Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting

Reactions section

Delete the reactions section already?

This is always the second contentious issue in a mass shooting article, after the name. Everyone's going to say the same thing. We don't need to repeat the same thing, and we don't need to list everyone (or anyone) who says it. We don't need the section at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can at least wait until things die down. United States Man (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A small but representative sample is OK. No doubt President Obama will have something to say. However, we don't need an exhaustive list with flag icons lighting up the page like a Christmas tree and people expressing their condolences, which has happened before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some guy is "leaving it up in case it turns out to be workplace violence." At least that's a new reason. Does it make sense to anyone? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

There is only one reaction, why delete? XavierItzm (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because one thing leads to another. People see shit in Google News, they see a Reaction section here, something clicks and the pile grows. We're powerless to stop it, really, but it's always nice to try. Since you're here, what does workplace violence have to do with anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

The San Bernardino terror attack was initially classified as a possible workplace violence incident: "It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said" http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/

OK. So what does the San Bernardino shooting have to do with this? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Well, couldn't this Orlando situation be another workplace violence incident, like Fort Hood? Even the FBI for now only "suspects" a link to Islam in Orlando. By way of contrast, Fort Hood is officially classified as "workplace violence" (see wikipedia: " The Defense Department currently classifies Hasan's attack as an act of workplace violence" Better not jump to conclusions yet. XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the most confusing bit for me is how this reaction doesn't mention workplace violence, Islam, Fort Hood, San Bernardino or whatever. Just condolences and getting to the bottom of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that this was "workplace"-related, and what little is known about Mateen strongly suggests otherwise. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You could say exactly the same about San Bernardino, yet the maximum political authority in the United States initially stated it could be workplace violence. You could also say the same about Fort Hood, yet until today it is officially classified as "workplace violence." So, this could eventually also be classified as "workplace violence," don't you think? Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My only problem is it getting cluttered with unnecessary junk. If we can keep that down, it will be good. United States Man (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We just got our first "thoughts and prayers" from an entirely uninvolved politician. I give it an hour before Trudeau shows up. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise, maybe it could be put in a collapsable section

Reactions 2

I would like to suggest that we limit reactions from politicians to the mayor, the governor, and the president, especially since it's an election season.- MrX 16:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See "Delete the reactions section already?" above. Agreed on not getting bogged down here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the existing section.- MrX 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Individuals who don't have current jurisdiction over the incident do not need to be quoted. I'd be OK with legislators representing Orlando/Florida. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to include some notable reactions from major political figures internationally. This does not interfere with the election and is very common for such articles. AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Britain has its own problems. Reading that Cameron didn't like this teaches nobody anything useful. But yeah, if something actually notable is said, maybe.InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

"Don't quite see the connection with the EU referendum to be perfectly honest. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see the connection to this incident. His condolescences are appreciated, but (with all respect) he's just some guy from another country telling us what he thinks. There are a lot of those, and they don't add understanding to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all that meant. That's his business, this is Orlando, Florida and Washington's. And this wasn't meant to sound anti-Francophone. Picked an arbitrary celebrity, then thought better of it after I saved. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely not include international reactions, which will be predictably trite and critical of US gun control. Just say no to soapboxing.- MrX 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am outraged that we don't have a separate article with lost of nice colourful flags and the identical reactions on Twitter of the foreign secretaries of Seychelles, East Timor, Nauru and Suriname. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start getting defensive about gun control, now. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Same with the governor of Idaho or the mayor of Miami or [insert famous actor here]... they're uninvolved bystanders, whose opinions are no more notable than mine. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should have a laundry list of reactions (all essentially saying the same thing) from foreign officials around the world. I would be OK with a generic overview sentence, if desired ("Following the shooting, condolences were sent from many foreign heads of state and government around the world" + cites). Neutrality^talk 17:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's usually the compromise. Best to find a compilation article, rathen than clutter up the reference section. Something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a list of quotes, but we should add a summary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The international reactions section has been re-started now by several editors AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions again

The article is developing exactly the sort of flagcruft section that was warned against and consensus is against. Time for a prune, but I don't want to edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mostly major countries like India, Brazil and the UK are listed along with the reaction of the first Muslim to be elected Mayor of London. That's not flagcruft. There may have been a weak consensus against before but new editors have added the material. Let them have a say here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the exhaustive list (which threatens to overwhelm the article as it grows and grows inexorably) with a two-sentence summary (diff). I think it is especially a bad idea to directly cite to Tweets. We should absolutely wait for the press to synthesize all this, rather than attempt to do it ourselves. Neutrality^talk 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I support your change, this is a much better approach. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pope

• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/12/pope-francis-condemns-massacre-at-florida-nightclub.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not really needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Really? The pope's reaction to an event is not worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we post this we might as well post all international responses, which were initially listed but later removed per consensus. So I'd only support adding Pope comments if other international reactions are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the Pope's reaction is not worth mentioning, any more than the Dalai Lama's is.- MrX 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pope is technically a head of state, so I'd say it's more worth mentioning as much as any other head of state. That's only if all international responses are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a brief paragraph summarizing reactions by notable individuals would be appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now comments by Lars Løkke Rasmussen have been added. I realize we don't need a list of people and their quotes, but this article should note that people around the world are responding to this incident. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that international statements are back in the article, I'd have no objection to adding the Pope's comments. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe a section about an international response, including the Pope's, should be included. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun control reactions

There will likely be some notable reactions, but right now the only entry is a report that one lawmaker plans to introduce a bill that doesn't seem to be directly related to this subject or the perpetrator - should this be maintained? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I say leave it out. Most of the gun control centred reactions are mere politicking. (ie. the charade in the US congress over the moment of silence for the victims). At the end of the day as soon as there is a shooting of strong national salience the gun-grabbers come out in full force. But at the end of the day they merely 'fetishize' firearms. Gun control stops as many murders as the law against murder. I don't think it is fruitful or informative to report on politicians using dead people to further their political agenda (whatever it may be). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

post script: I think there is an angle that is important though namely that the perp. was able to secure two firearms despite federally mandated background checks (incl. a waiting period) despite several inquiries by the FBI. That kind of information is important, just not the politicians' reactions.- A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it me ...

Or is this section bloatcrufty again? (No, I don't care that "bloatcrufty" is not a word. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not just you... wish we could get site-wide consensus about these sections... (preferably to do away with them) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume there will be a discussion about the appropriateness of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a summary of notable reactions is appropriate (like the current president, governor, and mayor), but YES it is getting "bloated" especially with non-notable reactions such as from current candidates for president, mayors of other cities, award ceremonies commenting on it, etc. Stuff like that would make more sense in the sub-article, though some people are bent on deleting that and putting all the bloat back in the main article. --Flipper9 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

That's always the third issue, after the name and the reactions. Shall we wait for investigators to determine motives for once, or continue to follow the catchy headlines, and display a gigantic terrorism infobox and tiny category listing? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Some caution needed. I always remember the media deciding initially that the 2011 Norway attacks were likely the work of Islamic extremists, but as we know now, a single white extremist was responsible. Details will emerge about the shooter, but sometimes a motive is harder to pin down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This could be workplace violence, exactly like the mass shooting in Fort Hood in 2009, or like San Bernardino, which was originally considered to possibly have been a workplace violence incident. Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perp's father now claiming it has "nothing to do with religion" and was prompted by the perp's reaction to seeing gay men kissing a few months earlier. More reason to exercise caution in regard to the motive. Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Devout Muslim" label, sourced Fox News, seems debatable too.--Dans (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that Fox News may be debatable to some. What about of the terrorist's very own imam states that the murderer attended his mosque "three or four times per week"? Is Fox still debatable? XavierItzm (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be pretty politically incorrect to imply that a Quran-inspired attack had something to with Islam in the article, but that's the truth and we will have more sources on it soon as the police will release details. --Pudeo' 15:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be careful here and not jump to conclusions. These things may seem "obvious" years after with the benefit of hindsight, but this is still very much a breaking news/developing story. I would shy away from ascribing motives as of now, short of a mention that various leads are being pursued. GAB^gab 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell what was going on inside the head of a mass shooter at the time, particularly if he died in the incident. We still don't really know why Adam Lanza carried out the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mateen may have left behind some sort of manifesto explaining his actions, but if he hasn't, a certain amount of joining the dots will be needed to figure out why he did it. Tabloid sourcing should be avoided in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One of Wiki's strengths in reporting is that we don't have to sell papers or collect hits today. We will all know so much more in a few hours, and infinitely more tomorrow. It's fine to wait. Profhum (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, terror isn't terrorism, and "terror attack" is merely a suggestive buzzword. Fools a lot of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

It's getting increasingly clear (CNN, Fox, and RT have said it) that this was an Islamic Terrorism incident. Additionally, there are chances this may be linked to ISIS. This should be put into infobox. isoham (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"there are chances this may be" doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we shall wait then until it is verified, which it obviously will. Since the reports now say that it wasn't just an Islamic Terrorism incident, but more specifically, an attack claimed by ISIS as well. isoham (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS. I'd consider that indicative of Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The boy who flew into the Bank of America building with a handwritten note pinned to himself shortly after 9/11, the note saying he pldged allegiance to Al Qaeda, wasn't literally a member. Lone wolves who pledge allegiance to a group to make a point may then be retroactively affiliated by the group to claim credit. It may well be terrorism, it may be homophobia, but none of that means ISIS is 'behind' this or that his motivations and affiliations are self-evident. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather good arguments. -Mardus /talk 06:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS probably wasn't directly involved & I'm not suggesting that ISIS should be called the perpetrator of this attack. However, the pledge indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus so far seems to be that his claim of allegiance with ISIS has not been substantiated. This being the case, I think it's wise to edit out things on the page that identify this as being an Islamic terrorist attack.

• "Mateen's parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he'd expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami, but they didn't consider him particularly religious and didn't know of any connection he had to ISIS."

• "But CNN's Salma Abdelaziz, who translated the message and closely monitors ISIS messaging, cautioned about taking the message at face value. She said the language is inconsistent with previous ISIS announcements and that the Arabic word for gay was used rather than an epithet normally used by ISIS. Also, there was no claim that the attack was directed, just an after-the-fact claim the gunman was an ISIS fighter, she said."

Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm frankly disappointed by this morning's newspapers. They have taken a thinly sourced "pledge of allegiance" and inflated it into an IS attack. This contradicts the police lone wolf theory. The evidence now suggests that Omar Mateen was an extremist crank and loser like Wade Page in the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, who is not described as a "Christian terrorist".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear this is an act of Islamic Terrorism. We now have confirmation of his pledge of allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS have formally claimed responsibility (though I can't attest to whether or not they are telling the truth). Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, it's disappointing how the newspapers have handled this. The police are looking at the lone wolf theory, the same as Wade Page. No-one in Syria told Mateen to do this, it just looks better for the newspapers to scream "Islamic terror attack" on the front pages. They weren't screaming "Christian terror attack" after the Wisconsin Sikh temple attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur. -Mardus /talk 15:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are expecting to see an Islamic State paystub or an e-mail account in the name of the terrorist @islamicstate.gov before you deem this to have been a terror attack, then you have no idea how jihad terrorism works. XavierItzm (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I have been hearing about this guy being an Islamic leader in Orlando and saying some controversial things about homosexuality shortly before the shooting. If sources cover this would it be notable to include?

Do we know the names of mosques that the shooter attended and if (Redacted) has any connection to them? Ranze (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is NOTAFORUM and it's inappropriate to make unsourced speculations about living people.- MrX 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You missed a spot redacting. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Got it. thanks.- MrX 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop trying to police wikipedia talk please.. there is no need to enforce strict policy on a talk page. Any information or questions are welcome here, regardless of strict absolute policy. Enforce policy when someone goes overboard. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I see that Islamic Terrorism has been added to the list of motives. The list now looks like Mass shooting, Mass murder, Islamic Terrorism, Hostage taking, Domestic terrorism, Hate crime. Mass murder, Domestic terrorism now look redundant due to Mass shooting, and Islamic Terrorism respectively, and should be removed. Further, Hate crime should mention Homophobia in parentheses. isoham (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, sources only supported him having homosexual men, not fearing them, do not abuse "phobia". Ranze (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Homophobia has been corroborated by the perpetrator's former co-worker, who also added racism to the mix. This and the nature of the locale strongly suggest, that adding 'hate crime' is warranted. -Mardus /talk 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

would it be called a "hate crime" if it was a "straight" bar? 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless their straightness motivated the crime, no. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the patrons "gayness" motivated this crime. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct on that. 175.156.169.55 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved? - MrX 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has happened many times, and after the initial fuss has died down, the exhaustive flagcruft lists are pruned back to a few notable examples in plain text sentences. This will happen here in due course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm. Let it run its course, and it will be fixed later. I, for the record, am in support of keeping that section short. United States Man (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true. There have been many attempts to sneakily "prune" after the event, most have failed. Attempts to "prune" at the Paris or Brussells articles have failed. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only in summary form. I support only two or so sentences along the lines of my formulation here (the current status quo at the article):

Many people on social media and elsewhere expressed their shock at the events and extended their condolences to those affected, including presidential candidates, members of Congress and other U.S. political figures, foreign leaders, Pope Francis, and celebrities. [citations]

I do not support a list (with flags or otherwise), and I especially do not support direct citations to Tweets. Neutrality^talk 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This question is far too open-ended. I think, in accordance with long-standing precedent, the article should include some reactions from major/neighbouring world leaders such as the Prime Ministers of Canada, India and the United Kingdom and the President of Brazil for example. The reaction of the first Muslim Mayor of London would arguably be notable. Reactions of every senator or candidate is obviously not notable. The usual contentious problem of whether to include the reactions of minor countries may not be as present as there has been far fewer reactions than there was for the Paris attacks. I question why the reactions list was removed pending the outcome of this discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question is: what is encyclopedic, about a listing of predictable comments from uninvolved people? The answer is: WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. You might as well just copy-paste the same section from an article about a plane crash, and change "plane crash" to "night club shooting".- MrX 20:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• No If someone announces they've become directly involved somehow, beyond thinking and praying, sure. But nobody gains by hearing that so-and-so was as shocked and saddened as the next guy, except so-and-so. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
• Only in summation as per the others. Ian is correct, and many of us have seen exactly the same thing. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Where? AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking through my contribs trying to find it—it was a while ago, sorry. (Edit: I know it was terrorist-related, but I can't find it. You'll just have to take my word for it—or not. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only in summary form. I'd agree with summary form only as a list notable people making generic statements and not really pertinent to the article though listing a summary of some key statements later on might make sense such as "World leaders such as () and as far away as () gave their condolences."—--Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The summary form may be acceptable as displayable alongside international reactions. — With an addition, that Republican legislators and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate who reacted, were widely and strongly criticized:

• for having previously expressed sentiments against LGBT people and causes,
• for voting against legislation expanding LGBT rights, and
• for voting against more stringent regulations of firearms, including assault weapons.

