Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Death numbers in lead

Just wanted to explain the edits I made in the lead. I placed some thing like "50 deaths, including the shooter" just so those reading may pick up the correct details that may reading through at a quick glance. The current wording. "49 deaths and 53 injuries. The gunman was killed by police after a three-hour standoff" doesn't specify if he was included in the stated 49 deaths or was an additional death. Just clarifying my edits.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My objection was to listing the injuries before the deaths. - MrX 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to reword it in a better way? I can try.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you should propose wording here and get input from a few other editors.- MrX 02:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Background: A few hours ago it was "The gunman was then killed by police". Someone changed that to ""The gunman was killed". I restored the "by police" but elected not to restore the "then" as arguably superfluous. Now I see that it was not superfluous. I think restoring the "then" would solve this problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. Here is my difference, I placed "shooting resulted in 50 deaths, including the gunman who was killed by police after a three-hour standoff, with another 53 injured." Does that look ok?--ZiaLater (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
In other words, I suggest a return to the language in this revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue isn't necessarily that, but the visible number. When someone reads "49 deaths... blah blah ... shooter died too", they may overlook that and believe only 49 died. It is portrayed well in the infobox but the lead was a bit confusing.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes the reader would have to successfuly read and comprehend the first two sentences of the article, to get the numbers correctly. If that's too much to ask, that's the least of their troubles in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
On that note, Simple English Wikipedia's article could use some volunteers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a section discussing the lead section, although this has been removed from the talk page. [correction:it has been archivedMozzie (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)] I would like to note that the WP:BEGIN which covers the first sentence states that: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.. That is the first sentence should take the form. 'The Orlando nightclub shooting is .... The lead section should also summarise the main points of the article, and sentences should be kept simple. It is tempting to load lots of ideas into a sentence, but this should be avoided. It is far better to break a complicated sentence into two simple sentences. I propose a wording along the following lines:
The Orlando nightclub shooting is a massacre that took place in the early hours of 12 June 2016, which resulted in the deaths of 50 victims. The shooting took place at Pulse a at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando Florida.
This wording is simple and makes the main points: the date, 50 people were killed and the location. I left out the number of wounded, as this just adds more complexity. The sentence also follows Wikipedia convention. Alternatively the location could be in the first sentence and the death toll could be in the second. The next paragraph can mention that the attack was carried out by Mateen, and that he was also killed in the attack. Along with the wording the deaths of 50 victims, saying he was also killed makes it pretty clear that he wasn't involved in the initial figure and avoids the need for cumbersome wording. I'd make the change myself but there is quite a bit of edit-warring over the first sentence and I think editors should reach consensus here first.Mozzie (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."
Off-topic, and discussed at #Topic Sentence/Paragraph. I fairly strongly oppose this article title in this first sentence, and my argument is at/near the end of that section. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of victims

I thought that I had read that some of the shooting victims were actually shot by police. Does anyone know for sure? If so, this should be included. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Haven't seen that bit if you find a source about it, it would be something to consider adding. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Some sources have suggested that some of the victims may have died as a result of police crossfire during the shootout. However, this is unconfirmed, so it is best to leave this out unless it is confirmed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is one source: [1]. It says "police chief admits officers may have shot some of the victims". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Anything appearing solely in The Daily Mail is suspect. Still a tad better than InvestmentWatchBlog and BlacklistedNews, though. They seem the next best things, by my Googling. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Definitely unconfirmed at the moment, so it's best to keep it out until a reliable source provides the information. And no, Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Parsley Man (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. But, they often have correct news before other more reliable RS's have it in their pipelines. In other words, this is likely to appear in other RS's soon. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you have an example? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
An example of what? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's always a possibility in police actions that victims or police were hit by police crossfire; there is not yet evidence from a shooting review or forensic reconstruction that that even happened in this incident. "May have" is not "did". It is always a possibility until the facts are in, and until facts are in we should not report possibilities or "may haves" as anything but speculation. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus headbar at the top of the page?

This talk page is huge and rather hard to read. Perhaps someone could put a summarized version of what consensus has been achieved near the top of this page? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: Things are moving really fast here... not sure if we've come to a solid consensus on anything major. The only things that come to mind are using caution when describing his sexuality, his wife's actions, and some of the language choices so far. Everyone's been fairly cooperative and flexible so far (thankfully!) and what we don't fully agree on, we just compromise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Well I meant just that - notes on caution and whatnot. I understand things are changing rapidly, but I believe some consensus has been achieved on being careful describing the nature of the attacks, and the reactions to it? (goodness knows what else is buried here) BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 04:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of a way to do that, but it would be very useful. I think we have fairly solid consensus on at least one thing: Use extreme caution with the Motive field of the infobox, as this is not something that can be readily encapsulated in a couple of words with no context. And (this is not consensus but fact) nothing about terrorism or other motive belongs in the Type field; that's the "how", not the "why". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Current/resent consensus to...

  • use "terrorist attack" in lead and generally. ([[2], [3], [4], [5], [6])
  • use ATF description of rifle as a Sig Sauer, not an AR-15. ([7])
  • closely adhere to WP:BLP regarding the shooter's wife and sexuality (see WP:BDP too). ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12])
  • include relevant material from the shooter's father. ([13], [14])
  • not include the shooter's political party registration. ([15])
  • refer to the event as the deadliest mass shooting by an individual. ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20])
  • exclude motive from infobox until more solid confirmation by investigators is released. ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28])
  • keep the reaction section short and given due weight, though what warrants inclusion is debated. ([29], )[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39])
  • refer to shooter as having parents with an Afghan background. ([40])
  • refer to Pulse as a gay nightclub. ([41], [42])
  • not use "terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" as "type of attack" in the infobox. That parameter is for mode of attack, not motive. ([43], [44])

Current RfCs ongoing:

This reflects discussions so far. Consensus can always change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll put that up there as a collapsible box then. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is{{Consensus}} and {{FAQ}} which could be at great use here. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's everything so far. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss, Josve05a, and BrxBrx: Okay, list complete. Feel free to edit as you see fit. I see someone added the template up top already. I added some more stuff after that was created. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Frankth for doing that. I boldly changed "Current/resent reached consensus" to "Current/recent consensuses". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand why this list was made, but some of these discussions don't represent a real consensus. A discussion in which 2-3 people agree with each other hardly has any weight. Others, like this one], are just meandering discussions with no clear outcome. I don't mean to be overly-critical, but maybe this should be a shorter list of discussions in which the outcome is clear and more than a few people have participated. - MrX 18:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: I was just skimming and yanking URLs. Please feel free to edit and alter as you see fit. I have no problem with you removing ones you think do not have consensus, especially because you've been an active editor and discussant on the article so you have a good idea of what's been covered and agreed upon. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I did boldly remove one and started an RfC. I will try to hone the list further per your suggestion.- MrX 18:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: Thanks! I appreciate your improvements to it! :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen called 911 three separate times.

Mateen called 911 three separate times. Source: [45]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Better source at http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/06/13/mateen-orlando-tsarnaevs-monday EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Now I think I heard that he made 16 phone calls? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple references in one footnote

Why do we use bullets (*) in footnotes and lit multiple references in one footnote, instead of using multiple footnotes. The way it is now, it is harder to re-use (ref names) a reference elsewhere, without there being duplication in the reference section. Much better (imo) to list each source in separate footnotes. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's to avoid ugly things like [98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111] in the body prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would be WP:CITEKILL to begin with. If we have that many references for one statement, we do not need them all. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe it's actually in WP:MOS - is it a new policy? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 05:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Truth be told, you probably don't need any cite at all to support "Prayer vigils for the victims were held at mosques across the country." Whoever did that was apparently providing additional information, not merely supporting the prose. One could argue that's a misuse of references. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but it's common practice on controversial articles. We can worry more about tidying up cites in a week or some imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that it's a bit blocky and WP:CITEKILL. Personally, it's a bit of an eyesore for me. Parsley Man (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to expand to multiple footnotes, so we can be able to reuse the same sources more easily in the article. Afterwards we can trim away unneeded sources if it looks like CITEKILL. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Parsley Man (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to remove or move some footnotes if needed, but I think it is ok. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I got rid of the opinion/blog citations as non-RS (except for the government blog pages). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging Epicgenius since they put the cites back into lists within refs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @EvergreenFir: Yeah, I put * basically per Mandruss's reasoning—to avoid {{Citekill}}. Now that I think about it, the bullets do look kind of weird, but they help to segregate references per statement, city, or event. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
      • But if there are for "different cities", maybe all different cities should be mentioned in the article (as prose), or maybe they all are not needed to "prove" it, we don't have to cite every single word for instance, and not every single city either. (t) Josve05a (c) 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Josve05a: I honestly don't know why there are so many references in the first place (I didn't add them), but I agree with your point, maybe not all of the different cites are needed in this case. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Source name revert

