this city is, is a US centric position. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC))
Do we know yet if this supporter of Muslim Violence against Americans, Omar Marteen's vest was of the explosive variety, like those of many of what these Islamists have used against the citizens of western democracies in the past? It seems as this has been silenced by the government agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.218.67 ( talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So we still do NOT know for sure???
I've noticed this little conflict going on in regards to the Current template, so I thought I'd address it here. Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template, or as a terrorist attack? Parsley Man ( talk) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This is absurd. The chief of police and the President called this a terrorist attack. Sources[ [5]] seem not to matter any more? Mootros ( talk) 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Terrorist Attack Sources say it, it is one. Jadeslair ( talk) 22:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Object to the binary choice presented. It can be both terrorism and mass shooting, and it is both. But it's no longer clear what exactly is being debated here, since this started as "Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template ({{ Current}})", and that template is no longer in the article. This leaves us with infobox fields and body text, which are very different animals and should be discussed separately. The body already refers to terrorism many times. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
On June 12, 2016, 49 people were killed and 53 others were wounded inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States by a gunman before he himself was killed by police after a three-hour siege. 204.99.118.9 ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to another ongoing RM regarding this same article. Also a SNOW situation. (non-admin closure) Chase ( talk | contributions) 23:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → Orlando massacre – The name '2016 Orlando nightclub shooting' is very long and cumbersome, and 'massacre' has fallen into widespread use both colloquially and with the media ~ Henry TALK 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Several people have attempted to change the lede paragraph from
The Orlando nightclub shooting, also known as the Orlando massacre, was a terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting. It occurred at the Pulse a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016. The attack was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
to
On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were murdered and fifty others were wounded inside the nightclub by a gunman before he was killed by police after a three-hour siege. The attack, which has been deemed terrorism, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
The original is the better one, as per MOS:BEGIN, and MOS:BOLDTITLE. If you wish to discuss this, please reply to this section. ~ Henry TALK 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The "also known as" is not necessary because WP:BOLDTITLE uses this for situations where two different names are common, like "Mumbai, also known as Bombay". Here "massacre" is just a less-specific, more sensational form of "nightclub shooting." Also, there is information present in the second version missing in the first. So I suggest:
The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
This includes the number of people killed and wounded.
Roches ( talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) @ Mootros: I was going to say the second/former version is also acceptable. Per your citation of the MoS, the version beginning "On June 12, 2016" is better than the version I suggested. Roches ( talk) 18:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Both terms are used, but the terms are synonymous. Roches ( talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't need clumsy sentences like The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting... Please read the beginners guide Mootros ( talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The Orlando massacre was a terrorist attack that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.
On June 12, 2016, a terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States.
I was trying to paste the suggestion above in to avoid edit conflicts and didn't see the relevant part of the MoS until after. So yes, that's right about repeating "shooting". I really think "massacre" is sensationalistic and I certainly don't think it should be the only title. Since there is no formal title, there does not need to be any bold tile. (Nearly all the leads I edit have formal bold titles.) Roches ( talk) 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there somewhere else where this has been discussed? There seems to be a huge lack of consensus in the naming of such articles (see Columbine High School massacre) and the lead of Virginia Tech shooting is near identical to the previous versions of this article. Seems like the type of thing which would need arbitration. Zaostao ( talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@
HenryMP02: I don't think The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting...
is natural wording, but the practice of using the article title in the lead of mass murders (like
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or
Columbine High School massacre) is pretty well established, thus why editors may be compelled to have such a wording as The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting...
.
Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (
talk)
19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I like the current first para as shown in this revision. In this case, any attempt to shoehorn in the article title, based on a convention that too many incorrectly see as something required by guidelines, will result in awkward and cumbersome language. No matter what we settle on for this title, it will probably not be a "household-word" name like, for example, Oklahoma City bombing. If such a common name eventually emerges, that will take at least a couple of months, and we can revisit this at that time. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like Seddique Mateen is giving interviews to the press. Some of these interviews gives the impression, that Seddique Mateen is living or has been living in a state of denial. I have not read any of the English language interviews, yet, but I am confident that there must be something worthwhile adding to this article. After reading the interviews with Omar Seddiques father, I feel more enlighted about what state of mind Omar must have been in all of his life - in case he actually was gay. Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There are not degrees of "deadly". It is an absolute term indicate the causing or being able to cause death. Every fatal shooting is deadly, by definition. A proper description, of a mass killing of more people than in any other mass shooting in the given time/locale, may take more than a tagline-length sentence. LowKey ( talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is "most deadly" a more acceptable term (or sounds better) to the most scholarly qualified persons who might answer this discussion, than "deadliest". I actually think that LowKey might be on to something; either an attack is deadly, or it is not. Suggestion for replacement text: "This deadly attack, counted 50 deaths and 53 injured survivors; such an attack has not had a higher death count since ...". On the other hand, this is not a website only for the Rain Man movie character and Mensa members with a major in English and perhaps also Boolean algebra. 46.212.55.223 ( talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, as we predicted, introducing candidate-by-candidate breakdowns in the "Reactions" section is not going well.
An editor is repeatedly changing our summary to characterize the remarks in a way directly at odds with the sources (NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist), and in a way that makes no sense as well (i.e., this newly added text is gibberish: "radical Muslim immigrants posed a danger to U.S. security and asserted they must form a partnership with the Muslim community"). Neutrality talk 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The article needs to provide perspective by mentioning that Hillary wants to violate the Bill of Rights by attacking the civil rights of all Americans because of the actions of terrorists - since that is what she means by "gun control." In the Trump section there should also be a list of recent terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims, as Trump has quite valid arguments, as evidenced by what is called.....reality. As it stands, the article makes it appear that Wikipedia is in the paid propaganda branch of the Hillary campaign, and Wikipedia is against the Bill of Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMan ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have undid this edit, which removes (with no policy-based reason whatsoever) the text that notes that no evidence supports Trump's claim that American Muslims were somehow complicit in the attack. To include what is effectively a slur on a whole community community—without noting that no evidence supports the claim—diverge from the sources and actively misleads the reader. Neutrality talk 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how the fire at UpStairs is unrelated as both acts were acts of violence specifically targeting homosexual people so the link is relevant to this article. -- 1.52.121.50 ( talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please restore:
News outlets noted the controversial federal blood ban that does not allow gay and bisexual men to donate if they have been sexually active with other men in the past year, and characterized the ban as being homophobic in nature. [1] [2]
Computationsaysno ( talk) 00:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the entire attack is brimming with homophobia, as also reported by news sources, this seems on point and a suspicious omission on Wikipedia's part. Computationsaysno ( talk) 00:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
I'll look when I have more time to find even stronger sources. I saw it on the news so I know it's being covered. Computationsaysno ( talk) 01:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
More, showing this issue being reported worldwide by news sources (Ireland, England, Russia, Australia):
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
References
Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen’s wife under investigation by grand jury. "Noor Zahi Salman, Omar Mateen’s second wife, was by his side as he bought ammunition and even drove him to the Pulse nightclub once to scope out the site of his sickening act, officials told NBC News." I think that calls for a section under "investigation" about the second wife? [1]-- Élisée P. Bruneau ( talk) 00:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
From NYT:
Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with little history of embracing radical Islam.
I confess to not knowing that until now. So there can be no direct ISIS "involvement" yet to be uncovered and reported. What, then, could ever justify "Islamic terrorism" in our Motive field, if ISIS inspiration is not enough? What exactly are we waiting to see? ― Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is the argument simply over whether terrorism that is "ISIS-inspired" but not "ISIS-directed" counts as radical Islamic terrorism? Evercat ( talk) 12:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, but the case needs to be made for why lone-wolf terrorism doesn't fall under "Islamist terrorism" or whatever the term is. Evercat ( talk) 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Meh, perhaps this is pointless argument over semantics. The article is actually in a reasonable shape, given that it explicitly says all this in the 2nd paragraph (currently). Evercat ( talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The reaction section is like kudzu vine... and it's become overgrown again. Visually, it's about 1/4 of the article. I fear I'm being too overzealous on this matter and will not edit the section tonight, but I'd like some discussion about what should be included per WP:WEIGHT. IMHO, the father's comments and the pope's comments can go. The former is tangential at this point (possibly relevant later as details emerge) and the latter is a standard condolence. Frankly I say nuke the political responses for now as NOTNEWS. I cannot imagine any being notable a month from now. And since there's no deadline, if they are notable, we can add them later (e.g., if any political action actually occurs like with Sandy Hook). Commentary by the NYTimes and WaPo about gun control and politics are really UNDUE and coatracking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Holy crap it's gotten worse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Father's comments to be relevant to the subject matter. Although the condolences can be trimmed down to one sentence. Listing the notable people that having given condolences and just cite sources for the readers if they wish to read further. DrkBlueXG ( talk) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
In the couple hours I was working the section has grown by 10% and added another subsection. I'm gonna take another hack at it. Please note, I realize I've been editing that part a lot and do not wish to appear disruptive. If anyone disagrees, please revert me. At the same time, that section really needs to be kept in check per our policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This is quite a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue where it's concerned. Is it really necessary? Parsley Man ( talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
::Well, after Democrats' reaction was added, it does seem necessary now for a
WP:DUE standpoint.