-Mardus /talk 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Find the sources and feel free to throw them in. No one's opposed to that. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, in summary form I don't see why any particular public reaction should be censored from the article, as long as they are from prominent people and given in summary form. If not, why is the Tony awards ceremony given mention? They weren't directly involved, but I think we can all agree it would be the wrong move to take that down. Similarly, conservative media (and mainstream and liberal reactions to it) are buzzing with talk of political correctness etc. This should be mentioned. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of votes here are in favor of summaries, I'm going to reinstate my edit to mention conservative reactions until such a time as the consensus changes. It is not my intention to edit war, and I hope no one perceives it as such. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce you to WP:BRD. - MrX 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you insist on having an attitude about it, what a good idea! From WP:BRD#Discuss:

"Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert: These sometimes get overused on consensus-based wikis"

Take a look at the votes here, and compare to the edit. Exactly one "No" vote, lots of "(Only) summary form" votes. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Current format as of June 13. This version provides a good split between a summary of reactions in the main article, and a second article contain a more detailed list of reactions. This version keeps the main article short, while still covering the full range of reactions. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: List of victims

We have a list of victims of the mass shooting incident in Orlando, Florida, in the article. Shall we allow the list or remove it? --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of full lists of victims, but some people may insist on having one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow for now. As noted in the other RfC, these things tend to trim themselves in time. Based on what I've seen, it will eventually become a summary paragraph with details of the most notable victims. (Full disclosure: I tend to argue for, anyway, based on the argument that these articles can too easily become shrines to the perpetrators.) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For clarity purposes, my !vote refers only to a listing of the dead. If an injured party were to have earned sufficient and encyclopedic notability, that person would get a passage, rather than a spot on a list of injured (that I would oppose). 🖖ATS / Talk 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - not unless any victims were notable in their own right. There looks to be about a hundred dead and injured, and how do we select which to list? All of them? This is going to be some time before a complete and accurate list is available. And what if we list someone as dead according to an early report, and they later pop up unharmed, having nipped out for a private party elsewhere? Or vie versa. We can have a seperate article with a list of victims later on. It will be a long list, sadly. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now. I'd have to say that maybe a separate article listing the dead might be better than listing them in the main article. (yes, yes I know the whole "wikipedia is not for lists" thing) I do think a simple list of the dead is an important part of the article itself, they are part of the event just as much as the name of the perpetrator and the name of the club are. You can then link to notable victims off that if they have their own wikipedia article about them. Just simply linking to the Orlando city website may end up losing the list of dead when it changes. --Flipper9 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow listing of dead. In previous such cases - alas, not this one! - my thought has been that the living are more numerous, so it costs more space to list them; also the BLP and privacy issues are considerably greater. For a living person to have been in a shooting (perhaps especially at a gay event) can be a matter of privacy, but for a person to have died in a place and time is purely a matter of public record. Also, with wounding there are degrees ranging from vegetative state to some cuts from broken glass - with death, there is no debating the severity. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• If It's Wiki's Policy Then Yes. All the victims' names are listed on the Virginia Tech shooting page, as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I would assume we'd do the same for the murdered here. As an encyclopedia it would seem logical that this sort of information would be presented. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xenomorph erotica: To be clear, you're talking about the dead victims only with that article. There are almost certainly going to be some truly heartbreaking, ghastly living casualties here, which we will want to discuss in prose; but we should be somewhat more cautious about dragging living people into this unless they have significant press coverage, which is to say, abandoning the formal requirement to fill out every single name for the wounded as a matter of format. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow for now – A am not the biggest fan of including a list of names, but at this point it seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now and if the article needs trimming later, or if we find notability of a murder victim here we can offload. I seriously object to "privacy" comments above, like going to a gay nightclub is shameful while going to a rock concert in Paris or taking a bus in London or attending a party in San Bernardino isn't. Shame on shaming. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment BLP policy applies to the recently dead. Should we be naming people that were at this nightclub? Also, at least one of the named victims, Kimberly Morris, was employed by the nightclub as a bouncer.^[1] Should be employees be separated out from guests? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - this is a clear violation of privacy rights, of the victims as well as of those they leave behind. We must not give lunatics the option to seek out these victims' families to be harassed for having and tolerating gay family members. Also, a list of names holds no encyclopedic information value. Exceptions would only be such victims, who are the subject of existing Wikipedia articles. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that argument for the living. But deaths are public record - cold, hard, immovable statistics, inevitably cruel, but necessarily so. The argument that the family might be harassed seems ridiculous. The tiny amount of data we give is such a weak starting point for harassment, that anyone capable of doing so is, with absolute certainty, capable of looking up this data for himself. We serve the less determined readership that might simply want to cross-index in a few years whether a particular person who died in Orlando died here, or check whether a local memorial is for someone on this list. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow and expand (for the time being), or eventually move into a new article. A published list of victims means that the victims' families have been contacted. Otherwise, the amount of data about the perpetrator is greater than information about the victims. That doesn't mean that information about the perpetrator (in an article about him) should in any way be reduced. -Mardus /talk 07:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per Cush. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, not for terror attacks that are untargeted. the victims list in the Umpqua Community College shooting included non-religious people and a Jewish professor, showing that it was not targeted at Christians as some in the media were asserting. The victim list in that article made some sense. In this case, there's no indication that the victims were targeted in any way. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the only purpose of a victims list is to show characteristics about the victims (eg whether they were targeted on the basis of religion, or whether they were known to the perpetrator) - not to create a memorial for them. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. The victims were targeted simply because they were people. At a well-known gay nightclub. The perpetrator did not go shoot up an empty building during the day when perhaps cleaning/maintenance was being done and a small number of people were present - he chose a month/time/day when a large number of people would be present so he could kill them. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No - The specific names and ages of the non-notable victims have very little encyclopedic value, and would tend to intrude on the privacy of the victim's families. Unlike newspapers and blogs, Wikipedia has a certain amount of permanence.- MrX 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per Cush and MrX. There would be no problem with summarising such info without using actual names.Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow it. "Per Cush" doesn't really convince me, and by that, I mean NOT AT ALL. These names are publicly viewable. We have lists of victims in articles like Columbine High School massacre and 2015 San Bernardino attack. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How does it contribute to understanding what happened to list the names? These are people, sure, who had names, friends, families, but we are specifically NOTMEMORIAL, which is the principal function of a names list. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be well-established to have a list of victims of mass shootings, see the articles on Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. While some think that it's shameful to have been in a gay club, or be gay, that's homophobia and WP shouldn't countenance it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Because WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable here, so everything related to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL --Norden1990 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to the subjects of Wikipedia article not to internal content. If the perpetrator of this mass-murder is notable (and for WP's purposes right now he is), then in my opinion the people that he killed, giving him that notability, should also be named. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I would also like to mention that WP:BALASPS applies in this case - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject"[bolding mine]. To use the perpetrator's name extensively in the article without mentioning his victims' names appears to give the perpetrator undue weight. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per MrX and WP:5P1. Very little encyclopedic value. I see little rationale for listing the victims that is not emotion-based, "don't elevate the perp above the victims", or "well that's what we did in these other articles"—all extra-policy rationales. A quick visual scan for blue caps shows no policy links in Yes !votes. The list may not be precluded by the letter of NOTMEMORIAL, but I guess the spirit of a policy, added to 5P1, beats no policy at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. If 50 people hadn't died, then Mateen would have no notability. His act was notable, the deaths that occurred are what engender his notability, why aren't the names of his victims notable enough to be included within the article describing the event? In the spirit of WP:5P5, "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions". Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow almost all other US shooting pages list the victims, why should this page be any different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:85E7:10C4:9714:BE82 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. To the extent that this has been done elsewhere in the past see WP:OTHERSTUFF and I would suggest that unless the victims were WP:NOTABLE said lists should also be removed. I would also remind the closing Admin that WP:NOT is WP:POLICY and trumps guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No I don't see a list of victims in any other disaster article with many deaths (plane crashes, 9/11, ect). While this event is terrible and sad and our prayers of course go out to the families of the victims, this is still a encyclopedia and this does not meet our guidelines (primarily WP:NOTMEMORIAL) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Most of the pages on mass shootings in the US do have the victims listed, you are correct that 9/11 and most plane crashes do not have the victims listed (and neither does the Oklahoma City Bombing page) but those have such a large number of causalities that it is not practical to list all of the victims, 50 victims does not seem like too many to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Individual victims should not be listed here unless there is something else worth noting about them. The perpetrator is a notable figure because of the act, not the individual victims. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow: A major reason for the notability are the deaths; Alternative: Add list of those killed to Wikidata, and reference in article. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow: not only is inclusion of a list by name of confirmed fatalities consistent with similar articles (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech), it provides the reader with a valuable overview of ethnicity, gender, and victims' ages, information that is not otherwise easily paraphrased. Please also consider that many people are still scouring news sources for information about the welfare of people they know in the area, and this list is helpful. Lots of people turn to Wikipedia first. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment I thought we didn't know the sexual orientation of many victims. Because I visit, or work in, a mainly heterosexual bar, that means I'm heterosexual does it? Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow This is not merely a disaster, like a plane crash, an earthquake, a tornado, or a tsunami. In those disasters, the prime cause did not seek out and kill people because of some characteristic they had. In this case, the killer apparently hated the victims and killed them because of some characteristic they apparently shared. Additionally, the news media are giving bio details about many of the victims, which is not as common in some natural disaster or plane crash. There has been much more detail than a bare list of names.Edison (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow. I do not usually support the addition of victims' names. On this occasion, I think it illustrates the skewness of the deceased, that is, most of the deceased were male and Hispanic. That is a defining feature of the event. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction

This is quite a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue where it's concerned. Is it really necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dump it. Not helpful or necessary. United States Man (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. No candidate reaction should be necessary. Only the POTUS should count in this case! Keep the article neutralRhumidian (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. This isn't the place for this.Mozzie (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::Well, after Democrats' reaction was added, it does seem necessary now for a WP:DUE standpoint. Parsley Man (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind. Parsley Man (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The best thing would be to get rid of both sides and leave it to a few main statements. United States Man (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think we should remove the Bob Casey Jr statement. A lot of people are calling for gun control, so attributing it to one person is borderline promotional. I removed it once, but was reverted.- MrX 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The gun control aspect is definitely a notable aspect (as it always is in all of these cases), but the Casey statement can go. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. We can have a generalized cite to a secondary source that briefly summarizes the differences in response between the parties (if there are indeed any, and if their are reliable secondary sources that discuss it). But we definetely shouldn't have candidate-by-candidate breakdowns. One editor keeps a quote or text re: Trump's statement, cited to his campaign website (a WP:PRIMARY source). The same editor misleadingly used that cite to support an assertion about the "Republican position"—which is of course inaccurate, as Trump does not speak for every Republican. I've removed it, but this needs more eyes on it. Neutrality^talk 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lots of Republicans have argued that Trump doesn't speak for any of them ... 🖖ATS / Talk 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction should be included, whether we like it or not. It has received too much media coverage for us to ignore it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets wait a few days before doing that at leastBrxBrx (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? We have a "Reactions" section and the man likely to become the next POTUS reacted, with specific policy guidelines (temporary ban). Even The New York Times published an (anti-Trump) article about it. This should not be redacted from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If we include Trump's reaction then we might as well also include Clinton's reaction, and maybe even Gary Johnson's reaction. Just so we know we have all bases covered. FallingGravity (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again Trump's reaction (especially regarding the American borders) has been included in the "Reactions" section, and people keep trying to emphasize it. Is it REALLY necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is like catnip to the media. They'll cover him if he sneezed weird. As WP:NOTNEWS notes, just because it's reported on doesn't mean it's notable. I say exclude for now and only include if something more comes of it other than the typical media hype. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We have already discussed and arrived at consensus for leaving political commentary out. If someone want to revisit this, fine, but until a new consensus is reached, editors should not be adding such content.- MrX 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick7 is continuing to push for the inclusion of Trump's reaction, and has called every reversion attempt an act of "vandalism" despite my insistence for him to read this section. Parsley Man (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tried adding a different reaction than the one originally discussed here. But, man up. It's a national election year, and as such certain local and national political reactions matter. Most importantly: the Orlando mayor, the Orlando national rep., whoever is running to be the next Orlando Rep, the Florida governor, anyone running to be the next governor, Florida U.S. senators, anyone running to be the next Florida senator, the President, and whoever is running to replace him. This should not be in the least controversial. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting including the statements made by everyone you just listed? Parsley Man (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. How is that not common sense? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, we have a reactions article for that (though that may or may not be deleted down the road). Second off, I'm going to quote United States Man from down below: "If Trump's statement is included, statements from other candidates must be included, and that goes against what we were trying to do with this section by keeping it short and trimmed down." Parsley Man (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The AfD on the reactions article seems to be leaning delete but to keep the important ones in the article; thus, it might be circular logic. I agree with Kendrick7's point that since this is an election year in the US, at the minimum we should include reactions from that list of people somewhere - in the main article, if the reactions article is deleted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• It seems that people are adamant on including false information on Trump's reaction. He did not say all muslims are to blame and muslim imigrants are a threat to national security. I am replacing the clearly biased section with what he ACTUALLY SAID in his speech. TJD2 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2016