Mandruss, can you please explain to me why you deleted the name of the speaker Daniel Gilroy? The instant I saw those weighty quotes attributed to an anonymous "former coworker," a journalism red flag went up. He's not a confidential source; he's quoted by name in the footnoted RS. In U.S. journalism, unattributed quotations are viewed as suspect unless attributed to a confidential source, whose identity usually is known to a responsible editor at the news outlet. (And keep in mind, this article is about a U.S. event.) Sca (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'm also posting this on Mandruss's talk page, as this talk page is now an overwhelming 27,000 words. Sca (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer to discuss this here if that's ok. The more input, the better. Basically it's relevance, and I don't see the relevance of the name of the speaker. What's relevant is that the speaker was a former coworker. Our readers won't know who Daniel Gilroy is, so how would it benefit them to name him? Actually it might even present a privacy issue, I don't know. We're not bound by common journalism principles and practices as far as I know. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why we would remove the person's name either. Obviously there is no privacy issue, and it would seem that the information has some value.- MrX 16:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you say what value that is? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's information. We're writing a narrative of a historical event in a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. By the way, journalistic principles should provide at least some guidance for this type of article, especially since we are 100% dependent on journalistic sources. Like journalists, our job is to answer (for our readers) the who, what where, when, why, and how.- MrX 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Shooting of Samuel DuBose#Official reactions - First paragraph. Prosecuting attorney Joe Deters is quoted, and he is named because he was a major player in the case. - Last paragraph - Chief of CPD is quoted, but he is not named because his name is not relevant to the context. Only his position is relevant there. I don't think I'm inventing new concepts here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's information. - So is a ton of things we routinely omit with no question. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I tend to err on the side of including details like names. Considering the context, however, I agree with Mandruss' deleting of it. The individual does not need to be named specifically because his only relevance is clearly communicated (a coworker). If there were multiple sentences it may warrant the inclusion of Gilroy's name but in this case it is not needed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If one is going to quote someone saying something notable or controversial, it's imperative to include who that someone is, however unknown he may be. Doing so documents that the quote is from a real person, not made up; that it can be accepted as accurate, unless the person challenges it; and gives others (such as other journalists) someone to contact for confirmation or further information.
In the case of genuine confidential sources, its standard practice to say something like, "a source close to the investigation (or involved in the event), who asked not to be identified," or words to that effect. To attribute remarks mysteriously to "a former coworker" casts doubt on the authenticity of the material quoted. And again, there's no reason not to identify the speaker unless the speaker has requested anonymity for a plausible reason.
It's not about the relevance of the person quoted to the event itself, it's about who said what about the event, the perp, etc. In this case, the fact that Gilroy worked with Mateen makes him a likely source. (Note also that Gilroy is a former Fort Pierce, Fla., police officer, which tends to lend credibility to his comments.) Sca (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Doing so documents that the quote is from a real person, not made up - No, our sources document that. You could attribute the quote to a made-up name and that would document nothing at all. With or without the name in the article, the documentation is in the source(s), not in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
But the name is needed in the source to provide that documentation, and that is the difference between Wikipedia and its sources, and why the principles and practices are different. The source could also have a made-up name, but Wikipedia sourcing policy is founded in the necessary presumption that the sources have done the necessary verification, and don't make things up, per their journalistic principles. This is implicit in the term reliable source.
To attribute remarks mysteriously to "a former coworker" casts doubt on the authenticity of the material quoted. No, per above.
(Note also that Gilroy is a former Fort Pierce, Fla., police officer, which tends to lend credibility to his comments.) - In that case, if that can be sourced, state that in the article. "A former coworker who was also a former Fort Pierce police officer". It's the position that lends that credibility, not the name, per your own statement.
All Wikipedia content is subject to Wikipedia:Verifiability, a Wikipedia policy. It essentially defines the proper interface/relationship between Wikipedia and its sources, including journalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, I don't agree. Leaving the attribution as it is, to an unnamed "former coworker," will raise questions in the reader's mind, as noted above. The Wikipedia rule book doesn't control what readers may think. Sca (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well you say you disagree, but you haven't responded to my points, which in my humble opinion clearly refute your points. For example, you say that naming the person in the article "documents that the quote is from a real person", and I pretty clearly showed that it does not. And so on with the rest of my points. This being the case, we have no choice but to wait for a consensus to include the name, which we do not have at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Leaving the attribution as it is, to an unnamed "former coworker," will raise questions in the reader's mind, - That's why we have citations. They provide the verifiability, for any and all questions in readers' minds. If a name in the article increases a reader's confidence in the accuracy, they don't understand that Wikipedia has no way to verify primary facts. We have no reporters on staff. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I just noticed that your section heading refers to "source name", using the term "source" to refer to Gilroy. He might be considered a primary source in WP terminology, I'm not entirely clear on that, but my uses of the word "source" have been mostly about secondary sources, e.g. the news outlets that reported what he said. Just wanted to clear up any confusion about the term "source" in my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for elucidating this important point. Sca (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. It hit me that the word source has a different common meaning to journalists than to Wikipedia editors. As in going to jail to protect your source, which Wikipedia editors would never do. It just further points up the differences between journalism and Wikipedia editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The question remains, which approach best serves the readers? IMO, the one that identifies people quoted in articles.

Note that this article concerning a developing news story logged 1 million-plus page views in four days. Are we serving those readers, or defending and perpetuating the institution's policies? Sca (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I still fail to see how it benefits a reader of this encyclopedia to know that this speaker had the name Daniel Gilroy and not Stephen Mills, Benjamin Potts, or Peter Latour. They are all just names to the reader, empty of meaning, essentially noise. What exactly would they glean from that name? What would they do with it? If one in 500 readers wants to know the name for some reason I can't imagine, it should be a minute or two away via a citation link. So including the name at WP would create two noise words for 499 readers in order to save one reader that two minutes; seems a poor trade-off.
One of the first things instilled in me as a WP editor was that less is more, generally speaking. That we need to be selective about what we include, making every bit of information earn its keep. The reason is that what remains is then very "rich" in reader value. Very little is wasted, there is very low noise. I want to create baklava, not chocolate chip cookies. This is how I think as a WP editor, and it's different from how you think as a journalist. Your goals are different because you have a different mission, a different role to play in this information game.
These are not universal WP editing concepts, there is no rule book on this. Each of us has our editorial judgment-philosophy that lives outside WP policy and guideline, and there is often disagreement. I've run across multiple editors who appear to believe that more is more. If we kept this thread open long enough, we might reach a consensus for including the name. And, being the good Wikipedia Boy Scout that I am, I always defer gracefully to a consensus that I disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should not include the name per Wikipedia policy WP:BLPNAME, which contains the following statement, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    That works for me too. Thank you very much. But this has been a very stimulating conversation, so I'm glad you arrived late. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the name. One of the better circulated accounts [46] says "Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said. "I quit because everything he said was toxic," Gilroy said Sunday, "and the company wouldn't do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people." Gilroy said this shooting didn't come as a surprise to him. I mean, this is huge - remember, Mateen's security credentials have been cited as one reason why he would have no trouble getting a gun! I wish people would stop assuming there's nothing they don't know and there's no use of letting other people have the information they need to do their own research. There are many circumstances when privacy is warranted but when you go to reporters and say that the country's foremost psychopath was harassing you and talking about killing people, that ain't one of 'em. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hate crime in the lead sentence

Hate crime has been added back into the lead sentence. If there is consensus for it to remain, then it needs to be backed up with additional content and references/sources in the body of the article to support that motive being listed in the opening sentence. Previous discussions about listing this motive in the infobox was to leave it out, let's try to establish a consensus for the lead sentence as well. I say leave it out for now to see if that motive is confirmed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Found source. Will integrate into article. FBI spokesperson called it a hate crime. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: Can see diff [47]. That section needs some reorganization. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good for now, I'm sure we'll learn even more information as the investigation continues.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: Definitely. Once the investigations conclude, I suspect we'll be rewording a lot of stuff. If you see anything else that needs citation like that, just holler. I'm always looking for a distraction to procrastinate with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If we feel the need to shoehorn all the primary attributes into the first sentence, we should consider: "On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime, involving hostage-taking, occurred inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States." (emphasis added). I do not. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm terribly opposed to removing "hate crime" from the lead sentence at this point. But it is a characterization of the event whereas hostage taking is something that occurred but not necessarily a defining characteristic? Regardless, we have the term and source in the body of the article now and that's more what mattered to me. If folks feel the lead sentence is getting too verbose, I'm not all that opposed to trimming it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I do see your point. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to add that part, I'd suggest "a hostage-taking mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime", for conciseness. But I don't personally care for defining it as a hostage situation. Didn't last long enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

wNPOV

Shouldn't we have a NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.106.230 (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific about your suggestion for improving the article. General Ization Talk 05:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Emergency vehicles image – in or out?