Parsley Man (
talk) 00:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind.
Parsley Man (
talk)
00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If we include Trump's reaction then we might as well also include Clinton's reaction, and maybe even Gary Johnson's reaction. Just so we know we have all bases covered. FallingGravity ( talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again Trump's reaction (especially regarding the American borders) has been included in the "Reactions" section, and people keep trying to emphasize it. Is it REALLY necessary? Parsley Man ( talk) 00:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Kendrick7 is continuing to push for the inclusion of Trump's reaction, and has called every reversion attempt an act of "vandalism" despite my insistence for him to read this section. Parsley Man ( talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that in addition to Trump saying we should ban Muslim immigrants, we should include that the shooter was born in the US, and wasn't an immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.198.163 ( talk) 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There have been various version of the following added to the reactions section:
Yeni Akit, a Turkish newspaper close to the current Turkish government published a headline calling the victims as "deviant" or "perverted" [1] which in turn was criticized by foreign media outlets. [2]
The seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS to me. The reactions of one newspaper in Turkey is trivia and does not warrant their own mention ( WP:WEIGHT), even if the reaction is counter to the norm. Unless this becomes bigger news, I don't see the need to include this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Pinging Callinus regarding recent edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone has gone overboard with the portal links. 203.118.164.94 ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I read that he made three separate calls to 9-1-1. And I think that one -- perhaps two -- were hang up calls. This should be included in the article. I do not see any mention of it there. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
News reported first two were him hanging up then 911 called him back. Computationsaysno ( talk) 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the final sentence of the Trump material in this article.
User:Zaostao favors the following text (I'll call it the "Long Version"): Trump opposed calls for gun control measures, defending this position by referencing Paris's strict legislation regarding gun ownership and the November 2015 Paris attacks in his speech. [cites]
I favor the following text (I'll call it the "Short Version"): Trump opposed calls for gun-control measures, calling such policies ineffective.[cites]
Would anyone care to weight in on which version they prefer? I will make my own comment below. Neutrality talk 01:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been reported that the gunman was a regular at Pulse, used a homosexual dating app, and his wife had her suspicions about him. Far too early to claim he was homosexual of course, but if true does this mean the attack is not a hate crime? Surely an attack by a homosexual on a homosexual club cannot be a hate crime right? The claims may of course prove to be false but figured I'd raise the issue since seeing it mentioned in the media. 人族 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course it can still be considered a hate crime just like Homosexuals who oppose same sex marriage are still considered to be "Homophobes" by many (I personally never use that word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 ( talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we may have more sources than just the LA Times at the Omar Mateen article. Parsley Man ( talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a case of internalized homophobia being turned outwards, which is quite common and routinely is violent. The core of it remains homophobia which taught him to hate that part of himself in the first place and was reinforced by society proposing anti-LGBT laws. Computationsaysno ( talk) 11:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trumps-implication-obama-was-involved-in-the-orlando-shooting/486770/ -- Omgtotallyradical ( talk) 22:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the introductory paragraphs states: In a 9-1-1 call shortly before the attack, he swore allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This asserts that the 9-1-1 call occurred shortly before the attack. I believe that Mateen called 911 while in the midst of the attack. No? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 02:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)