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → 2016 Orlando nightclub attack – Since this has been classified as a terrorist incident, it should be moved to attack via Wikipedia precedent on these kinds of things. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. Do research something before arriving on a conclusion. Also please see WP:OTHER, you cannot use other articles for justifying changes to another article. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - That does sound sensible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems prematureBrxBrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. the events are less than 24 hours old. Perhaps reconsider after a week or two when more information is available.Mozzie (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Also: I suspect the page title needs to lose the 2016 at some point, but that can also happen later.Mozzie (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral – Since this seems to have been labeled as domestic terrorism, a move to "attack" to be in line with others, notably San Bernardino, is in order. But I would prefer that it wait until details are ironed out. United States Man (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's wait a week and then evaluate what the sources say and what terms they use. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's both a shooting and an attack, but shooting is more precise.- MrX 01:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As per Neutrality, I would like to see what creditable sources call this event. However, the current title satisfies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per MrX. Doesn't matter much, but shooting seems clearer. "Attack" doesn't have to indicate terrorist attack... whatever that means. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Shooting is a misnomer by implying there was just one or very few victims. This was a terrorist attack. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a tossup between being WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT. Neither is particularly more compelling IMO. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - Alternatively, I propose "Orlando nightclub massacre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 June 2016
• Strong support – per 2015 San Bernardino attack. Cut to the chase. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is first and foremost a mass shooting and Mateen may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It would be unencyclopaedic to use different name for similar things. 2015 San Bernardino attack, the Curtis Culwell Center attack, 2014 New York City hatchet attack, the September 11 attacks. All Islamist terror events in the U.S. homeland. XavierItzm (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was leaning toward weak oppose per NORUSH but, after reading all the above, I'm convinced it'll happen anyway. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Support Alternatively '2016 Orlando Attack' or 'Orlando Nightclub Attack'. Tom W (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tomwood0: '2016 Orlando attack' would mean an attack on the whole city of Orlando, and 'Orlando Nightclub Attack' is not specfic enough (see below). -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There was another shooting associated with the same nightclub in 2013. -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be addressed by the fact that this article is called "2016 ... attack" Epson Salts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, premature rush to judgment. We don't have to get the title right within 24 hours of the event. Or 48, 72, 96, or 120. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also support "orlando nightclub massacre". It's being used quite a bit. These names for recent events develop organically and I believe this is it.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per 2015 San Bernardino attack. President Obama calls this one an "act of terror" - "attack" is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. At the moment the only certainty is that this is a mass shooting from someone who may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings. The present name is clear and precise. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the casualties of the shooting is the highest (for a mass shooting as currently defined) in the history of the United States, overtaking (for lack of a better word) the previous second place, the Virginia Tech shooting. Ergo, precision should dictate here.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a fuckton of rumours going around but at the moment no one actually knows whether it was terrorism-related or not, That aside it being a big mass shooting in the history of the US I'd say "mass shooting" would be correct, –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While some sources have confirmed this to be a terrorist attack, i think an "attack" would require more physical support from the ISIL to truly be considered a terrorist attack such as supplying fire arms, explosives, intel ect. At this point in time it seems ISIL's involvement in this mass life completion event is minimal therefore we should stick with shooting. Attack to me is a broader term that is connotated with more humans being involved. This attack was just a single mentally disturbed recent divorceeBoilingorangejuice (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history"

The lead states "deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history." I'm not sure why a link to the history of the United States is relevant but, more importantly, I don't see why the use of "modern." The term "mass shooting" as used here is restricted to one (or at most a few) perpetrators, and I can't find any evidence of a more deadly mass shooting in US history, period. There may have been events termed massacres that caused more deaths, but that is a different act of violence where one group attacks another group. The use of "modern" leads to the question "when in pre-modern US history did a deadlier mass shooting happen?" Roches (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I had earlier supported "modern," but now it just seems to be the wrong way to go with this. I think we should just go back to "deadliest mass shooting" with the understanding that attacks/events involving Indians, military, and numerous shooters are not included. United States Man (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's really hard to say, since mass shootings weren't exactly one of the main topics covered in the news during the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. Parsley Man (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This topic was already discussed fairly extensively above; There have been a number of massacres with higher casualties. For a better overview, I recommend looking at the previous discussion, under a similar header to this. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, many people have been killed in shootings in the USA in the past, but they weren't carried out by deranged individuals with a semi-automatic weapon that occurred within a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The part is question has been changed by me to say this:

The attack is the deadliest terrorism-related mass shooting in United States history,[14] the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history,[15] and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

How is that? Better? Worse? Could probably be better, but the "modern" is gone. United States Man (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's better. The discussion above was about "one of the deadliest" and was resolved with "modern." On List of rampage killers, only the 2011 Norway attacks has a greater number of fatalities than this shooting. As far as I can see, all the Massacres committed by the United States, such as the Wounded Knee massacre, were very different events than what is now called a "mass shooting". The massacres with greater than 50 people killed occurred during wartime and/or with armed persons among the victims; they were not surprise attacks on random victims by one or a few people. Roches (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [Clarification: 'with greater than 50 people killed'.]

This Smithsonian article about Howard Unruh is worth a look. The "Walk of Death" in 1949 is generally considered to be the first modern mass shooting by a deranged individual in the USA. This type of incident is not the same as Wounded Knee. There is a clear psychological profile of a person who does something like this, and Mateen already seems to fit in with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this is different from the Wounded Knee massacre doesn't resolve the issue. The Wounded Knee massacre was still a mass shooting, i.e., the shooting of a large number of people. There is nothing in the text that explains or qualifies that this concerns a lone gunman, a "rampage killer" etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at definitions for "mass shooting"? The definitions vary, but in the broadest sense, it's an event where a mass of people are shot. By that definition, Wounded Knee is definitely more deadly. Similarly the Orlando event can be defined as a massacre by many definitions. I've edited the lead to be more clear about a single gunman, which leaves no ambiguity here. More discussion is yet needed. I should note a few reliable sources, such as RT, do consider Wounded Knee a more deadly mass shooting. Misinformation by the media to sensationalize topics is far too common. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, this paints an interesting picture. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You've fixed the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Title

Change the Title to "2016 Orlando nightclub massacre". The word "shooting" used to describe the incident is too broad and loose. "Massacre" seems more appropriate. --Alsamuef (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems likely that all of the people who died were shot, which isn't a great surprise given the ease with which powerful guns can be bought in the USA. There is also a rename proposal at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Requested_move_13_June_2016.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people were shot. But that seems secondary to the fact that it was a massacre. Unless there is a reason why the means of the massacre is more important than the massacre itself, the title should be reworded to reflect its nature and significance. Shootings occur daily in the US, but that doesn't make them really significant. What makes this incident significant is that the outcome was a massacre, not just a shooting. Alsamuef (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's something of a grey area, as Wikipedia has Luby's shooting although it is often referred to as Luby's massacre in the media. Wikipedia does have Port Arthur massacre (Australia) as this is the WP:COMMONNAME of the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine shooting... I think "massacre" is a sensationalist word, and many articles use "shooting." A "massacre" evidently is a mass killing of a group of people by another group. The lists of massacres vs. lists of rampage killings state this distinction. Roches (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This incident actually caused a widespread reaction and interest precisely because it was a massacre, not because some tabloid is being sensationalist. The fact that other articles use the word shooting don't make the word "shooting" in the title of this entry the most suitable, only consistently less suitable. Alsamuef (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Shooting relates to how the mass killing was performed. The Waco siege is titled as such, with a redirect from Waco massacre. The massacre part would come in, if there were very different or multiple means used by the perpetrator to kill the poor people. -Mardus /talk 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A "Shooting" does not imply a massacre or killings in the first place. There was a hostage situation in this incident and yet nobody is referring to it as the "Orlando hostage situation" or whatever. Because that's not what made the incident notorious. Shootings by themselves are not notorious in the US, they occur almost daily. The precise way how the massacre was carried out is quite irrelevant to the definition of massacre. I would refer to the definitions found in reputable dictionaries instead of making up arbitrary definitions. Alsamuef (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggest we wait a week and then survey reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is a terrorist attack. It was perpetrated by an individual who pledged allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS has claimed credit for his attack. If one commits an act and so plainly gives his motivation as he did in his 9-1-1 call and still cannot be called a terrorist, I don't know what is.   Spartan7W §   02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You're aware that we already call him a terrorist? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed statement from Daily Beast

I have removed this: "Conversely, a former high school friend and coworker said that despite reports of Mateen's homophobia, he had no obvious conflicts with him and other coworkers who were also gay." This is an anecdotal report from Daily Beast and it is not necessary to tell the other side of the argument with someone's recollections. Roches (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a reliable source & shouldn't be removed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Police officer: In uniform or "plainclothed"; seperate paycheck from the nightclub

Should the article say if the police officer was uniformed or "plainclothed"? "Working extra duty", is that a euphemism for working as a security guard, and receiving a paycheck from the nightclub? 178.232.232.150 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, "extra duty" means a business pays the local police to assign an officer to their location or event. Will depend on local practice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Several sources say the officer was uniformed but off-duty, which implies that he was being paid directly by the club for his presence. Sources include the BBC. Opus131 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Get rid of "2016" in the title

Years are usually only added when there might be some confusion to what attack is being reffered to, as usually the attack is something very general like the "Paris attack", which could refer to a lot of things. But what would "Orlando nightclub shooting" possible be confused with? Other articles like the Curtis Culwell Center attack and the Charleston church shooting obviously don't include the year in the title because it's very specific. So can we get rid of the "2016" in the already long specific title? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much standard practice to have the year in the title as it adds clarity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm... my initial reaction was similar to ianmacm's, but I'm questioning that. Do we really need that degree of disambiguation? 2016 Orlando shootings or Orlando nightclub shootings would work I guess. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire isn't 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire after all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Add to that example Columbine High School massacre and Boston Marathon bombing. But then there's also 2012 Aurora shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering the examples so far, I would change 2012 Aurora shooting to Aurora theater shooting. So for me it looks like removing 2016 is OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, exactly. Nobody who's gotten to this page ever thought "Oh no, I was thinking of the 2014 Orlando nightclub shooting", because none of that exists on Wikipedia or real life. We shouldn't be overly specific on Wikipedia either. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed "2016" myself. True, there may have been no other prominent shootings at Orlando nightclubs, but "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" is still clearer and more precise than "Orlando nightclub shooting", as it removes any possible ambiguity. Furthermore, the "2016" part indicates that the event is significant among events that occurred during 2016 - without it, readers are left with a name that doesn't truly indicate the importance of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with It's pretty much standard practice, Ian. For just one example, Umpqua Community College shooting, and I've no doubt I could produce ten more recent ones if I had the time. As for clearer and more precise, sure, and it would also be clearer and more precise to say "2016 Orlando, Florida nightclub shooting", since we otherwise might give the impression we're talking about a night club named Orlando. WP:CONCISE should be our guide. If no disambiguation is needed, we don't disambiguate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The inclusion of 2016 in the title won't make anything clearer since there's nothing to clarify regarding the year. Unnecessary verbosity in the title. Alsamuef (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not verbosity in the least. "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" helps indicate the importance of the event - a title such as "Orlando nightclub shooting" doesn't indicate the importance of the event at all. A "shooting" could refer to the murder of a single person, for instance. So it's a poor title. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that it has zero support in the guidelines. We generally don't make 'em up as we go. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors are always expected to use common sense. In this case, I'm using my judgment, and it's telling me "2016" should not have been removed. Your reply is really not relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your reply is really not relevant. Ok, done talking to you. @Ianmacm:, I'd suggest we start RM now, as the quickest and most efficient path to resolution. Didn't notice that other RM in progress, buried deep in the TOC forest. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, You may have a good point re "shooting". "Massacre" may be better and is being used by major news sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• AFAIK, there was a similar, albeit much smaller shooting in or near the same place in 2013. -Mardus /talk 08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I support this, having the 2016 in the title is like telling people that this is an event that this happens every year. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fussed on this and will support the consensus. However, please let's not have any more changes to the article title unless there is a clear consensus over a period of several days. There is already a formal discussion running on this and it should be allowed to run its course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines are certainly relevant, Mandruss, but WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." "2016" is relevant information, and its inclusion in the article title does not make it unreasonably long. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the people searches for "Orlando nightclub shooting" not "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" but ok. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'Fully support' removal of redundant 2016 in title. Mootros (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removing 2016 from the title as unneeded disambiguation.- MrX 10:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose If people had read Pulse (nightclub), they'd see there was apparently a "major" shooting at that nightclub in 2013. Of course, people are lined up to AfD that article, at which point you can go back to merging this without disambiguation because what could Wikipedia not know already? Wnt (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article for the other shooting, and from the looks of it there never will be. It's so "major" the one citation for it is the online archive of a local hardcopy newspaper. We don't need to disambiguate from things not covered at Wikipedia, and we can do so if and when the need arises. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case I think the best move is to the title Orlando nightclub massacre, which follows in the footsteps of Columbine High School massacre, where far less people were killed. If anything qualifies as a massacre, it's this. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong support: Utterly redundant. There is no confusion as to which shooting. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. On the fence regarding: Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - In my experience we don't disambiguate unless disambiguation is needed, and we don't disambiguate from things that don't have Wikipedia articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep 2016 — The club was the scene of a shooting already in 2013 (article paywalled), so 2016 matters a lot. -Mardus /talk 16:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Would moving to Orlando nightclub massacre be acceptable to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, because most people are very prone to confuse the 2013 and 2016 events with both the "shooting" and "massacre" words, and they'd lean to mean this year's event than the one that happened in 2013. "2016" should be in the article name, whether or not the article about the 2013 shooting exists, as 2016 would inform people, that there was a shooting event x years before that one at exactly the same place (even if an article about it does not exist). -Mardus /talk 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mardus, In your reasoning did you take into account that the 2013 shooting is a very obscure event that so far only appears to have been reported in one local newspaper in 2013 that is behind a paywall? I ask this because of your comment "most people are very prone to confuse the 2013 and 2016 events". --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on the notion, that the 2013 event should not be forgotten or thought of as trivial. I am sure there are additional sources with free-to-access information about the 2013 shooting. If the current article name were without a year, then it would suggest, that this was the only shooting, which is not true. Omitting the year would certainly invite confusion, if one event were named a shooting, and the other a massacre, because the latter is predominantly known as a shooting, too. -Mardus /talk 15:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mardus, From your response, it looks like you haven't taken into account that the 2013 shooting is a very obscure event. And if you are sure that there are more sources for the 2013 event than the one behind the paywall, could you give a link? I tried googling and I couldn't find any. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to find some more sources about the 2013 incident tonight, but the fact that the 2013 event happened, should be argument enough, even if it was not reported widely by the media. The 2013 shooting would not have merited its own Wikipedia article, for example, because its nature was regarded that year as one of many shootings of similar calibre (if you forgive the unintentional pun). Note also, that there's another argument for keeping the year (mentioned elsewhere in Talk), and that is for the use of the event's name in the future of +5 / +10 years, when the year indicates the timeframe of the event. For example, there is 9/11, which wholly consists of a date. -Mardus /talk 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mardus, I look forward to seeing what you find. In the meantime, what do you know about the 2013 shooting? Was anyone hurt?