Law enforcement vehicles in the area after during the shooting

Worth discussing imo, barely.

removed by me, see editsum for rationale

re-added by MB298

  • Out per my editsum and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Adds little to nothing, other than satisfying the desire to have a photo there for aesthetic reasons, which is inconsistent with guidelines. It's also a poor-quality photo. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Out per WP:PERTINENCE. Routine-looking photo of emergency vehicles at night. Not detailed or specific enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Out Lighting's all wrong, lines are blurred, focus leans to the left. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In or replace by one of the other original police photos during or shortly after the shooting, and please read the original police comments and tweet times to avoid wrong image descriptions again and again. --SI 08:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That first SWAT one looks nice, if not entirely necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Out – What is the point anyway. Regardless of the picture quality, this adds nothing to the article. People already know what an emergency scene looks like. United States Man (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Removed - [48] - by Ianmacm. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
new edited version
  • New option I just uploaded a cropped version of this, it is at least clearly showing the PULSE billboard and venue and law enforcement vehicles during the attack. What do you think? --SI 15:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think: Artistic, yes. Informative, no. It shows the reader what the Pulse sign looks like at night. With respect, meh. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Following your arguments, we need to remove:
The new image is better but not ideal. The old image was some blurry emergency vehicles at night and could have been practically anywhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK to use the former photo. There is a tyranny of uncreativity around here. What could the emergency vehicles possibly show? Well, it could show us whether they lined up in a barricade for the officers to stand behind shooting their guns like in Terminator 2; it could show us whether they parked every twenty feet to prevent multiple cops being blown up with a bomb at once; it could show us whether the cops had a crowd of onlookers or wounded piled up in front of the ambulances... etcetera. Anything could have happened. That photo narrows down some of the anything. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That photo is not creative, all it does is show police cars. That picture shows nothing notable; police cars show up at every criminal activity, so a congregation of police cars like shown here is nothing notable. No one can really say there is a "tyranny of uncreativity" when wanting to include an ordinary picture like this. Maybe if the picture was of the outside or inside of the club, it would be different. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Out - Completely unnecessary. Everyone knows a lot of police were present at the scene, they don't need a photo to confirm it. Parsley Man (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all: You're absolutely right, those policemen should really have done a better job with these photos: better lighting, more action, more blood, more bodies and above all full HD 360° quality. It's a shame they totally didn't care about our Wiki-quality requirements, shame on them. Not to mention we pay them with our taxes and they really had plenty of time there! What a bummer. ;) --SI 19:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both. It's perfectly fine to have descriptive photos. Who cares about whether the police could have "done a better job with these photos"? IT'S AN EMERGENCY SCENE!! The point is not to take pictures and wait around, but to rescue hostages, attend to the wounded, and neutralize the perpetrator. So yeah.
    But seriously, the new edited version (the latter photo) is better than the original (former). In the latter photo, we can see both police activity and the nightclub, but in the former, we only see generic police. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither. Wikipedia is not a picture book, and these photos convey no useful information to the reader about the subject of the article. General Ization Talk 20:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Honestly, I don't think hyperbolic "tyranny of uncreativity" comments and the like are very apt descriptions of attempting to follow MOS guidelines on the use of images, and a very experienced editor like Wnt should know better. Guidelines are what prevent (or should prevent) little questions like this from being discussed for days or weeks with no ability to reach a consensus either way. The only reason I started this discussion in the first place was because I believe in somewhat strict adherence to process, and simply removing the image again, many hours after it was re-added, would technically have been edit warring. This kind of thing is why so many editors do not adhere to process. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Amended comment - After a re-think, I'll soften the above. I disagree with Wnt's rationale, but his comments were at least within the realm of guidelines. My apologies to him for my overstated comments. Many of these comments are not within the realm of guideline, being more just personal opinions. I suggest that people read WP:PERTINENCE and understand it before !voting here, revising existing !votes as appropriate. And if we have no problem with discussing this for days or weeks, I guess I don't either. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
a non-edited cropped version
This image includes a readable Florida license plate and should be redacted. General Ization Talk 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@General Ization: Seriously, is there any particular reason for that silliness? The photos are full of all sorts of identifiable people - who are ever more identifiable as government and private industry use facial recognition to track and intimidate people. [49] What's so special about an identifiable car that it has to be blurred out, when we wouldn't blur out a person's face? I say nuts, unless there's some black bordered policy that cannot possibly be avoided, don't get into the amateur censorship business. Just show us what any tourist snapping pictures would see. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, but I'm gonna assume that there's a policy somewhere requiring that redaction. And WP:IAR, to my understanding, doesn't mean wholesale disregard for a policy because you disagree with it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The publication of someone's state-issued license plate in a photograph on Commons and on Wikipedia exposes WMF to the potential for a lawsuit for invasion of privacy, even if the filer would not ultimately be successful. It is conventional wisdom that photographs published on social networks, much less an encyclopedia, should not contain license plate numbers and other personally identifiable information concerning uninvolved parties. The portion of the image containing the license plate number, indeed the portion containing the car it is attached to, is not essential to the purpose of the image. It should be removed. General Ization Talk 01:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not an invasion of privacy, and I don't see how it can be personally identifying information, because registration tags aren't publicly searchable. It is a standard-issue (i.e. not a vanity) FL license plate which proves nothing except that a car with a random FL tag was near Pulse nightclub. If anything, the portion of the image with the FL tag goes on commons:Category:License plates of Florida, of course with the rest of the image cropped out, then blur out the license plate from the original. If it were a vanity tag, though, then this could cause some problems, such as slander. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@General Ization: Actually, now I see how that can be interpreted as privacy invasion. However, in any case, this is the wrong venue for discussion. Since all of the images were uploaded to Commons, you must discuss it there. There isn't a Commons policy that I know of that bans the upload of license plates, otherwise we wouldn't have any images of license plates at all. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Medical assistants carrying an injured from Orlando Attack.png
Medical assistants carrying an injured of Orlando Attack
  • I don't know why this image was removed from the article as I think this article needs more images and this one is a good one, Informative and everything. And yes Wikipedia is not a picture book but pictures are important as they display the article quality and encourage a lot of readers to read the article especially an article like this one that has no images but 2, so what do you think? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    Notice: That upload is a copyright violation [50][51] --SI 12:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think your comments have almost no connection to Wikipedia guidance about the use of images. You did use the word "informative", but you didn't say how it is informative. Please read WP:PERTINENCE. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Out for now It's not surprising that there were emergency vehicles, etc. I think the only surprising part was that 100 police were there but against a lone gunman they still felt to wait three hours. Maybe tie the image, if accurate to the idea, to help illustrate that point. Computationsaysno (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