BTW, here's the citation for the 2013 shooting from the Wikipedia article Pulse (nightclub).

"Article". News-Press. Fort Myers. May 27, 2013. p. B2 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Note that the given title of the article is "Article" and doesn't say anything about a shooting.

I did some searching in the newspaper's archives [2] to see if I could get any more information. I first used the keyword shooting, and I didn't find anything about the cited article. Then I did a search using the keyword Pulse and didn't turn up anything about the cited article. So far it looks like the cited article about the 2013 shooting may not exist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. At Talk:Pulse (nightclub) I started a section Citation for 2013 shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Usually the "2016" would only need to be here if there was a prev article (2013 in this case) however there is no article and so there's no need to disambiguate - I don't mean this in a disrespectful way (and I apologize if it comes out that way) but yes the 2013 was obviously important etc etc however as it doesn't (and will unlikely to) have an article here it shouldn't have any relevance to the naming of this article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Unless we're going to move this page to include Pulse (the location's name) like some of the other notable mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc...), I cannot support removing 2016 in the article title. Yes, there may have been a previous shooting at the same venue, but we currently don't have a page on that and therefore that isn't the major concern (and in fact if a move to Pulse nightclub shooting or something similar is made, we can incorporate the previous shooting into that article). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is the only one so far... Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment See also #Requested move 14 June 2016 below. General Ization ^Talk 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Like the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, just a little different. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
• Support – The 2016 is not needed for identification or disambiguation and is just a detail that belongs in the main text. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Merely a gay friendly nightclub

Are there any references from experts in the field, explaining why this is not merely a gay friendly nightclub, rather than a gay nightclub? Are all the "gay claims" leaning on the club's opinion on its website? What about the massacre at the Paris concert - was that a 5 percent gay concert venue ( and 95 percent other)? If everybody else jumps from the "mountain of encyclopediocity", what would you ... 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If one was married and had children in college, (and was a guest) and then died at the nightclub - would that under any circumstance mean that the person was gay? 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The media immediately described it as a "gay nightclub", with the club's own website being the major factor. It will be interesting to learn how many of the victims were gay men, as they may not all have been.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If a massacre occurs at a Christian church, and some of the patrons are non-Christians, that doesn't mean it isn't a Christian church. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Did the club have an ordinary business license or did it have a gay bar- or whatever business license? In many countries a Christian church will have to file as such, for tax purposes - but probably not so in Saudi Arabia. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any difference between an "ordinary" bar license and a gay bar license. What matters to us is that virtually all primary and secondary sources refer to Pulse as a gay bar or gay nightclub. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The list of victims already suggests that a fair number of the victims may not have been gay men. However, the Pulse website describes itself as "Orlando's premier gay night club" and this is probably why it was chosen as a target. There must be plenty of other night clubs in Orlando.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps gay friendly would be the most encyclopedic term. First and foremost this is an encyclopedia; if notable opinions from experts are lacking - in regard to the difference between "gay-friendly bar" and "gay bar", then wikipedia can decide to say "gay friendly bar/nightclub, often called 'gay bar/nightclub' in folksy parlance". There are plenty references to the folksy parlance (or the media). Are there enough references to support that the bar/nightclub is in fact "gay friendly"? 46.212.238.28 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The white-washing of the anti-gay hate crime nature of this attack continues. This is a gay nightclub. Not "gay friendly". Of course, straight people are admitted as well (often with gay friends). Sources have described this as a gay nightclub and overwhelmingly recognise the anti-gay hate crime nature of this incident. We should as well. AusLondonder (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources indicate that it's a gay nightclub, not a gay friendly nightclub, though I'm not sure what the difference would be. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is a gay nightclub, how is that relevant? This was an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil. Simply calling it a nightclub ought to suffice.108.38.35.162 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:AusLondonder (at 18:17). The fact that it's a gay nightclub, is enough to suggest the attacker's motive that early into the aftermath of the event, without rushing to judgement. -Mardus /talk 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The site of the attack had a very distinctive function as a gathering place for the LGBT community in Orlando. Calling it just a "nightclub" would be whitewashing of the first order. Whether or not this function was a prime motivation for the attacker remains to be seen, but I can see no point in describing the site as something other than what it was. General Ization ^Talk 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism?

The label Islamic Terrorism has been repeatedly added to the infobox as a description for the type of shooting. I'm not aware that investigators have arrived at such a conclusion. Most recently, Darkside Of Aquarius re-added it with this source: [3], which as far as I can tell, doesn't support such a determination at all.

I would like to get other editor's thoughts on whether we should label the shooting an "Islamic Terrorism" shooting, or not. Please indicate your support or opposition below.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

• every reputable news source is reporting that this attack has a clear Islamist motive, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs)
• We have about as much reliable sources calling the motive "homophobia" or a "hate crime" as we do calling it Islamic terrorism. Either we should abstain from indicating any motive whatsoever until sources become more refined and explicitly clear, or Islamic terrorism should be included alongside homophobia/hate crime. So I support it, conditionally. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs). --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• He pledged allegiance to ISIS. He celebrated as 9/11 was happening. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And if true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• He pledged allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS has claimed credit for his attack. He was a Muslim, he was previously investigated for possible terrorist ties. By pledging allegiance, and by the group to whom allegiance was pledged claiming credit, it is an Islamic terrorist attack.   Spartan7W §   02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  ISIS can opportunistically claim credit since they feel that furthers their cause, but that doesn't mean they actually had anything to do with it before the fact. That's the question we should be asking. he was previously investigated for possible terrorist ties - Any found? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• I have not yet seen a reliable source that plainly makes such a claim. Several have speculated, but speculation is not fact.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I just made a post below at the same time as yours, saying pretty much the same thing. While he apparently made a phone call saying that he was in ISIS, there is no evidence that he actually was. His father claimed he was homophobic and not particularly religious, which doesn't fit the bill for ISIS members normally. Religious extremism means that they are very religious. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources do call him a "devout Muslim". Also, his father's claims that it "wasn't religious" can't really be taken seriously, especially now that he's released a video saying "God will punish those involved in homosexuality". — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also oppose, this is largely due to media hype. As I've said, the media was not plastering "Christian terrorism" over the front pages after the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Wade Page and Omar Mateen are both lone wolf extremists. The consensus is that the ISIL link is thin and dubious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But the difference here is, Wade Page never claimed allegiance to a known (Christian) terrorist organization; Mateen did. Also, from what I've read it doesn't seem that Page's religious identity is even confirmed. Many white supremacists are now non-religious or have reverted to neo-European paganism and deride Christianity because of its Middle Eastern source. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, this CNN cite is instructive: "The man responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was described by an ex-wife as emotionally unstable, had been interviewed by the FBI over potential terror links and pledged allegiance to the ISIS during a 911 call, sources say. And a former co-worker of 29-year-old Omar Mateen, who authorities say killed 49 people in a massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub early Sunday, claimed he saw the attack coming. "He was an angry person, violent in nature, and a bigot to almost every class of person," said Dan Gilroy, who was a security guard alongside Mateen for about a year between 2014 and 2015, according to CNN affiliate WPTV-TV. Gilroy, a former police officer, said Mateen's behavior was so concerning that he quit working with him." This sounds more like George Hennard Mark Two, with a well known set of psychological traits for a mass shooter in the USA. However, the definition of a terrorist is always in the eye of the beholder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose using Islamic terrorism and Islamism/Islamist, because officials are making claims on condition of anonymity, the event was hailed by one or two IS-related organisations only after the fact, and a video of the perpetrator (per title above) suggests motivations based on strong homophobia. In the same vein, "act of terror" (used by officials) and "terrorist attack" (use avoided by officials) are two different beasts, because of the way the terrible event was organised. What gave the perpetrator the inspiration is not what aided and abetted his actions. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Wait until a preponderance of major mainstream news outlets, at minimum, explicitly and without qualification call it Islamic terrorism (or use some clearly equivalent language). I'm not going to get specific as to what will constitute that preponderance for me, but we're not even close at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose using Islamic terrorism and Islamism/Islamist, I also removed 'perpetrated by ISIL' category. At present all sources are questioning whether any solid link exists to any organisation. When the dust is settled we can rethink. There is enough speculation flying around without WP contributing to it. Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think that if somebody pledges allegiance to ISIS, it is safe to say there is An Islamist motive. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I pledge my allegiance to ISIS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI should at your door any time now. JOJ ^Hutton 14:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamist motive" is not the same thing as "Islamic Terrorist". We still need sources that plainly say he was an "Islamic terrorist" or that the attack was an "Islamic terrorist" attack. Anything else is WP:OR.- MrX 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so. I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism - A fact

The gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS. Regardless of whether or not he was in contact with the organisation, he is clearly sympathetic toward them and carried out the attack in the name of an Islamic organisation. This is clearly a terrorist attack, perpetrated by an islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, of course it is. And it will be fought tooth and nail on here, so be prepared for frustration.  :-) 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are cases where people have joined radical Islamic organizations, spent months in training with them, and then done wicked things. This isn't one of them. The "pledge of allegiance" may have been due to mental instability, and the ISIL claim of responsibility is dubiously sourced. Like it or not, some people in the USA have easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Omar Mateen was one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mental instability doesn't preclude one from carrying out an act of Islamic terror. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On this issue, Ian, I totally disagree with you. Sorry. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't just keep using original research to make sources say something that they haven't said. Adding the word "clearly" to your arguments doesn't make such speculation factual.- MrX 14:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so? I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim and his history though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another source here: "Despite Mateen's 911 call expressing support for Islamic State, U.S. officials said on Sunday they had no conclusive evidence of any direct connection with foreign extremists. "So far as we know at this time, his first direct contact was a pledge of bayat (loyalty) he made during the massacre," said a U.S. counterterrorism official. "This guy appears to have been pretty screwed up without any help from anybody."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because a terrorist is a lone wolf, it doesn't preclude him from committing acts of Islamic terror. I don't understand how anyone can realistically claim there wasn't a religious motivation in here. It's sheer insanity. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

History is rife with people claiming a religious motivation for heinous acts when their true motivation was eventually shown to be something else (profit, accumulation of power, reinforcement of ego). Let's not take a murderer's word for what was his true motivation, barely 24 hours after the incident and before any investigation can establish his motive. General Ization ^Talk 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He had already been under investigation by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 as a potential Islamic Extremist with links to terrorists. This is clearly a persistent belief of his, and his Islamist leanings have seemingly showed up in his history. The fact he declared that he was carrying this out in allegiance it's Islamic State is evidence enough this was an attack committed by a radical Islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's important to stick to what the sources say. The attack has been described as domestic terrorism by Orlando Police and as an act of hate by President Obama. However, as WP:OR says, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Donald Trump has used the phrase "Islamic terrorism" [4] but law enforcement officials are wary of using this type of terminology without clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Obama didn't even call the San Bernadino attacks Islamic, so I'd take his assessment with a grain of salt. The sources say that he made a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They also state he was known to be a radical Islamist by his coworkers, and the FBI. He was also investigated for potential terror links. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Or an act by someone who thought it would be cool if he was perceived as an Islamic extremist rather than someone who was mentally ill or who simply wanted to experience the thrill of killing a large number of people. Once again, there is at this time no good reason to accept his word for his motivation. General Ization ^Talk 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI - "Daniel Gilroy, a former police officer, worked as a security officer with G4S Security at the PGA Village complex in Port St. Lucie. Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen worked the shift right after Gilroy at the complex's south gate. Gilroy described Mateen as a devout Muslim who brought a prayer mat to work and prayed several times a day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.15.191 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. And from that you want to describe his acts as Islamic terrorism? That (suggesting that if he prayed and went to Mosque, his violence must be evidence of Islamic terrorism) is precisely the problem. People who are devout, and people who go through the rituals that would make them appear to be devout, are entirely capable of doing things that are motivated by something other than their religion. General Ization ^Talk 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No - there were reports that he was "not religious" - as in, going thru the motions and believing in his version of Islam - which are now seen to be false. That he was an Islamist and this was Islamic terrorism is a given, but I am not going down that rathole with extreme leftist editors who deny that. The article will shape itself in the days and weeks to come. 68.19.0.83 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The terrorist's own imam disagrees with you. The terrorist attended his mosque "3 or 4 times a week." XavierItzm (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I must reiterate, that there's a difference in terminology (I'm not going to try to see if capitalisation is correct with some terms): "islamic terrorism" and "terrorist act" both suggest aiding and abetting by an islamist organisation; whereas "act of terror" suggests a lone-wolf action based on a different motive. -Mardus /talk 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They imply nothing of the sort. Any perceived implication is an issue on your part. Islamic terrorism is terrorism inspired by Islamist beliefs. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So much for "facts". Fact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to venture a meta appeal to common sense here. I have 3 years and 24K edits, and I wouldn't presume to argue much with the agreed judgment of General Ization, MrX, and ianmacm, who have 27 years and 150K edits between them. I've had extensive exposure to two of them, and some to the third, and I think I can say that they pretty much know what they're doing. Hope this helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox

Do you agree? --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most certainly. General Ization ^Talk 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. - MrX 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - motive should remain empty until it becomes clear. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, motive is traditionally the most difficult aspect of any mass shooting. It is rarely as clear cut as the media would have you believe in the first 48 hours after the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The perpetrator's self-declared motive is not necessarily the correct one. The motive must be stated by reliable law enforcement sources close to the investigation. Otherwise it is only acceptable to state motives under consideration, and not in the infobox. Roches (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep motive empty (until after very reliable information crops up), because if the parameter value were not empty, then someone would eagerly tack on their own interpretation per original research. -Mardus /talk 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They are being less cautious over at Omar Mateen, both about motive and other things, (I fixed the most obvious). Kudos to those advocating restraint here. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, well, I was busy here today :/ -Mardus /talk 01:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Wait until the FBI confirms. Neutrality^talk 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1. Hell, +2. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Jkeec regarding this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Jujutsuan who just added content there. Seems decently sourced but there's discussion about it on here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Added comment to the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

AP now reporting Islamic motive

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b265896ee37e42039a859e38cf1a3afa/fbi-orlando-gunman-had-strong-indications-radicalization Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop putting a motive inside the "attack type" field of the infobox. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a type of attack. Perhaps it should not be REMOVED Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a motive. A type of attack is bombing, shooting, hostage taking... --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this source offer that is not already well known? was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations ? Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet more proof this is ISLAMIC in nature. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note, Comey said "There is confusion about his motives," in one press conference (businessinsider) The 911 call was described as "bizarre". Comey noted that ISIL is openly fighting Nusra.

Note that if a Sunni Muslim expresses support for Hezbollah (Shiite) then it may be an act of intimidation/boasting.

Note that there is no evidence of he received any weapons, funding or assistance from outside groups.

Maybe wait for Comey to say something clearer over the next 24 hours? -- Callinus (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My spider senses tell me this person was just another typical frustrated american who takes his liberty to gun people down. Yes, there are religious motives and he did seek guidance from ISIS but they seem more like convenient excuses in his particular situation. excuses which are compatible with his life. there is a very good chance this person has no official terrorist connections, and was just an average immigrant. typical frustrated american. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course "spider senses" are not a credible source (they are not meant to be) but this actually is the most likely scenario. It's very sad how so many frustrated Americans have nowhere to turn and nothing to do. So much is spent on punishment and imprisonment and police and hardly nothing is done about proper care and prevention.....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semantic but important point: it's Islamist terrorism, not Islamic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe eve there is a distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to be terribly rude, but thankfully your belief does not influence the definitions of the words. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism needs a move. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be as rude as you wish, User: EvergreenFir, it does not offend me. But I am most likely right in this case, I really do believe this is domestic terrorism. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: I was speaking to Darkside Of Aquarius regarding rudeness and the definition of Islamist vis-a-vis Islamic. No offense intended to you. @Mandruss: I ain't touching that one... I looked at the move log and that was enough to scare me away. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Twas a kind of sideways way of saying, "Current Wikipedia consensus disagrees with you." I'm sure you know that article titles rule on questions of naming, so we're stuck with Islamic whether we concur or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct on that point, Mandruss. 175.156.169.55 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI of related AfD - Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

As it is relevant to this article, I'm letting folks know that I nominated Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and comment if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

accurate count?

The following sections in the article give conflicting information.

"Once the officers got in, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside.[19][24]"

"At least 49 people were killed; approximately another 53 people were injured in the shooting, with many requiring surgery in local hospitals.[34]"

"Thirty-eight people and the perpetrator were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven people pronounced dead later at hospitals."

The first count, 39+2=41. The second states at least 49 were killed. The third, 38+1, indicates 39 dead at scene, plus 11 at hospital for 50. If you add the hospital total to the first count, 41+11=52. I know numbers are going to be off until all details are in, but we might want to add a note that counts are an estimate at this time, because I'm not certain which count here is right. Coolgamer (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The first is based on the Orlando Sentinel timeline cited at the second ref. The second and third are more or less in agreement, as the second excludes the perpetrator while the third includes the perpetrator among the dead. I'm in favor of removing the first, as only one ref among many makes that accounting (which is already discussed above at #Number of deaths). General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this gets cleaned up. I'm here as I saw "Once the officers entered the building, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside" and then "Thirty-eight civilians and the gunman were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven civilians were pronounced dead later at hospitals". We don't know if the 41 total in the first sentence includes the gunman but it's different than 38+1. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Once the officers entered the building," they could not have counted 39 people dead, because the were busy stopping the assailant. -Mardus /talk 15:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary Discussion

I believe the final sentence of the summary is out of place.

Mateen had made 2 trips to Saudi Arabia for Umrah in the preceeding years.

This fits better under the "perpetrator" section as it has no direct involvement with the actions that happened at the nightclub. While it loosely fits where it is at now, it reads poorly. (a.k.a. sounds bad when you read in your head)192.91.173.36 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: It is actually already there. I recommend deleting the summary section sentence.192.31.106.35 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed from lead, ref moved to the statement in the section on Mateen. General Ization ^Talk 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack type in Infobox - Please read

Ok everyone... This is the deal. Attack type in this article's Infobox refers to the type of attack meaning the weapons used - guns. bombs. whatever... It does not refer to the motives or if the attack was some specific type of terrorism.
From Template:Infobox civilian attack:
type – The type of attack (e.g. Suicide bombings, Bioterrorism, etc.)
So. "Attack type" does not refer to motive or terrorism or delineating what type of crime this was.
Therefore, according to Template:Infobox civilian attack, which is itself one of the subsections of the Manual of Style. all the references to Murder/Terrorism/Crime that are now listed under "Attack type" do not belong in that section. They should be removed.
Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this especially since many of those topics either overlap or are not necessarily supported by current sources (especially all this debate about terrorism). For the time of this discussion I am going to remove them because they are against guidelines though if this discussion finds otherwise they may be readded. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree based on instinct. But Bioterrorism in the example only muddies the issue. Why didn't they say "biological agents" or something? Bioterrorism is a terrorist motive for the use of biological agents. So the letter of the doc doesn't help the case much. A better case, imo, is that the "Motive" field is a better place for those things.
And then only after motive has been more clearly established. As usual in these things, people need to s l o w ..... d o w n .
So, yes, I support removal of Domestic terrorism, Hate crime, and Islamic terrorism from Attack type at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. They should be removed.- MrX 22:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a comment stating as much to the infobox. Hasn't seemed to work, unfortunately. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed to change the example for type at Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#Bioterrorism as an example for the type field, per my comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Turkish newspaper in Reactions section

There have been various version of the following added to the reactions section:

Yeni Akit, a Turkish newspaper close to the current Turkish government published a headline calling the victims as "deviant" or "perverted" which in turn was criticized by foreign media outlets.

The seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS to me. The reactions of one newspaper in Turkey is trivia and does not warrant their own mention (WP:WEIGHT), even if the reaction is counter to the norm. Unless this becomes bigger news, I don't see the need to include this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I agree. It's insignificant and forgettable. Let's leave it out.- MrX 22:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. I almost pulled it out myself, so thanks for doing so.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you all, That kind of information would be better suited to articles dealing with homosexuality in Turkey/Islam instead of here. my 2 cents - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The text in sourced (in the Washington Post) to a tweet, which cites another tweet, by image only. "Sapkin escincellerin gittigi barda ollu sayisi 50'ye" is the text given in another forum. I have not been able to find, so far, either the original paper, or a photograph of it, or even a quality source which claims to have seen it. Given all this, and the concerns above, I am removing the claim. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

On this occasion MrX beat me to the removal, but the claim has been in the article at least three times, so it's worth watching out for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

Mateen celebrated as 9/11 occurred

Mateen celebrating as 9/11 occurred is a further indication that this was Islamic terrorism & not just a random nut job. It was almost certainly also a hate crime, but both elements should be noted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When a preponderance of reliable sources (or at the very least a preponderance of major mainstream news outlets, that's open to debate), explicitly call it Islamic terrorism, we can call it Islamic terrorism. Until then, we're in WP:NOR territory. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is quite the WP:RS here in Wikipedia except when people don't like what it says! Apparently in those cases, one should look into any "hedges" the Washington Post included in its articles, or wait for other sources! XavierItzm (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the Washington Post is a reliable source has nothing to do with whether people's recollections of a high school classmate and his behavior on a specific day are accurate 15 years later. Mandruss and I never questioned whether WP was reliably reporting what it was told. General Ization ^Talk 12:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Gawker article - alleged use of gay dating app by shooter

So, an IP editor added content related to this piece by Gawker ([5]). In sum, it alleges that Mateen was a regular at the club and used a gay dating app. I removed the IP's addition as it was loaded with OR as well, but wondering what to do about this source. Gawker, to me, is WP:QUESTIONABLE, but I'm curious what others think. If this gets picked up by other more reputable sources, seems like something we should include? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be watching for other, more reliable sources, to expend some resources to verify this. It should stay out until they do (though I find the implication just as plausible as some others being proposed here). General Ization ^Talk 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Apps can't be gay? I'm gonna make the gayest Siri just for you, General Ization! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was the IP editor. I think usually Gawker would be questionable, but I think they have proven that their Gaydar is on fleek. This was best proven in the Peter Thiel V Gawker case. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel ran a piece on this four regular customers at the Orlando gay nightclub where a gunman killed 49 people said Monday that they had seen the killer, Omar Mateen, there before. Nothing about the app though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A story from WABC-TV mentions the app. APK whisper in my ear 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It has now been reported by the Los Angeles Times, which names the Pulse patron who recognized Mateen outside the club at about 1 a.m. from his Jack'd profile, having communicated with him through the gay dating app for about a year before the shooting. The Times quotes the witness who said that Mateen's Jack'd profile information, along with his own phone presumably containing those messages, has now been turned over to the FBI for analysis. Other Pulse patrons claim to have seen and conversed with the attacker during previous social visits to the nightclub; the Times says he had visited for a year, and Gawker dates his visits to the past three years. Obviously this a powerful developing angle, which I think should be included certainly as more information emerges. (See my Talk page.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me that the person who communicated with Mateen would know that the profile information had been turned over to the FBI, but I guess there's a possibility. I don't think it should have been added to the article, because the relevance and veracity of a single source, when the source is Gawker, is probably not sufficient to maintain NPOV in the article. A person who uses a gay dating app is not necessarily gay, even if they send messages that suggest they are. Likewise, someone who visits a gay club isn't necessarily gay. Roches (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times quotes the witness, Kevin West, by name. He said he was in communication with Mateen online through "Jack'd" and, after the attack, contacted the FBI and turned over his own phone (this witness told MSNBC tonight that he had first communicated with Mateen more than a year ago, and again after Mateen renewed contact with him online through "Jack'd" three months ago). The Times is an RS source, and we are going only with what has been reported there; I agree, we are not yet able to draw conclusions about Mateen's sexuality, merely that he has been reported to have used gay chat and dating apps. A separate witness told MSNBC's Chris Hayes tonight, on camera, that he had seen Mateen's profile posted on Grindr, but quickly blocked him a year ago after concluding he was unstable. This witness also said another friend recognized Mateen through an Adam4Adam profile from the late 2000's, and was aware of two friends in communication with Mateen who had voluntarily turned over cellphones to the FBI.

Like you, I weigh on the side on caution and against drawing preliminary conclusions. I suspect this will all be reliably reported in the fullness of time. Please read the Los Angeles Times article, which confirms that Mateen's use of gay dating apps are part of the investigation: "Investigators are looking at reports that Mateen visited gay clubs and was using gay dating apps, a law enforcement official said. 'Watch that space,' the official said." Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

These things are widely reported and can be included - just please be careful not to go beyond what is actually known. For example so far I don't know (but maybe you do!) if Mateen was actually seeking a gay relationship or whether he was merely posing as gay to get intel about the site, case it out and make a plan of attack. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to another ongoing RM regarding this same article. Also a SNOW situation. (non-admin closure) Chase (talk | contributions) 23:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → Orlando massacre – The name '2016 Orlando nightclub shooting' is very long and cumbersome, and 'massacre' has fallen into widespread use both colloquially and with the media ~ Henry ^TALK 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. As per the discussion above, the most agreed-upon alt title without "2016" was Orlando nightclub massacre. If you change your choice to that, I will support. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: Title is accurate and precise as is. It is soon to observe "widespread" use; if and only if sustained public discussion uses the term "massacre" would the move be appropriate. "2016" is essential for disambiguation, even though the event was notably worse than any other shooting. --Zfish118^⋉talk 03:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature 48 hours after the event. I'd wait at least a week (20th, say) before any more RMing, but we can spend that time developing clear consensus on questions not dependent on sources, such as year-or-no-year. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the year qualifier is an important indicator of this incident. In 100 years it will help to disambiguate w/ other articles and also anchor this moment in our history. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose — The whole city of Orlando was not attacked. -Mardus /talk 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mardus.- MrX 16:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Present main title is precise as to time/place, other possible variants can be redirects for the time-being. The word "nightclub" should be in the title. Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Father's TV show and president candidacy

It has been deleted, but I regard the perpetrator's father's announcment of his candidacy as President of Afghanistan and his own TV show as notable. --SI 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Better on Omar Mateen than here, imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It has not been shown that the father's interests or actions had any direct influence on the shooting. There is a separate article on the shooter at Omar Mateen. Background information about the father would be a better fit there. Note that many people announce they intend to run for President of the United States or other countries. The "TV show" seems to be a Youtube channel. Anyone can create their own Youtube channel. Thus, neither of those would be things that make a person noteworthy per how we use the word on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"...the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history..."