News 13 of Orlando

The article states: At 2:45 a.m., Mateen called News 13 of Orlando and said, "I am the shooter." He then claimed his attack for the Islamic State and began speaking rapidly in Arabic. The TV station's managing editor matched the incoming phone number to Mateen. I don't understand what this is trying to say. How would the TV editor know Mateen's phone number? He was comparing what to what? I don't follow. Does anyone know what this means? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can go to Yahoo, type in a unknown phone number that has called me that shows on my phone and get the name and location of the caller in many cases. I am sure a news editor has better traceback tools at hand than I have. (I'll admit that I am a dinosaur who clung to his flip-phone until my son drug me into the 21st century and got me a pocket phone/computer.) --Naaman Brown (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
(1) That usually works fairly well -- not great -- for land line phones. It virtually never works for cell phones. (2) It still doesn't make sense. The sentence makes it sound as if the editor knew almost instantaneously that the caller was Mateen. Almost like he had a caller ID that said "Mateen". But the killer's name probably was not revealed for several hours or so. Either way, the sentence can use some clarification. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Television news directors typically have "connections". When someone calls a television station and claims they've committed a mass murder on behalf of ISIS, you can bet the ND will call in a favor or two as he considers his or her next step. The ND's generally not going to commit the station's resources, much less call the FBI, if there's a chance it's a 13-year-old boy calling from a tent in his backyard. At this point, if the paragraph accurately reflects what the otherwise reliable source says, I suggest you not question it too much, as you're unlikely to ever be able to learn exactly how the station "matched" the number to Mateen. General Ization Talk 12:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Or they had Facebook or Twitter. Not hard. --DHeyward (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hard or not, the language can use improvement. And/or clarification. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Typo in the lead

2nd paragraph - needs an "and" before "had used gay dating websites." Although if this is in doubt the whole sentence should be removed from lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia 9 years but couldn't make this edit yourself? Just curious... — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No need to be snarky and hide it as curiousity. I thought it was protected. Anyways the other point still stands - if the FBI cast doubt on his use of gay dating apps then why do we need to include this point in the lead? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if I came across snarky, but I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It needs to stay in the lead because it speaks to possible motivations just as the ISIL material does. The FBI has said they are "increasingly skeptical", which means they don't know. Until an FBI person with a name comes forward and says otherwise, it's only anonymous speculation.- MrX 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but you're saying that his use of gay dating apps motivated him to go on a shooting spree? That claim would seem to be original research, and still not relevant to the lead of our article. The 2nd paragraph of the lead should be rewritten. It currently adds no encyclopedic value. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No. I'm saying his motivations are unknown, but have been speculated about in our sources. Possibilities include: ISIL inspired terrorism, homophobia, hate, conflicted feelings about his sexuality, extreme anger issues, rejection, mental disorder, and attention seeking. The use of gay dating apps may be related to his sexuality, or may have been an avenue for learning about his target—or maybe he never used gay dating apps. None of this is my speculation. It all comes from various sources.- MrX 22:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget steroids. Near the bottom of the list, but a few sources considered it. If he'd been a wrestler instead of a Muslim, cable would be going bananas. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

I deleted some text in the lead and it was reverted because the main text has citations. This is no excuse for not properly citing text in the intro. Per wp:cite:

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.

About the text in question it doesn't belong in the intro. The text is about dating apps. One citation states that one person said perp used a dating app while text says multiple said so. So the text doesn't match a citation I found. Second, the FBI says no dating apps where found on phone. So this type of uninformative mumbo jumbo does not belong in intro. For wp:intro the criteria should be the most important information. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The content is referenced to multiple sources. Just because the FBI found no dating apps, doesn't mean that Mateen didn't use them in the past, or on another phone. Also, we attribute the information to witnesses.- MrX 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The objection "the FBI found no dating apps" is quite misleading. Here is what the New York times actually reported: "Federal law enforcement officials said Thursday that the F.B.I. is increasingly skeptical of reports that Mr. Mateen was gay but “closeted,” that he had been visiting gay clubs or that he had used gay dating apps." XavierItzm (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The "cast doubt" in the lead appears to be OR. Someone point to where that's supported in the article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the language to more closely match the source. "Cast doubt" is a little too strong.- MrX 16:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Cast doubt" was in the title of the source I found. Computationsaysno (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Posts the terrorist made during the time of the attack not included in the attack section (!)

So, the terrorist posted to his Facebook account during the attack ---yet someone moved these to the "investigation" section? So, now we remove from the "Attack" chronology inconvenient facts that took place even as the terrorist was shooting people? Hey, got an idea: move the victim's statements from the "Attack" section to "investigation". And while one is at it, move the FBI's declarations regarding the chronology of events from the "Attack" section to "investigation" too! After all, by the mover's "logic", anything the FBI states is part of the "investigation" since obviously the FBI spokespersons were not at Pulse during the attack! Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Firing 202 rounds and talking to survivors seems like part of the attack, too. I was going to do something, but got scared. You have 100% of my moral support, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It should very likely go in the attack section, as it did, indeed, happen during the attack. Alternatively, it could be briefly mentioned in both places. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, here we are 36 hours later and the Facebook posts the terrorist made "during the attack" are nowhere to be found in the attack section and are instead in the "Perp" section, together with stuff the terrorist did back on September 11, 2001. Kinda weird. XavierItzm (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Another day... one txt mssg the terrorist made to his current wife made it to the attack section. Meanwhile, the posts to fb he made during the attack are still under the "Perp" section. Weird. XavierItzm (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone actually had the gall to delete the posts the terrorist made on fb while shooting the 49 people... saying "too many quotes"... that's what happens when people move stuff from the attack chronology to the "perp" section... XavierItzm (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I say they're the closest we'll have to a motive. Thankfully, they're in the edit history. This page is still a work in progress, important stuff will rise to the top eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath or Reaction? (leaning latter but thought I'd ask)

We now have a tangent news that someone drove into a funeral procession for one of the victims of the Pulse shooting [1]. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTNEWS, particularly if it was careless driving rather than a deliberate attack.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Driver Strikes 2 Deputies After Cutting Through Orlando Funeral Procession". NBCNews.com. NBC News. June 18, 2016. Retrieved June 19, 2016.

Islamist motive starting to be questioned

Heard on npr hourly news summary that investigators are saying this is looking more like a "typical" mass shooting and not an Islamist one. From the link: "As investigators continue to delve into the life of Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, the evidence is beginning to suggest the killings may have more in common with a traditional mass shooting than an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack." [52]

Something to keep an eye on. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've said all along that there are multiple motives here. Mateen may well have hyped himself up on radical Islamic websites, but he is depressingly typical of mass shooters who took out their frustrations on the world. It's unlikely that anyone in ISIL had heard of this guy before the shooting, and his understanding of radical Islamic causes was thin and confused.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
He seemed to grasp that America and Russia were bombing Muslims in ISIS territory, and this seemed to aggrieve him. Perhaps not particularly for the establishment of a Caliphate, like a typical ISIS terrorist, but simply pissed off at his own government's way of opposing it, like a typical domestic terrorist. Related to Islam, I'd say, but not necessarily moreso than to roid rage and daddy issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Have I said that we were rushing to judgment in this area (and others)? Didn't get a lot of support for that idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we've done a good job neutrally reflecting sources. It is they who rushed more than us. I think we should still include it until rs report otherwise. Just something we need to keep ourselves updated on. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It is they who rushed more than us. And they always do, and they frequently get important things wrong in the beginning, and that is why we should not rush to judgment. It does not benefit our readers to reflect premature information in our content, and we are WP:NOTNEWS. Many, many readers have surely read our premature content and moved on, and they will forever have the incorrect impressions of the nature of this tragedy. Perhaps we need a new template, similar to {{Current}}, that says something to the effect of, "Don't take this seriously as it may be premature, we're just telling you what the rush-to-judgment news sources are saying! Please check back with us in a couple of weeks. Thank you." Or, change the usage guideline in Current, bullet 2. Either way, although you would no doubt get a lot of pushback on that change. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
A template might be a good idea. My suggestion for wording: "Rush-to-judgement: If news sources have rushed to judgement, this might have trickled into the article. Improvements are ongoing." 178.232.222.125 (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you wanted the same procedure for the reporting of Dylann Roof's motives? Zaostao (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
More at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20#Delay on coverage of major events, albeit not only about this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Would point out that opening sentence until recently (mass shouting, terrorist attack, hate crime) is borderline nonsense. Some crimes are defined by action/outcome, such as mass shouting, other crimes are defined by motive/intention. However we define terrorist attack, the principal motive has to be hoped for political attention and change, terror is the means. However we define 'hate crime', the principal motive has to be irrational hate of a particular group. Having both descriptors is tantamount to saying that at the moment we've no idea what part the perp's religion/politics nor the fact that the target was a gay bar nor the fact that he may have been seriously disturbed were, so we'll just put all possible descriptors used by speculative media, in the hope that all bases are covered.Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

I took a modest hack at the WP:QUOTEFARM in the article. Following that it contains 24 direct quotations, which is about six times the number it should have. I will continue to trim away the quotes and summarise them as our mission dictates. Meantime it would be great if people could hold off on adding any more quotations to the article. We have Wikiquote for that, but on Wikipedia we do not build up collections of quotations. --John (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I just removed one myself.- MrX 12:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Westboro protest of funerals and praise for attacks

old part, see "Westboro protests LGBT funeral" below

Should the reaction of religious leaders like Steven Anderson (of Faithful Word Baptist Church), Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, Westboro Baptist Church, etc., who have praised the shooting and/or claimed the victims deserved to die? These comments are being reported on a lot in the news. By the same token we could also include reactions by imams who said the attacks were justified, if there were any. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly notable if the only outlets claiming it are vox and gawker... BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 04:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Not remotely notable. WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't surprising that some old faithfuls like the Westboro Baptist Church said this, but it isn't notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion this feels like whitewashing - obviously there are homophobic people in the world (pew global attitudes) and they are going to have negative reactions. There needs to be some truthful coverage of the reality that some social media reactions are negative.
  • Russia [53]
  • Russia young leader [54]
  • Mexico [55] cnn fox
  • anglophone social media nbc12 report on police statement [56]

The Pew poll figures bear out that homophobia exists within Western countries, and exists to a greater degree in non-Western countries. There are media reports of public reactions in Mexico, with a public official fired for anti-gay posts, in Russia where the government officially responded to Russian anti-gay social media posts, and the US where police declared that anti-gay social media posts exist. Wikipedia should have truthful coverage of the reality that there are anti-gay people in the world. -- Callinus (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't see why not include the pastors. By the same coin, include the Iranian imam at the terrorist's mosque who preached "for execution of gays," and who says that such killings have to "be done out of love" and "“You have to be happy for that person ... we believe in an afterlife, we believe in an eternal life … and with this sentence, you will be forgiven and you won’t be accountable in the hereafter.” Disgusting preaching at the terrorist's mosque but since there are WP:RS, don't see why the preaching at the Orlando terrorist's mosque should be whitewashed on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I would leave this out altogether just as we likely shoudn't include inflamatory statements by Trump, but still will since he the presumptive Republican presidential candidate. These people are making statements just to get more exposure. Don't feed the trolling monsters candy, they'll just do it again! Computationsaysno (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose! The quoted churches are fringe or beyond fringe. Quoting something like Westboro with the implication they reflect Christian views is misleading and defamatory. As regards the Pew poll - interesting article by the way, it is not about homophobia but acceptance of homosexuality. Opposition to homosexuality =/= homophobia, and anyone trying to push that line has gone way beyond intolerance! 人族 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a way around this particular 'Strongly Oppose!' position: Just quote the fringe churches and the Iranian imam, while not 'implying' they reflect general Christian and Moslem views. At any rate, to 'imply' is something readers may wrongfully do, it is not an attribute of the article text itself. I agree with users Callinus and XavierItzm above that WP should not whitewash these statements, so I also support inclusion. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Technically readers would infer, not imply... anyway, the fringe policy doesn't mean you can't say fringe exists and be clear it is fringe, as long as you don't misrepresent the bulk of opinion about a topic. However, the place to do that is in the reactions sub-article; this is too minor a point to have in this article's summary of it. Wnt (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If fringe views were included in a section I'd then strongly recommend a paragraph on the prevalence of media stories drawing links between Christianity and the violence. I'm seeing a lot of intolerant articles on both American and non-American sites about Christians being culpable for (encouraging) such violence, and that holding to Biblical positions and acting Christian constitutes homophobia. Such a paragraph would likely be difficult to reach consensus on though! I'd also suggest a section on the mainstream response in the Arab world to the attack. Articles such as [[57]] report reactions ranging from 'good humoured support for the killer, to celebration at the killings. The MSM are totally ignoring that angle and instead focusing on Christian culpability or the US' easy access to firearms. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Westboro protests LGBT funeral

See the following on Westboro protest and counter-protests at funerals:

Wikipedia articles have a long history of including material about Westoboro Baptist protests of funerals. See wikpedia search - note that Westboro is given a small paragraph in articles like Assassination of George Tiller and Murder of Jason Gage.

Jason Gage died in 2005, and wikipedia has neutral coverage of the existence of anti-LGBT protests. The policies on recentism and neutrality should mean that the same, neutral, truthful coverage should exist on current events.

There are other issues:

I believe there should be a one sentence statement that there have been government investigations into people expressing support for the shooter in the U.S. and Mexico. -- Callinus (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WBC turned up to protest at funerals every time a member of the U.S. service personnel was killed in Iraq. They are predictable to the point of non-notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave it out. The presence of WBC at funerals is common, predictatble, ephemeral, forgettable, and non-encyclopedic.- MrX 11:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. To the extent that an aspect of the mass shooting attack was a homophobic hate crime (self-hating or otherwise), that there have been homophobic expressions/reactions is a material aspect of the fall-out of the attack. Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not here Negative responses should be covered in 'reactions', but I doubt if this particular group (WBC) would warrant inclusion there.Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. WGB is a hate-group so far into the fringe they are barely on the planet. Please can Wikipedia not be complicit in giving them any more publicity - that is what they crave, that is what they are after, they do these acts to get back in the spotlight. Besides, this act is not notable in and of itself and should not be included in the article about the shooting. Maybe this act could be included in the "Reactions" article but that possibility should be discussed on that article's talk page before being included there. Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:DENY doesn't really apply to news related events. The real problem is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or WP:DUE and the WBC is a predictable fringe group.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I do think the WBC "protests" (which always have a minuscule number of people participating) aren't newsworthy enough to be included in this article re NOTNEWSPAPER & DUE. Shearonink (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Not that I'm for (or against) including them, but number of participants has nothing to do with anything. If it did, even the President is just (outwardly) one man. All about depth of coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Any changes to the List of victims (Re: the subset of the List RfC above)

I did up a couple of variations and Mandruss & I have been discussing them on his talk page [58]. I have been dummying up the different tables within Editing on the article itself. The problem I am running up against is that almost every variation has one type of technical problem or another: mostly that a Table/Box of those killed is inappropriately next to the Perpetrator's section. I fiddled with Centering the List & different column lengths etc but every possible solution has an issue. For instance if the Table is put into multiple columns & Centered, then there are accessibility issues with mobile platforms. If it it Right-justified (if my original 1-column version is used etc) then Mateen's section is inappropriately right next to it. If someone else wants to try to adjust the table/list please do so, I can't find a better solution than the present version that is already within the article. Shearonink (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

After elimination of encroachment-on-Perpetrator as a relatively minor consideration, I think a right-floated two-column list box is clearly superior to the status quo. Also superior to a right-floated single-column list box. Especially one like at #"Recrafted" List of victims; we are not required to be plain and drab simply because that is the "default". The box at 2014 Isla Vista killings#Victims went through several major iterations, and this one was immediately accepted as superior to anything that came before. There are details to be worked out, but I think we should agree on this much. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft to see what a 2-column Table of those killed looks like within the body of the present article. Shearonink (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks good, I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You have good taste. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't like it. The names are tiny on my device. Not all Wiki readers have young eyes. If the box were placed below the text, the names could likely be made a bit larger. Also, I've thought for some time that the names need the proper accents. There may be a source out there somewhere with them. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Antinoos69: Good, we can use feedback from non-PC users. I bumped the text size a little, is that better? What's your device? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Antinoos69: - Re: the accents for the letters of the names - Neither of the two sources for the list, especially the official/City of Orlando use accents. I hesitate to use any other List as Wikipedia's source for any variations on these names. Shearonink (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Also it surprises me there is no way to zoom in on a part of a page on a mobile device. I'm tempted to break down and buy one, just so I can understand this stuff (no other need for one). Wish I had some $$! ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
We could alternatively make the list collapsible (and collapsed by default) and not make the font ultra small? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Penwhale: I dunno how, if you do go ahead and give it a shot. You can use "Show preview" to avoid saving something that didn't work, in case you didn't know. If you save something, we can revert if needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Made it collapsible; also, I changed the font-size (now 85%) and made the left column no bullet/no bold, for comparison purposes. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Penwhale: We've pretty much moved on to the version in the draft linked above at 00:14, 18 June. I think that's the version that Antinoos69 said was too small on their device (and no feedback since I enlarged it). Thought you understood that, sorry. Anyway, if you're going to play with collapsible it should be done with that version I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Oops. I made the change to the preferred version. See if you like. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Penwhale: - 00:14, 18 June - in this section. Scroll up a little. The clue is "linked above", indicating a link to something. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Clearly I'm failing my comprehension today... Made changes to that draft page. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Penwhale: - I think that's a significant improvement, solving the encroachment issue, which some see as a significant problem. No encroachment unless they want to see the names.
The size issue is still pending in my opinion, and it would be nice to get further feedback from [[u|Antinoos69}} after the size increase. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Dammit. Fixing botched ping to Antinoos69. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Bumped the font size a tad more, from 90% to 95%. To review, Antinoos69's objection was at 80%. And to clairfy, the names are not actually at 95% of default, due to the use of <small>...</small>. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Converted from <small>...</small> to {{Small}}. If I'm interpreting the template doc correctly, the names should now be at 80.75% of default (0.95 * 0.85). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh what the hell. I removed the font-size CSS property, effectively changing it from 95% to 100%. The names should now be at 85% of default. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Latin Night per WP:LEAD