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I so often am), but isn't this the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in MODERN WORLD history (since, say, industrialization)? I have no way to explore/confirm this, but I've not yet read/heard anything that would contradict that, and if factual, it should be pointed out; I leave it to experts better qualified than I to check into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freonfreakone (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the mass collection, deportation, internment in concentration camps, and execution by gas and other means of people identified as LGBT by the Nazis is unlikely to be eclipsed by this incident as the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people. General Ization ^Talk 00:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it's moot unless reliable sources make the statement you suggest. To date, they are describing it as the deadliest in U.S., not world, history. General Ization ^Talk 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it likely that 9/11, with 2,977 immediate deaths, killed more LGBT people than the 49 so far in this attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.76.185 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political commentary in spite of consensus not to include

A determined editor has re-added conservative political commentary, ignoring the rough consensus here: Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. - MrX 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The statements summarized with notable people (such as the president, governor of FL, and Mayor of Orlando) and LIMITED other references in very summarized form by a representative sample of notable people and related groups should be the only thing in the reaction section. There is a separate article for reactions, all of this extra stuff can be put in there if people are interested in reading about it. Besides, much of the prose seems to not have a neutral point of view. --Flipper9 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In my view, any summary should not include names or specific quotes. I agree that the newly added material is not a presented in a neutral way, nor is it representative of available source material.- MrX 01:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase, so long as it's accurate, and feel free to add the liberal side. But don't remove the conservative side just because no one's added the liberal side yet. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, there was no consensus not to include; there was consensus to include summaries, which the addition is. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that this section keeps getting reverted, placed back, reverted... a reversion war. Can it be stopped until we get a real consensus? Flipper9 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The same person has done it again, with an edit summary of "Half the political spectrum, voiced by prominent commentators, is not undue weight." Now, I really don't mind such material being added (I think it's a bit insightful), but there does seem to be a pro-conservative push for its inclusion, and the edit summary doesn't really prove how it's not undue. The only way I can see that material staying without actually violating WP:DUE is if we also have a liberal standpoint included as well. (But even then, that's pushing it.) Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the RfC isn't about whether a large block of text outlining conservative reactions (to liberal reactions) should be included. FallingGravity (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then, let us begin the debate. Should the section of conservative reactions be included? And if so, should it be accompanied by a section of liberal reactions so it won't violate WP:DUE? Parsley Man (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Leave out this new content, it belongs in the other article about the reactions, if anywhere. Keep the present section and reactions limited per above comments-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, the section is actually already in the reactions article. Parsley Man (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was under the impression that yesterday we decided to limit the reaction section to key people and things. Now I see we are straying off. But, maybe this particular reaction will end up being notable. If that is so, I do agree that the Liberal spectrum/reaction should also be added. This section is still getting out of hand, despite past lessons and the best efforts of some users to keep it simple and to the point. United States Man (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Include, and include liberal reactions I'm not against adding the liberal side. Just against removing the conservative side under the guise of it being "fringe" or "undue weight". I'll say it again: half the political spectrum is not a fringe opinion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It sort of is, if most of the material in question just involves conservatives criticizing liberals and implying their partial responsibility in letting the attack happen. Parsley Man (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So if it's critical of liberals it's fringe? Non sequitur. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And if it's critical of conservatives, it's fringe too. Unless there is a clear indication of liability from liberals and/or conservatives, Democrats and/or Republicans, etc., etc., we must be neutral about this. Parsley Man (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. Criticism does NOT equal fringe theory by any sensible or policy-oriented definition. Documenting a reaction is not POV unless WP's voice endorses one view or the other. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, to me, it sounds like the material is endorsing that one view. Parsley Man (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing someone's statements isn't an endoresement. And the paragraph's been edited by another user anyway to make it even more NPOV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Jujutsuan, it is certainly fringe. You inserted a YouTube clip to a fringe online commentator from a conspiracy-theory website. That is a paradigm case of fringe. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Summary Only This section should be brief, with only pertinent responses. re: SHORT. There is a whole other article where you can include all view points and flesh this sort of thing out. Including all of this detail, listing every single viewpoint in the main article introduces politics and non-neutral point of view. Flipper9 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out, because a determined editor keeps putting that in. Now:

• Move Republicans' comments to the appropriate reactions article, which should for balance contain relevant criticism aired against Republicans' comments. Also include comments by Democrats.
• Summarise, that both political sides promote their messages, because election year.
• All from reliable sources.

-Mardus /talk 15:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously include. If this article is going to attempt to summarize the political reactions, it needs to attempt to include the reactions from across the political spectrum. Like it or not, the views expressed in the paragraph in question are representative of the views of a significant portion of the American public and electorate. Excluding these views from this article (or relegating them to some obscure, rarely viewed sub-article) is inexcusable in my view. And I would prefer the inclusion of the original full paragraph rather than the noticeably trimmed-down version that can now be found exclusively in said sub-article. --Philpill691 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Leaving aside the more general question of whether "political commentary should be included," I want to note that the specific text inserted by Jujutsuan is completely unacceptable. Direct links to YouTube commentary from marginal, fringe figures—like a link to a YouTube clip from someone named Paul Joseph Watson, who apparently is "editor-at-large of Infowars.com" (a conspiratorial, fringe website run by Alex Jones) is wildly unacceptable. To devote multiple sentences to this insignificant, obscure individual from a kook website is outrageous.

If someone wanted to put a few short sentences (cited to a reliable news (not editorial) secondary source like the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.) about the spectrum of political reaction in the U.S., I would have no problem. But links to Twitter feeds, YouTube clips, marginal commentators is another matter altogether. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You say it like everything was from Watson and Watson alone (who by the way is not nuts like Alex Jones). Crowder, Hemingway, and the other guy (forget his name at the moment) are notable either by their publications (last two) or their simple prominence among conservatives (Crowder was CPAC speaker, fmr Fox contributor). I'd be fine with not mentioning them by name, too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• This probably merits a paragraph. Crowder doesn't need to be mentioned by name. -- Callinus (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we can't even dispute the POV of this section as the tag keeps getting removed. Did we reach a consensus? Flipper9 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, we haven't reached consensus. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like we are going whole hog and including political reactions. How about including reactions by other third parties, prominent Democrats and Republicans not aligned with the presumptive nominees? To keep a NPOV, not that anyone seems to care about that anymore, we need to make this the biggest section of the whole article including debates over gun control, religion, etc. Flipper9 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Flipper9 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting my deletion of individuals at the shooting event mistaking the gunfire for music

I have reviewed both sources extensively and there is no witness statements verifying this claim. The only claim was that it sounds like fire crackers via “I thought it was firecrackers,” said Ray Rivera, 42, who was working at the club as a D.J. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment by witnesses has appeared in multiple sources I have read (as well as broadcast interviews I have heard), though I couldn't point out exactly which ones. General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"McGill tells CBS News that his horrific night began when he and his roommates were getting their last drinks at Pulse’s bar. They suddenly heard three loud bangs, but he did not see any shooter and at first he thought it might be something to do with the club’s sound system." 212.56.125.112 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• Are you seriously referencing heavy.com? lol ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this in the article, and it's referenced. Almost every deadly incident at an entertainment venue includes numerous people on the scene mistaking the first signs of danger as part of the show. This happened as long ago as the Iroquois Theater Fire, at the Station Nightclub fire and in many other cases. But the 'not until the fifth pop' seems sufficient. Roches (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But the issue at hand is how rather few people who might have thought the shooting was related to fireworks or music, this is not the consensuses of the majority at the event or even a significant opinion which should be posted on the main wikipedia entry. This is why you need a better reference than something from heavy.com ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not only is Heavy.com not as reliable as nytimes.com where i got my information but "Something with the club's sound system" means a lot different than "music". Music needs removed. A qoute from Daily mail: "Speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Online, eyewitness David Ward, 50, described the scene ...Ward, a life settlements account manager, was woken around 2am by two shots. He recalled: 'I thought at the time they were maybe car backfires.'" so we have firecrackers and car backfires but not "music". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639727/He-going-ha-ha-ha-killed-Sole-survivor-30-trapped-Orlando-gay-club-bathroom-tells- Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Heavy sucks and The Daily Mail sucks. If we had to choose, I'd trust Heavy, but we don't. If you ever read something on either that isn't in a reliable source as well, it's probably not true. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE. someone posted this ref which states some individuals at the shooting event thought it was music from the telegraph so that ref works. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/we-thought-it-was-part-of-the-music-how-the-pulse-nightclub-mass/ Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Blood donation issue

As a side, should we include the controversy brought upon by the FDA donation guidelines as there are outrages that certain groups of potential donors (including gay/bisexual men) are prevented from donation? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do think this has some level of notability and could fit into the Aftermath section since blood donation is already mentioned. For me, including this is a toss up. Maybe others have opinions? United States Man (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure how notable this will end up being. It could raise an issue later on in the future, but I don't see how much of a concern it is now. And this is coming from the person who first introduced the material yesterday. Parsley Man (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any sources saying it impacted treatment. There are many restrictions. Agenda driven restrictions without impact to the event don't belong. (note: I am not able to donate due to the many restrictions but are not related to this.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. The restrictions had nothing to do with this event and were already in place, so they really aren't that notable for this article. United States Man (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not regarding treatment - this is restriction on the part of donors, not the patients. I'm permanently deferred by the American Red Cross for unrelated reasons that are beyond my control, and I agree with the intent of the FDA guidelines; I raised this question because the aftermath of the shooting did bring this issue into light again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a parallel issue being discussed, but it's not clear that they're directly related. Don't want to coatrack it. Might be something to include in the See Also section (Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy). At least for now. Maybe in the future the Red Cross will reference this event when they implement their screening changes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Woah, we have that page? I didn't realize we had that. Learn something new everyday... Thanks! - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Penwhale: For some reason, this just made my night! :D Glad I could help! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Gunman a Closet Homosexual?

It's been reported that the gunman was a regular at Pulse, used a homosexual dating app, and his wife had her suspicions about him. Far too early to claim he was homosexual of course, but if true does this mean the attack is not a hate crime? Surely an attack by a homosexual on a homosexual club cannot be a hate crime right? The claims may of course prove to be false but figured I'd raise the issue since seeing it mentioned in the media. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Doubt this will make it into the article unless it becomes widely covered by reliable sources. At this point it looks a little like a big rumor. United States Man (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. This would also fall in line with my theory of this event being an act of pure domestic terrorism, with no real foreign influence other than what the shooter probably used as an excuse out of frustration or anger. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like a big rumor. Parsley Man (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it can still be considered a hate crime just like Homosexuals who oppose same sex marriage are still considered to be "Homophobes" by many (I personally never use that word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I say we wait until more sources cover it. LATimes is good, but at the moment it's unclear what it means, if anything. There's no deadline. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we may have more sources than just the LA Times at the Omar Mateen article. Parsley Man (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspected almost immediately that Omar Mateen might have been a closet homosexual or struggled with homosexual feelings. This is a lot like Howard Unruh. However, more sourcing is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also similar to the case of Salah Abdeslam and Prince Abdulaziz, but solely based on witness accounts. As for whether a hate crime can be committed against somebody's own demographic, the answer is yes! (cf. internalized homophobia, self-hating Jew, et al.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.9 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The LA Times and Orlando Sentinel have reports from witnesses that were shown a driver's license photo of Mateen by police and they recognised him. This will be reported by police. -- Callinus (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a case of internalized homophobia being turned outwards, which is quite common and routinely is violent. The core of it remains homophobia which taught him to hate that part of himself in the first place and was reinforced by society proposing anti-LGBT laws. Computationsaysno (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Collecting sources: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Per [14] there is to be an interview with one of them on All In tonight. Sai ¿?✍ 13:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Cross-reference: Omar_Mateen#Sexuality_allegations

Does anything published so far conflict with a scenario where Mateen simply wanted to chat with people to extract usable intel and case out the club to plan the attack? Remember, he was trained in security - he might have thought about the tactics carefully. The sheer deadliness of the attack makes you think it might not have been thrown together in ten minutes. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Although that's certainly a possibility for things closer to the event, the reports also include claims that he hit on a classmate in the police academy; that his wife said he had "gay tendencies"; that he was on gay dating apps a year ago; and that he was a regular. The first two don't jive with it being mere tactics or trolling for victims. Being a regular doesn't jive either; you don't need to go there often simply to know the layout and so forth. It also conflicts, from a tactical POV, with the report that recently he chatted with someone asking what gay clubs were particularly lively. It's entirely possible that he was looking for a bigger target once he decided to attack (would explain asking about multiple places). The long-term patronage doesn't really fit with planning a targeted attack, or with deciding only very late which place to attack. Even if either was the case, the wife's account & the attempted academy date certainly don't.

Disclosure: I run [15], which is the main reason I'm looking into this aspect of the story. I want to be fairly sure that he was in fact a closet case, and not simply looking for victims, before listing him on the site. (If I do, it would probably be in some manner of damnatio memoriae, as I do not wish to give his name or memory any further hold on the world.) Sai ¿?✍ 17:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

New source in favor of casing the place: [16]; see this page @ Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Wife_of_perpetrator_-_knowledge_of_attack_beforehand. However, that doesn't explain him being a regular, his "gay tendencies", or hitting on the police academy student. Sai ¿?✍ 18:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A Presidential candidate gave a whole speech on this issue

Which I believe is perfectly relevant, but User:Parsley Man disagrees, without bothering to move the content they keep removing to the talk page in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE.[17] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I told you to go to this section of the talk page in one of my edit summaries. A number of other users already know what kind of material we're talking about. Parsley Man (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Parsley Man was correct in removing that part. If Trump's statement is included, statements from other candidates must be included, and that goes agains≠±t what we were trying to do with this section by keeping it short and trimmed down. United States Man (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PAPER, why exactly are you trying to keep things short and trimmed down?? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea, but look at that reactions branch article. That is usually what happens to the reaction sections on these sorts of articles. They become longer and longer, eventually getting to the point where the reaction of every little country on every continent is included. There has to be a cutoff point somewhere, and that happens to be on the shorter side of things. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To put it in layman's terms, not doing so would result in a WP:QUOTEFARM. Parsley Man (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly short list; let me post it again from above:

It's a national election year, and as such certain local and national political reactions matter. Most importantly: the Orlando mayor, the Orlando national rep., whoever is running to be the next Orlando Rep, the Florida governor, anyone running to be the next governor, Florida U.S. senators, anyone running to be the next Florida senator, the President, and whoever is running to replace him. This should not be in the least controversial.