I added this [59] about Latin Night per WP:LEAD. It's so important that the first paragraph of the body of the article discusses this fact and the casualty section makes the same connection. It's also been mentioned repeatedly in the coverage that the toll fell heavily in the Hispanic/Latin community. I was reverted for what seems to me an irrelevant reason per WP:LEAD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The Latin Night event may not have had anything to do with the targeting. Mateen may not even have known that it was Latin Night, although he did know that Pulse was a gay nightclub. I agree with the revert, it isn't necessary in the WP:LEAD section although it should be mentioned later on.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
According to Ron Johnson, the Facebook snoop, Mateen searched it for Pulse stuff in the days before, and would have likely seen Latin Night promos, if it was promoting well. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, that type of detail should no go in the lead.- MrX 21:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ambivalent as to lead, but it's not first-sentence-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
May not have, but that goes for gays, too. If they're both uncertainly targeted minorities, but both certainly victimized minorities, I'd say they're probably both deserving of a mention. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's too misleading to suggest that he was targeting Hispanics in the WP:LEAD, as this isn't what the thrust of the article says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The edit does not say that. Moreover, that has nothing to do with WP:LEAD. What determines lead is what is in the body of the article, and the Latin Night is prominently and repeatedly discussed in the body, as well as in the coverage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely undue weight for the opening sentence, and I'm not sure if it needs to be in the WP:LEAD at all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it would inappropriate to suggest he was targetting 'Latinos', however not inapt that the majority of victims were such. Therefore I'm inclined to agree with Alanscottwalker, briefly mentioning the Hispanic element in the lead is valid. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It is suggested above that Latinos are undue, but that just can't be true. Here is only a little of the mounds of coverage: [60] [61] [62] [63] Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I haven't checked your sources, but saw earlier coverage that (as I recall) around 90% of victims were Hispanic, I don't know whether this refers to dead or injured. Perhaps we should just say something like that directly, rather than 'beat around the bush' about Latino night? Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure that's fine, I was trying to be brief. Read:[64]

[65] --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Video of CSPAN 15-hour filibuster

Senator Murphy's 14 hour and 50 minute filibuster as presented by C-SPAN.

I put this above video in the article, as I thought it was an historic reaction to the Orlando shooting. The edit was reverted for taking up too much real estate on the page, I reverted that (I shouldn't have) and then my edit was reverted (rightfully so). SO! Should the above video be on the page, since it is a direct result of the shooting, and is notable in and of itself as one of the longest filibusters in U.S. history? Should it only live on the article for the filibuster (which happens to be open to debate about being deleted)?Victor Grigas (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Eighth-longest. "One of" should be reserved for Top Five, I think. Other than that, no opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This can be covered by a text mention and an external link if necessary. The video itself doesn't need to be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Too tangential, and we already provide a link to that article and some discussion in prose. In this case, video is "more information". We have video of Obama, but then he's the chief executive of the country in which this event occurred. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The video is not about the shooting and it would tend to politicize the article.- MrX 22:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree it is too tangential for this page.Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If the filibuster page is kept at AfD, then this goes there. Not on this page because it's tangential for the shooting itself, like Pincrete said. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna say the usual... take it to the reactions article. It looks like the inclusionists are winning this one, thank God, and that gives us room to explore these things. This is not very relevant to the shootings per se because, well, they weren't there, and they were instead following a pre-established political goal. An eighth grader in Skokie could have sponsored the exact same filibuster, provided he could aim and reload well enough. So it's more about them than about the shootings; but the Reactions article gives us a telephoto lens to index these reactions more diligently. Wnt (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Casting the umrah in a poor light?

The bit about his pilgrimages seems to normalize being suspicious of Muslims who go to Mecca. Feels like it's begging a question that doesn't need to be begged. If nobody knows who he met, shouldn't the default assumption be hundreds of regular Muslims, doing what regular Muslims do, until proven (or at least alleged) otherwise? At the very least, doesn't not knowing who he met inherently mean not knowing whether they were related to anything, not just radicalization? Explicitly singling that possibility out seems a dirty trick, and Wikipedia should probably stick to known things.

If nobody's opposed, I'll delete it. I usually delete first, but I have a slight hunch there's a reason for keeping it I'm overlooking. In that case, that part could use the clarity. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It only advances an anti-Muslim point of view.- MrX 18:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. The WSJ has reported that "Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said law-enforcement officials are searching for details about the Saudi Arabia trips Mateen made": so, the FBI is investigating whether the terrorist may have contacted other terrorists during his trips to Saudi Arabia. The organiser of at least one of the two trips to Saudi Arabia (New York University) has clarified that once in Saudi Arabia, it failed to monitor "whether all the people on the trip are participating in activities on the agenda." Will Wikipedia whitewash this crucial part of the investigation? XavierItzm (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What's there to whitewash? Nothing's been discovered. If they find he met with a terrorist (or anybody notable), I'm down for that. Knowing nobody knows anything about anyone there doesn't exactly teach anyone something here, does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And if you intentionally stressed "Democrat", I don't catch your drift. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
CNN, ABC, WSJ are now reporting the current investigation on what transpired during the NYU-organised trip in 2012. Seems important enough. XavierItzm (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And they all agree it currently answers nothing. So we'll relay nothing, unless or until something relevant comes up. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not the same, but the foreign travel of 2008 Mumbai attacks conspirator David Headley, particularly his travel to Pune, was deemed relevant to his Wikipedia article, if nothing else to provide background to the person, even in the face of unresolved facts about what he did there. Headley's travel to Pune was also noted on the Wikipedia article for the 2010 Pune bombing. So long as the travel is factually described, I think the foreign travel appears to be relevant. Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That article covers things he did and people he met, not merely that investigators wondered what he did or who he met. Some things are unresolved there, everything is unresolved here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing is definitive about Headley being involved in the German bakery bombing ; yet, his travel is still relevant enough to be noted in the articles. Addressing your concern about there being nothing discovered, yet, about Mateen's travel, then I would suggest accurately and factually stating that about the travel, so that is clear. But the travel is still relevant. Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant he apparently opened a heroin front, scouted landmarks, stayed at the target hotel and shot hours of video. Four facts about his travel in just the first paragraph. Conversely, we don't even know if Mateen actually reached Mecca. If you (or someone) insists on readding the simple facts that an investigation exists and has found nothing, I'll insist on not leading readers toward any foregone conclusions. It's one thing to waste space with useless info, it's another to suggest an unmonitored Muslim is something to fear. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I just realized we're talking about two different places. Excuse the brainfart. The Pune thing is also useless. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The piece that was noted as odd was a young man making two Umrah's very close together including a 4 star trip on very little income (I don't think an Umrah has the same financing requirements as the Hajj where taking on debt is not allowed to finance it). This was noted as odd by Mosque leaders. The Umrah itself is not the issue, rather it's been mentioned in reliable sources that they are investigating who he met while there and want to know why he went twice in such a brief period of time and whether it was actually an Umrah or a meeting. He also was briefly in UAE which is not part of Umrah. Also if he didn't go to Mecca, it wasn't Umrah which was the reason on his visa. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that's something. If the reason for suspicion was spelled out, it would seem less like racist paranoia. Still sketchy, importance-wise, but better. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Arguing for factual description of the travel can hardly be described as racist paranoia. I don't know how travel can be particular to any race, since nobody is mentioning race here. That those are the ready words for which you reach probably reveals that you are looking at facts through some kind of filter of your own prompting. Maslowsneeds (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem was the blurb didn't mention any reason for suspicion. In that absence, things are implied, given the context. Needing to search for an outside corrupting force when an American kills Americans feels paranoid to me. Giving that suspicion such weight before it is justified by a revelation seems racist (or at least nationalist). Reword it more neutrally, and that problem disappears. Just remains uninformative. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As of right now, the news reported by CNN, the WSJ and ABC that "Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said law-enforcement officials are searching for details about the Saudi Arabia trips Mateen made", and that the organiser of at least one of the two trips to Saudi Arabia (New York University) has clarified that once in Saudi Arabia, it failed to monitor "whether all the people on the trip are participating in activities on the agenda,"[1][2][3]" has been dumped down the memory hole. Whitewashed out of Wikipedia, some may say. XavierItzm (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Failed to monitor" seems to be really odd wording and from what I can tell isn't supported by the source. It implies there was some expectation or requirement that they monitor, but unless this was imposed by the Saudia Arabian government (which is possible but isn't mentioned in the source) or monitoring was promised (which would generally be for his own safety not for any other reason) there would generally be none. He was an adult not a child. This was organised by a university but it doesn't sound like he was a student. But even if a university student is attending a conference or something paid for by the university there's often no expectation that the university monitors activity although reservations etc may mean they will hear if the student really skips everything and investigate (but this will depend on the exact nature of the conference and what the student does). And in those cases it's generally the expectation that the student attends as much as possible. In this case it sounds like there was no such expectation as is common with such semi-organised tours. Note that his Saudi Arabian visa may limit what he can do, but this may not mean the Saudi Arabian government requires the tour organiser monitors activity. (In some cases countries may even go after an organiser if their people consistently violate their visas without there actually being a requirement for them to monitor.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that "failed to monitor" is not the best language Nil Einne. How would you re-structure? Right now, people have not only blanked out the questionable "failed to monitor" verbiage, but actually memory-holed the entirety of the content reported by ABC, WSJ, and CNN regarding the two trips to Saudi Arabia and the fact U.S. law enforcement is currently investigating these trips. By the way, the NYT now has an article also including the trips to Saudi Arabia[4]... but the Wikipedia would rather avoid the subject? XavierItzm (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
A report published in the Daily News has revealed that 12 NYPD officers accompanyied one of the trips to Saudi Arabia. [5]
Would point out that while the above Daily News article uses 'NYU-sponsored trip' in its title, it avoids saying in the text how/in what way NYU 'sponsored' the trip, and uses the word 'organized' instead. Some cops took advantage of a package too, how is that relevant to anything? Pincrete (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Dammit, man. If it was in the memory hole, you wouldn't know it was. There's nothing wrong with relaying the facts, it's just the supposition we can do without. Say the short interlude between trips, and the cost/wealth discrepancy, led to an investigation into what else he may have done there. Don't say what you or whatever reporter thinks he might have done or met; save that bit for when or if the feds find out. And, generally, use neutral language and ignore headlines and taglines when citing. Those are meant to bait, not inform. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I don't like the way you were thinking about this. In politics, the sources can be wrong and we should still cover what they talk about. I mean, many minorities have been viewed negatively based on imaginary traits, and our articles about the history need to cover what people thought. In this case, of course, it is not so clear-cut anyway, since a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia *does* allow Muslims to connect with people who might be hard to talk with privately from the U.S., or to continue on to destinations from which they might otherwise be banned from travel. (Alas, following the sources works the other way, and I can't make any comparisons with, say, East Germany unless I have a source make that connection) To put it briefly, we should avoid original research that takes things out just as much as we avoid OR that adds things. We're just documenting current opinion, like it or not. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a political article, and we're not supposed to document opinion (even though, yes, it has become one and we do). Perhaps this reaction should go in the Reactions article, and the bare facts of the investigation stay here? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Orlando shooting: Mateen's effort to buy armor reported, gun store says". CNN. Retrieved 17 June 2016. on Friday, New York University confirmed he traveled on a pilgrimage to holy sites in Saudi Arabia organized by the university's Islamic Center in 2012
  2. ^ "FBI STILL GATHERING EVIDENCE AT ORLANDO NIGHTCLUB AFTER SHOOTING". ABC 7 - NY. Retrieved 17 June 2016. New York University has found in its records that Mateen was part of a group of 80 people who in 2012 traveled to Saudi Arabia, a trip facilitated by the university's Islamic Center.
  3. ^ PALETTA, DAMIAN; SHALLWANI, PERVAIZ. "Orlando Shooter Traveled to Saudi Arabia on Trip Organized By NYU Center". WSJ. Retrieved 17 June 2016. and organizers don't keep a checklist of whether all the people on the trip are participating in activities on the agenda. [...] Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said law-enforcement officials are searching for details about the Saudi Arabia trips Mateen made
  4. ^ "'Always Agitated. Always Mad': Omar Mateen, According to Those Who Knew Him". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2016. He was religious — he made at least two Islamic pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia
  5. ^ "Orlando gunman Omar Mateen visited Saudi Arabia on NYU-sponsored trip with 12 Muslim NYPD officers in 2012". Daily News (New York). Retrieved 19 June 2016.

Federal government dismissed multiple complaints about Mateen by saying the complainers were racist and Islamaphobic

The federal government knowingly allowed Omar Mateen to murder 49 people because it didn’t want to offend Muslims.

Multiple people had warned the federal government that they thought Omar Mateen was going to commit a terrorist attack, but the government dismissed these complaints because in the hierarchy of political correctness, not wanting to offend Muslims takes precedence over saving the lives of innocent U.S. citizens: http://www.dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/fbi-called-off-investigation-of-orlando-shooter-because-they-thought-his-coworkers-were-racist/

FBI Called Off Investigation Of Orlando Shooter Because They Thought His Coworkers Were Racist http://www.dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/2013-orlando-terrorist-threatened-to-kill-fla-sheriff-and-his-family-fbi-dismissed-threat/ 2013: Orlando Terrorist Threatened To Kill Fla. Sheriff And His Family, FBI Dismissed Threat http://www.tpnn.com/2016/06/17/experts-insist-counter-intelligence-stymied-political-correctness-mateen-investigation/ Experts Insist Counter-Intelligence Stymied By Political Correctness In Mateen Investigation http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/16/fbi-halted-orlando-shooter-investigation-for-infuriating-reason-and-it-got-49-people-killed-353075 FBI halted Orlando shooter investigation for infuriating reason–and it got 49 people killed

74.98.32.144 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if these count as reliable sources, but investigators had been aware of Mateen expressing extremist views before the shooting. See also James P. Hosty.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hindsight is always 20/20, of course. While I'm not against noting something to the effect, saying the government "allowed" the attack is a stretch, and more suited to Infowars than Wikipedia. By that logic, the people who reported him instead of preemptively stopping him themselves are also complicit. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
None of these sources are reliable. Well-sourced content about government lapses, properly weighted, can of course be included in the article; this rubbish cannot. Neutralitytalk 20:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And the complaints weren't quite "dismissed". He was investigated for ten months. The Daily Caller may call that "only" ten months, but it's still almost a year. If you investigated something for ten months and saw nothing, you'd quit, too. It'd be stupid not to. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the FBI would have been informed if Mateen had attempted to buy a firearm during the period that he was a "person of interest". Just as Lee Harvey Oswald was able to buy a mail order rifle despite the FBI having plenty of evidence that he was a political crank, Mateen was able to do something similar.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Would've, could've, should've. I don't know how many times people have complained to the FBI about a suspiciously uppity Muslim since remaining vigilant became a thing, but common sense says it's a lot. Multiple investigations are likely starting and stopping as we type. We only hear of them when somebody isn't caught before they kill, or to a lesser extent when they are. The vast majority are just cases of needless paranoia wasting time and money, like this one was, at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Turns out it's hundreds of thousands. Seven hundred warnings on a typical day, just online. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
James P. Hosty's superiors were furious when they found out about about the letter from Oswald, which was written just two weeks before JFK's assassination. However, Hosty insisted that it contained nothing that would have prevented the assassination. Like Oswald, Mateen had set off some concerns but was not considered to be a violent threat. There must be a huge number of people in the FBI's records who fall into this category.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
We're both probably on file, just for our persistent online chatter at shooting articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That first sentence isn't inflammatory at all... why are we entertaining this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Disney and a gun store had also warned the FBI about Mateen