That's not too hard. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a lot of people to cover. "Anyone running to be the next governor"? Are there any specifics, or is it supposed to be every single candidate in the election? Same with "anyone running to be the next Florida senator". Parsley Man (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny, the only person among those whose opinion who you keep removing is that of Donald Trump's. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because Donald Trump is the only person who keeps getting added in by people! If it was just Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, you bet my ass I'd remove their statements as well! I don't appreciate what you're implying. Parsley Man (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I've noticed, Trump was the only candidate whose reaction was in there in the first place. So, that argument is invalid. United States Man (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:NPOV doesn't mean WP:NOPOV. His is a significant point of view, and should be represented in this article. Failure of other editors to add other points of view isn't incumbent on its inclusion -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But I find it very confusing as to why a bunch of people feel more inclined to use Trump than, say, Clinton? Her gun control remarks have to be just as important as Trump's proposed policy of closing the U.S. borders to all Muslims, right? (Let it be known that this is in no way any indication of my support of Clinton.) Parsley Man (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And I in no way support Trump or Clinton, frankly, but come on, the GOP presidential candidate calling LGBT people just another American tribe, deserving of protection. This is historic stuff. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would hardly call anything said by Trump or Clinton or any other candidate "historic" so far... Parsley Man (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it doesn't really matter who adds what side. If there is one side and not the other, you have weight and POV issues. Feel free to add both sides if you wish. United States Man (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:YESPOV doesn't work like that. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me. I have realized that I might interpret the POV differently than others, hence the reason we have this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Coverage by sources does not mean the event is notable. The press can't help themselves when it comes to covering Trump's inflammatory comments. Iff something more comes of the comments, then include. Otherwise, don't. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a candidate for President of the United States. What planet are you living on? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Preferably not this one. But again, condolences, platitudes, and Trumpisms are not inherently notable. WP:NOTNEWS (To clarify, I'm referring to notability in terms of "enduring notability". Trump's comments are remarkable, but not notable. Besides, nearly any head of state, the pope, and some government officials would be more notable in then a celebrity/presidential candidate). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. If something big comes from Trump's statements, it would be notable enough for the section, regardless of other candidates. I just don't feel, that with the statements themselves, we should have one side and not the other. United States Man (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel there is a whole pro-Trump sentiment behind all of this. Otherwise, comments from other candidates like Clinton would be added in as well. Parsley Man (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine with reactions from both sides being included. That would put an end to this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV, feel free to add Clinton's POV. Someone will add it even if you don't. Patience! :) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Only a couple major sides, don't think this will be a major issue. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump blathers on about every subject under the sun in order to get more free media time, please don't reward his childish behavior with more free ink to spout his positions which are often inaccurate and sometimes are plain lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:E4CA:8CBD:DC67:3366 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to mention Trump, it's important to say that his first reaction on Twitter was to claim that he had been congratulated over the killing of 49 LGBT people in Orlando — that their slaughter served some sort of personal vindication for him — and that he offered absolutely no consolation to the LGBT community for more than a day. Mention that, for proper context. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I am still very, very wary of the wisdom of inserting candidate-by-candidate political speeches on the page, although at the presidential-candidate level I see the argument. I have inserted some text, cited primarily to the New York Times and Washington Post, that (1) identifies the commonalities in statements by politicians of both parties; (2) identifies the key differences; and (3) gives a summary of both Clinton's speech and Trump's speech. Neutrality^talk 06:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Move

Names for these horrible things develop in the press organically. I think we should move this page to something without "2016", given it's never described that way and it's significant and unique enough not to warrant it. I'm seeing "Orlando massacre" and "Orlando nightclub massacre" a lot. So maybe we could put it to a vote?--Monochrome_Monitor 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, it isn't just a vote. Second, the other three move discussions on this page all either support leaving the title for now or have no consensus either way. Best to leave the subject alone for now. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with United States Man. It's best to leave the title as it is for now. Parsley Man (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree - give this move a moratorium of at least a week. Create all the plausible redirects you think are useful. A good indicator for a stable title would be one that multiple reliable sources adopt. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Including the year seems to be a Wikipedia convention. While it does not make sense today it will when you see the article title five or 20 years from now in categories. While an article could be started and worked out without the year, and then moved later people would complain "what was wrong with the old title?" Thus, it's better to have the year from the beginning. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: It may or may not seem a convention, depending on which slice of Wikipedia you've been exposed to. That's been discussed elsewhere on this page, and quite a few relatively recent (within 20 years) no-year examples have been shown. Enough of them that it can't rasonably be called a convention, imo. Per the slice of Wikipedia I've been exposed to, my perceived convention is to omit the year unless it's required for disambiguation. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I think that if we want to remove the year, we really ought to put Pulse onto the page name to make it specific. I wrote above in a separate section the first RM for my specific reasoning. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Label as mass shooting or terrorist attack?

I've noticed this little conflict going on in regards to the Current template, so I thought I'd address it here. Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template, or as a terrorist attack? Parsley Man (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting is the easiest and most documented. When getting into terrorist attacks, it becomes 'What kind of terrorist attack?'. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it not both? Neutrality^talk 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But there's been conflict over whether it should be referred to as one or the other in the Current template. Parsley Man (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We can use both terms in the template, if desired, correct? Both would be equally accurate, though one goes to "motivation" and the other to "means." Neutrality^talk 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both would probably be more preferable. United States Man (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A "terrorist attack" generally refers to foreign calibration. We don't know if the shooter was directly working with anyone outside of the United States. We do know he claimed his allegiance to ISIL, but anyone can do this, regardless of their intentions or nationality, and it would not be considered an act of "terrorism" because there is no foreign connection. Whoever keeps changing these edits is being disruptive by adding the label of "terrorist attack" Technically all shootings are domestic terrorism, but we only apply the "terrorist" label to real foreign calibration. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current wording of "terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting" works well enough. I think it's acceptable to classify ISIL-inspired terrorist acts as "terrorism," even if they don't have actual ISIL organizational involvement, because the goal of both is ultimately the same.--Slon02 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Do you really believe that? I think you are purposely avoiding common sense just to be disruptive. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the person who keeps editing this one simple line which doesn't really need any further clarification, really wants ISIL to have the all time high score of American mass shootings. Perhaps it's better this event be kept as domestic, rather than giving the title of "worst american shooting" to a foreign group. Because they actually enjoy this title. At least keep it simple without the "terrorism" for now until we have better information. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like calling it a terrorist attack without knowing a motive, but it's a losing battle. The rabble is strong. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd. The chief of police and the President called this a terrorist attack. Sources[[18]] seem not to matter any more? Mootros (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Police Chief, the Sheriff, Congressmen, both U.S. Senators for Florida, Director of the FBI, Governor of Florida have all clearly and definitively labelled this not only a terrorist attack, but an Islamic terrorist attack. The President of the United States has called it an act of terrorism. The levels from local to national have called it terrorism at the least, if not going further to add Islamic, which is a different subject here. Any suggestion that this should be labeled as anything less than a terrorist attack is stupid and factually inaccurate. Authorities and officials have labeled it such, he committed a crime, and attack which has caused terror, and did so under the banner of allegiance to ISIL, an ideological group to say the least. A mass shooting is an event that a mentally ill or otherwise deranged person can commit, like Sandy Hook. A terrorist attack is specific and far more significant, especially when tied at least ideologically to ISIL, as it now bears serious geopolitical implications in what politicians, present a prospective, will do in the future.   Spartan7W §   18:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack Sources say it, it is one. Jadeslair (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Object to the binary choice presented. It can be both terrorism and mass shooting, and it is both. But it's no longer clear what exactly is being debated here, since this started as "Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template ({{Current}})", and that template is no longer in the article. This leaves us with infobox fields and body text, which are very different animals and should be discussed separately. The body already refers to terrorism many times. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Hi i was wondering if you can grant me some minor changes as the this page has some errors in it. they are as follows: -the cause of the attack was islamic terrorism NOT terrorism that section needs to be clear, islamic fundamentilism, islamist motives, and homophobia Sparticus107 (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've declined this edit request. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the cause, and the usage of the current wording is consistent with that of reliable sources and other Wikipedia articles on similar topics. Possible religious influences regarding the attack are already sufficiently addressed in the lead with mentions to ISIL.--Slon02 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done The consensus is to go easy on the motive until a more thorough investigation. The phrase "Islamic terrorism" was used by Donald Trump but hasn't been used by investigators. Omar Mateen fits the classic pattern of angry losers who commit mass shootings, and although he may well have wanted to do something like Bataclan in the USA, his overall personality and the comments of people who knew him suggest that he was an accident waiting to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, Islamism and homophobia and self-hatred and being a crazy person aren't contradictory. It may be an "all of the above" type thing in the end. There's no need to rush to judgement. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • All terrorism is not the same. Although "terrorism" is a word with a very broad definition, generally we use "terrorism" to describe things which meet a certain criteria. You can pull out favorable sources to your disruptive opinions all day, but so can I. The only difference is that I'm using common sense, and you are just trying to play games. There is a very good possibility this person had no calibration with militant foreign entities to classify this as a "terror attack". Simply claiming allegiance to ISIL isn't enough. Anyone can do this. This is not a real foreign collaboration with militant entities. Once again I am simply using common sense, no need to debate everything. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • you are just trying to play games - Let's nip that kind of talk in the bud, shall we? Please observe WP:AGF on this page. Things have been remarkably professional here, considering the subject matter, and let's keep it that way. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But he/she really does seem to be playing games, or arguing just for the sake of argument. Are we going to pretend people don't do this? Is there a WP:COMMON SENSE? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there is a WP:COMMON SENSE but it's meant for people who invoke strict policy on top of what is actually right. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@SandwitchHawk: Are we going to pretend people don't do this? - Yes, that pretty well sums it up. Even if people are "playing games", which is a very subjective thing, it serves no purpose to accuse them of it, and it is in fact counterproductive. These things very easily spiral out of control, and then absolutely nothing is being accomplished except the creation of a lot of ill will between editors. Stay focused on policy and reasoning and don't make it about them. And they will be expected to treat you likewise. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: (what an odd and cumbersome username.) Forgot to mention that it's ok to accuse people of things in a complaint at WP:ANI, and that includes "playing games" to the point of being disruptive. But this page is not the place to do that, and I'd suggest letting others handle any ANI complaints until one has a year or so of experience. It's a big and complex subject area, too much for an article talk discussion, but feel free to continue on my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the edit refusals above are wholly without merit. They rely on personal opinion. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. There are at least a dozen reliable sources already listed at the bottom of the article noting that the shooter himself, during the attack, declared allegiance to a known Islamic terrorist group. The investigators are merely trying to determine if it was ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed. Either way, we know from the best possible source, the perpetrator himself (as reported by reliable sources), that it's an Islamic terrorist attack. This must be reflected immediately in the article. There is no rational reason for delay. Dansan99 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason for delay is WP:CONSENSUS. Please see above talk sections . EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This must be reflected immediately in the article. - Can you explain why this must be done immediately? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be changed immediately because there is no reason not to. There is an overwhelming consensus of the reliable sources that the perpetrator claimed responsibility in the name of ISIS. The objections do not seem to be based on reliable sources, but personal opinion. Wikipedia goes with reliable sources, and they all point in one direction. Objections that do not rely on reliable sources should be discounted when trying to reach consensus.Dansan99 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my two cents: Omar Mateen was a self-appointed jihadi warrior, but his underlying mental instabilty, anger and possible repressed gay feelings were also a factor. The problem with the infobox is that it permits only simple statements for the motive, and the real world is more complex than a Wikipedia infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^^ What he said. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

there is no reason not to except WP:CONSENSUS, as already stated. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." The "two cents" above, while interesting, are not based on reliable sources and are not published. It is clearly a personal opinion. The direction from WP:RS is clear. We have to go with published, reliable sources. Based on which published, reliable sources do we not have consensus? Dansan99 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please join existing consensus-seeking discussions rather than starting new and redundant ones, participate calmly and constructively like the rest of us, and cease making aggressive demands for content changes. Otherwise you will either be ignored or risk sanctions for disrupting Wikipedia decision-making process. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course my two cents is a personal opinion. However, the specific phrase "Islamic terrorism" was used by Donald Trump and not by any U.S. government agency so far.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dansan99: It's true that there are currently 43 somewhat-active threads here, and there is a lot of overlap. That's a good reason to sit back, get more familiar with the landscape, and watch where other editors who have been at the article for a couple of days are commenting. One place we're working on this consensus is #Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox. Another: #Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism?. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Target of Attack in infobox?