Disney Warned FBI About Omar Mateen Back in April

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/14/disney-warned-fbi-about-omar-mateen-back-april

Gun Store Owner: We Alerted FBI to 'Suspicious' Customer Weeks Before Orlando Shooting

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-turned-gun-store-suspicious/story?id=39901107

... his reported visit to a gun shop, where he acted so suspiciously while trying unsuccessfully to buy body armor and ammunition that the store owner said he called the FBI...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/

71.182.239.118 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI received some tips about Mateen. That's very different from your original, inflammatory, comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It's notable that on the morning of the 2011 Tucson shooting, a member of staff at Walmart refused to sell Loughner ammunition because he seemed odd. All gun shop staff are trained to do this. Mateen seems to have set off similar concerns, but as previously stated, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Notable, sure. But not remotely supporting the IP's first sentence of the section... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"The federal government knowingly allowed Omar Mateen to murder 49 people because it didn’t want to offend Muslims" is nonsense which belongs in the blogs. However, he was on the government radar and had set off various concerns before the shooting. This is a common feature of mass shootings, as they rarely occur out of the blue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone says they have a name, it's not much of a tip. How would the gun store that didn't sell him a thing provide even a name? --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Florida Department of Corrections

The article currently says "In 2006 and 2007, Mateen worked for seven months as a prison guard for the Florida Department of Corrections; he left the position for an "administrative matter unrelated to misconduct". However, this source says "The man who killed 49 people and wounded 53 at an LGBT nightclub in Florida on Sunday was dismissed from the state department of corrections in 2007 after joking about bringing a gun to a training class, according to records released on Friday." This is significantly different and another red flag missed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, being dismissed after something isn't the same as being dismissed for something, and a recommendation isn't an action. But yeah, it's definitely a hint. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The Florida Department of Corrections wasn't upfront about this initially. State records say that he was dismissed for "administrative termination (not involving misconduct)" but the incident clearly has relevance to his personality and suitability to have a gun. Quote: "He was dismissed shortly after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, which left 32 people dead. The shooting was referenced in a recommendation Mateen be let go from the program, with a supervisor saying Mateen's behavior "is at best extremely disturbing. Omar Mateen was not fit to serve as a member of the FDC team, as he was unable to meet the basic requirements of the correctional officer academy," the corrections department said."[66] In the light of this new information, I now believe that the shooting should not have happened as enough red flags had been raised about his conduct in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That last quote's not in that source, and Googling it finds nothing. That aside, has any official straight-up said the adminstrative termination did involve misconduct after all? If not, I'd suggest complementing, but not replacing, the official reason with the complaint about the joking and sleeping in class. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless I've gone daft, the quote is in the CBS news story Orlando shooter was kicked out of jail guard training from June 17. This has only emerged in the last couple of days. Anyway, since Mateen had not failed any of the requirements on this list, he could still buy a gun. This is a now a lot like Virginia Tech, because there was a mile long list of concerns about Seung-Hui Cho but he was still able to purchase a gun.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If it is, my eyes and browser's Find function are on the fritz. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I see it's too late for that. The article currently not only states with certainty that the joke was the reason, but that he was "fired", despite never being certified. That's only in the headline, not the cited story itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this OK by you? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that was a good edit. A week on, and we now know a lot more about why the Florida Department of Corrections showed him the door. Also, I think that we were getting confused about which quote was involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. Did the corrections department say "In the light of this new information, I now believe that the shooting should not have happened as enough red flags had been raised about his conduct in the past", or did you? There's a quotation mark at the beginning, beside the citation, but none at the end, beside your signature. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh fuck, nevermind. There's a period I should have seen. Though you should use single quote marks inside doubles. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a long day (again). It's just my two cents that enough evidence has emerged that this was an avoidable tragedy. The phrase "administrative termination (not involving misconduct)" isn't as strong as "you're fired", although that is effectively what happened. Also, it is vague and would not necessarily have deterred future employers such as G4S Secure Solutions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"Previous attacks on LGBT nightclubs" section

The section titled "Previous attacks on LGBT nightclubs" should be removed. It is off-topic. The article is about a specific attack, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting attack, not about other attacks on LGBT nightclubs. I am aware that someone might suggest that mentioning other attacks on LGBT nightclubs provides context for understanding this attack. I do not believe a word of it. The 2016 Orlando attack was a unique, specific incident, it is quite unlike other, previous attacks, and nothing in the "previous attacks on LGBT nightclubs" section helps one to understand anything about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 01:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Also agree. United States Man (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that it was a gay nightclub is very important. Also, considering the fact that it was, it seems relevant to include other information on violence against gay/queer people. I do not think we should be quick to find differences between violent incidents against lgbtq people because it is very likely that the fact that this was a bar that catered to gays played a role in it being the site of such horror. Even that upstairs lounge (1970s) is relevant if for nothing else than it was a gay club that was the site of many deaths. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Also disagree. To the extent that the attack was an attack on an LGBT bar motivated by homophobia, it is certainly very much like other attacks on LGBT bars motivated by homophobia, and thereby provides both context for and insight into such attacks. That anyone would think otherwise frankly baffles me. Could you imagine any serious scholar writing a serious scholarly book on this attack without in any way discussing or mentioning other such attacks on LGBT bars? While one may point out the need to edit and improve the section as it previously existed, one certainly may not declare it pointless or irrelevant. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I added this text because I happened across two sources, both about the Orlando massacre, each of which detailed a mostly overlapping set of prior incidents.  That to me seems like proof that secondary sources find these particular events relevant.  Now before I added this, someone had put the UpStairs Lodge attack as a See Also link, which had seemed indefensible at the time because we had no canonical lists to say if that was really of any great relevance or not.  We could go back to a few See Alsos, though I don't like that much.  Also, I didn't know where to put the text so I just tagged it on the end of a section about investigation - after that it kept moving around.  My favorite of the options I saw was when it was in a background section together with some other background about the Pulse event (before the shooting started).  In any case it seems desirable to have to me because, honestly, I had not imagined there had been so few attacks on LGBT clubs in the U.S., and so few of those causing any great number of fatalities. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I moved lower down and renamed the section, I have no strong feelings either way about keeping it. If not kept, the incidents could go to 'see also'.Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It is absurd to call this off-topic. It was an attack on an LGBT nightclub and therefore similar events should be mentioned. All that is required to make the Orlando shooting similar to UpStairs Lounge is that both attacks were deliberate. The motive, the orientations of the victims, and the nature of the event do not change the fact that 49 people are dead because they were at an LGBT nightclub. It's about why they're dead, not about why the perpetrator killed them. My arguments don't matter, though; reliable sources seem to think it's relevant that it was an LGBT club. Roches (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I would merely point out that an attack motivated by internalized homophobia is still an attack motivated by homophobia. First, homophobia is the cause of internalized homophobia. Second, whatever internalized homophobia the shooter may have suffered from, he certainly externalized it in spectacular fashion, unleashing homophobia in its regular variety. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Or he just wanted to kill a lot of people to make a point to the government about vengeance, and went to a familiar spot where he wouldn't look conspicuous and knew lots of people could easily be trapped. If he'd felt more comfortable around straight people, it might have been a straight club. Or he might have chosen this club because he thought gay victims would attract a stronger spotlight in June. There's no "average Joe community" to rally behind average Joes, and minorities in general have been portrayed as brave lovable underdogs by the American media lately. Not saying you're wrong, or that I want my possibility in the article. Just food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe only one of the incidents has its own article, and I don't know of any available list of incidents on Wikipedia. Consequently, I think we need the section. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think one misinterprets the source by supposing it is exhaustive. In any case, I too liked the now absent background section. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I liked the section but feel it likely should be its own list article or something and just linked instead. Computationsaysno (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't believe any such list exists, and only one of the incidents seems to have its own article. Consequently, we'll need the disputed section, at least until such a list or articles come(s) into being. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should request that such a list be made? I believe there was a place to request such things, though my memory in it is a bit fuzzy. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No one seems to care that much, let's let it go. Computationsaysno (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pulse_nightclub_shooting/Archive_5&oldid=1208880107"