Who (or what) should we list as the target(s) of the attack? LGBT community? Patrons? Pulse itself? I personally favor patrons of Pulse nightclub as not everyone there necessarily belongs LGBT, although the bouncer (one of the bouncers?) for Pulse did die in the shooting. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it may be necessary to redefine the target group. Elsewhere I've seen the claim that Pulse is a homosexual club debated - it's not restricted access and anyone can visit. If true it's entirely possible that some, even most of the victims weren't homosexual. Again not claiming this is fact, merely pointing out we're still dealing with conflicting unproven claims.人族 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Pulse was an is a Gay nightclub. It's how they advertise themselves and what they were known as before the shooting. Any source debating this should probably be considered unreliable. In most cases, not all patrons at a gay nightclub or bar are going to be LGBT themselves, the precise number depending on various factors. Note as our article mentions, many gay nightclibs and bars do not restrict their clientale given the difficulty doing so and the in some cases (perhaps not so common in the US) they need to establish they have sufficient reason to do so (which may be possible) or risk being prosecuted or sued. This isn't actually that unusual, people at a church may not be Christian for example, and people at a women's college may not be female to give just two examples (and the later does generally involve explicit restrictions). In terms of the target issue, unless there is some sort of manifesto it may be difficult to know who the target was. However many sources seem to have come to the resonable conclusion that a gay nightclub was attacked because at least part of the motivation was to target LGBT people. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

UpStairs should not be removed from the WP:SEEALSO (UNLESS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

I fail to see how the fire at UpStairs is unrelated as both acts were acts of violence specifically targeting homosexual people so the link is relevant to this article. --1.52.121.50 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's related enough to warrant inclusion per WP:SEEALSO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The purists seem to have removed UpStairs Lounge arson attack because it was an arson attack rather than a shooting, and because nobody was ever brought to justice, making the motive unclear. It is back in the See also section at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was a) an arson b) in another state c) more than forty years ago d) without any international terrorist angle ... unfortunately, anti-gay attacks in the U.S. have not been so rare that you can take that attack and this one and lump them together in a way that makes them truly unique compared to all the others. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If the UpStairs Lounge fire was started by a disgruntled customer who was thrown out of the bar a few hours earlier, it wasn't necessarily a homophobic attack. It was, however, an incident in which many gay men died.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reaction section becoming UNDUE

The reaction section is like kudzu vine... and it's become overgrown again. Visually, it's about 1/4 of the article. I fear I'm being too overzealous on this matter and will not edit the section tonight, but I'd like some discussion about what should be included per WP:WEIGHT. IMHO, the father's comments and the pope's comments can go. The former is tangential at this point (possibly relevant later as details emerge) and the latter is a standard condolence. Frankly I say nuke the political responses for now as NOTNEWS. I cannot imagine any being notable a month from now. And since there's no deadline, if they are notable, we can add them later (e.g., if any political action actually occurs like with Sandy Hook). Commentary by the NYTimes and WaPo about gun control and politics are really UNDUE and coatracking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The NYT and WaPo cites are all news reporting, not editorials or columns. I do agree that we need some sort of test so as to limit inexorable growth. A few useful bright-line rules for political reactions, off the top of my head, might be (1) "no pundits" (i.e., keep to elected officials); (2) stick to high-quality secondary sources (i.e., avoid citations to Twitter, YouTube, etc.), and (3) discuss matters in a general or overview format, except for relevant government officials (president, governor, mayor) and the two main presidential candidates (i.e., try to avoid a litany of every member of Congress). Neutrality^talk 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but just that they reported on it does not mean it has enduring notability. But I like what you suggest generally. Frankly, if in a week something's being covered by the news, I'd say include it then... it lasted through a news cycle. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As to the shooter's father, I think his sentence can go, or alternately, we could move it under "perpetrator" since his comments are mainly about his son. I do not object to including a single sentence on the pope, although perhaps instead we could just refer to "world religious leaders" + cite without specifically mentioning any particular one in text (the Dalai Lama led a prayer in Washington for the victims, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has a statement as well, so if we included a quote from one but not the others, I'm sure someone could object, and reasonably so). Neutrality^talk 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I had hoped that we could keep political commentary out of the article, but the RfC and the section that I started ~9 hours ago are already so far up the page that there's little hope that anyone will read or comment in them. I agree with most of what EvergreenFir and Neutrality. We should mention that the shooting has reinvigorated the gun control debate, discuss i's effect on any pending legislation, and omit as much other detail as possible. We should aggressively avoid direct quotes, opinions, and social media (especially YouTube videos), and we should try to avoid mentioning names as much as possible. The subject of this article is the shooting, so the reactions section needs to be proportional to the more relevant content, such as the investigation.- MrX 11:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove any statement by the father. This is not merely a "reaction" like some talking head on CNN, but a direct window into the state of mind of the perpetrator. Also, while many of the reactions could be trimmed and packed off to the other article, the state of emergency declarations imply specific actions and are therefore part of the unfolding event - I wouldn't even have them under "reactions". Wnt (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap it's gotten worse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Father's comments to be relevant to the subject matter. Although the condolences can be trimmed down to one sentence. Listing the notable people that having given condolences and just cite sources for the readers if they wish to read further. DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current

Template:Current Guidelines bullet 2:

As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.

While it's still very much top-of-the-front-page, after about 52 hours it is no longer "breaking", and the number of editors per day is not a hundred. I am removing the Current template message. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Rifle type

While many sources say "AR-15", I take it that's just journalists saying something vaguely close to the truth, and "Sig-Sauer MCX" (which is different though functionally similar) is the correct description? Anyway the citations currently given will have to be replaced by citations with the correct gun (there are many such citations available). Would it be worth saying "widely reported as an AR-15" or words to that effect? Evercat (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend towards specificity personally, but I am a little confused. I was under the impression that the MCX was merely an AR-15 variant. I think that if it is confirmed that it was an MCX it should be listed as such, especially if as a firearm it is differentiated from a 'typical' AR-15. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No way in hell is this an AR-15 variant. This guy concurs. And no, we don't say "widely reported as" when we know it was widely reported incorrectly. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Some sources are reporting that it was a Sig-Sauer MCX, but the ATF tweeted here "Guns traced in #Orlando shooting: .223 caliber AR type rifle and 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Similar to those pictured." This needs more clarity. I'm also getting confused as to whether "Sig-Sauer MCX" is correct without an on the record statement from the investigators.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Then, pending clarity, drop the model and just say Semi-automatic rifle. Or, my preference for this type of gun, Assault weapon. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The gun enthusiasts hate Assault weapon. They say that it is like describing a kitchen knife as an "assault knife". Assault weapon has been used mainly in the context of gun control debates in the USA and has become a politicized term. Semi-automatic rifle is my preferred term.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia avoids terms because they are politicized, but either way is ok by me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Any gun can be used for an assault, but a Glock pistol isn't typically described as an assault gun (guns don't kill, people do, as we are always being told by the gun lobby). The death toll in Orlando immediately suggested the use of a semi-automatic rifle, because a single 9mm round from a Glock wouldn't kill a person unless it hit vital organs. Semi-automatic rifles can often kill with a single shot. This has made them the focus of gun control debates as this type of .223 caliber weapon was designed primarily for military use.[19][20] The civilian versions cannot be fired continuously while the trigger is depressed, but they can kill dozens of people in the space of a few minutes in the wrong hands even in semi-automatic mode.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please quote the ATF directly ... I hate tweets, but if that's the source we got, that's the source we use. Any attempt to blur over or "enhance detail" out of their statement is only going to create more discord. Of course, as other experts weigh in in secondary sources, include them also. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

CBS says here "A law enforcement source said Mateen had recently legally purchased the two weapons used in the attack: a Glock 17 handgun purchased June 5, and a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle purchased on June 4. Investigators also found a .38-caliber weapon in his vehicle." This is an unnamed source, but CBS is reliable. I'm still a bit confused on how best to handle this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Contradictions are good! I don't know enough to say if the ATF and the unnamed source are irreconciliable, but if so, give both accounts and that way our readers will have as good a guess as anyone. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I Think Wnt hit the nail on the head. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should use the cbs article as a source and state the actual name of the gun. It is not an AR-15 but from what I understand we are supposed to present that name also. Since some sources say "AR-15 type" which is somewhat accurate. I think that should be the way it is worded. Jadeslair (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The model is not an essential piece of information here, except to gun trivia fanatics who are a tiny minority of our audience. We certainly aren't required to report a model because many sources do so; our inclusion criteria are different from those of our sources. What matters is the general characteristics and capability of the weapon. Was it a pistol or a long gun? Long gun. Was it a shotgun or a rifle? Rifle. Was it capable of semi-automatic fire? Yes. Was it capable of fully automatic fire? No. And so on.
The model is not so important that we need to spend article space saying, "Well some sources said it was model X, while others said model Y". If we can't be somewhat certain based on available sources, I think we should omit the model and show only type.
One problem with calling it semi-automatic rifle is that that article is full of photos of WWII-era and earlier rifles. I think that's highly misleading (and would be highly misleading even if we stated the model, unless we could link that to an article better representative of the actual gun, one with photo(s)). This is one reason I favor assault weapon over semi-automatic rifle. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIL M.O. and motive

From NYT:

Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with little history of embracing radical Islam.

I confess to not knowing that until now. So there can be no direct ISIS "involvement" yet to be uncovered and reported. What, then, could ever justify "Islamic terrorism" in our Motive field, if ISIS inspiration is not enough? What exactly are we waiting to see? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism" belongs no where in the article unless and until the FBI, State Department, DHS, or the President declare it as such. If someone keeps adding it it, it's probably a sock puppet of the indeffed user who added it no less than 12 times yesterday.- MrX 12:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's new. So in your view a consensus among reliable sources would not be enough without that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-radicalization via social media is a well documented way of recruiting people to the radical Islamic cause. A lot of what has happened in Orlando is similar to the 2015 San Bernardino attack. A person can read radical Islamic material online and become converted to the cause very quickly, even if they do not have formal membership of a terrorist organization. The person may make a Bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) to the terrorist organization even if they have no formal membership. The media has not been specific enough about this and has given the impression that Orlando was a planned Islamic terror attack when it almost certainly wasn't. ISIL is good at setting up propaganda websites which can encourage this type of behavior.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources should be citing a law enforcement and/or government sources who would know such things. Speculation and anonymous scoops do not belong.- MrX 12:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the argument simply over whether terrorism that is "ISIS-inspired" but not "ISIS-directed" counts as radical Islamic terrorism? Evercat (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's early days, but investigators will be looking at the things that Mateen was doing on the Internet. The evidence so far supports the lone wolf theory, rather than the planned work of a terrorist organization. The U.S. authorities are leaning towards "ISIL inspired" rather than "ISIL directed".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be a lone wolf and a terrorist at the same time. The two words are not synonymous. Jadeslair (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the case needs to be made for why lone-wolf terrorism doesn't fall under "Islamist terrorism" or whatever the term is. Evercat (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That was my question, Ian. According to NYT, there is no "ISIL directed". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Meh, perhaps this is pointless argument over semantics. The article is actually in a reasonable shape, given that it explicitly says all this in the 2nd paragraph (currently). Evercat (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando attack could be seen as a form of 21st century warfare. There are no formal armies or leadership, but people are encouraged to do their thing for the cause. This means that "lone wolf" and "terrorist attack" both apply at the same time. It's weird, but this is how ISIL operates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There's been a lot of speculation in the past 12 hours about the motive and that the murderer may be homophobic or self-loathing. Certainly that is at least as lead worthy as the dubious ISIL connection.- MrX 13:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS. What's dubious about it? Certainly that's not the same as being directed by ISIS. Evercat (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't in dispute that Mateen made a Bay'ah to ISIL in a 911 call during the attack.[21] What is disputed is whether he ever met or had any dealings with anyone from the organization prior to the attack. The homosexual self-loathing angle is still in its early days, and needs time to develop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. He could have just as well claimed his allegiance to Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't get coal in his stocking.- MrX 13:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But it wouldn't hurt just in case. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There's some suggestion his declaration of allegiance isn't to be taken seriously, i.e. isn't indicative of what he actually believed? Evercat (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the way the motive is presented now is as good as it could be (In the attack section: ...expressed sympathy for Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev... and made a reference to ...an acquaintance of his who died in a suicide bombing in Syria ...said he was inspired by Abu Salha's death for the Al-Nusra Front, and despite them being at war with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), claimed allegiance to the latter organization.") I also think, as many others do, that it was very likely that the perp. had homosexual tendencies and his own sexual orientation likely influenced his actions that day. (ie. the gay dating apps, reported sightings at the club before). It is very important, however, that we do not engage in OR. The 911 call is the basis for the association with islamic terrorism and, as above, even that was confused and contradictory. It would be fruitful for us to wait for sources that can make the connections that we need.

but I do not see any issues with how the motive is presented, at least how it is laid out in the attack section). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He (apparently) was a Hezbollah member in his own head recently enough. That conviction clearly wasn't firm if this one was, and vice versa. Seems confused, if not merely wishy-washy. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooters are all too often Walter Mitty characters. They are heroes in their own fantasy world, but that is the only place where they are heroes. Mateen may have looked at a few radical Islamic websites and thought "I could do that." Thanks to Florida's gun laws, he could.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That any fool can find a gun doesn't automatically mean any fool can bring their fantasy to life. His security experience and steroid use likely played a large part in his surviving as long as he did. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

In light of his alleged steroid use, I would very much like to know the published results of the perpetrator's post-mortem toxicology report. (Am I rushing too far ahead with this?) -Mardus /talk 16:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Never too early to look forward to something, but these reports typically take a month or so. I don't even see news reports speculating yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "Islamic terrorism" has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. - see [22]. As a result, it may be inappropriate to put it in an infobox. This may not be an issue that is easily wrapped up in a neat little bow. However, I am appalled by User:MrX's proposal that we not include a phrase anywhere in the article unless the government uses it. Wikipedia seeks a neutral point of view, not an official point of view. Whether the government merely ascribes to a different pedantry than media, or whether they are seeking a specific political end by refusing to call terrorism "Islamic" because they maintain Islam denounces terrorism, they don't get to be the be-all and end-all of thought on the issue. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I read "law enforcement and/or government sources". I don't like that "or" myself. Nothing terrible about saying so-and-so thinks it's such-and-such, but anywhere where it's in Wikipedia's voice, we should probably trust people trained and paid to solve crimes, not paid to get elected. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Please don't be appalled by my rhetoric. The point is that we need to separate fact from speculation. We need to not simple slap a bunch of politically-charged labels all over the article. Yesterday, I lost count of how may times the words ISIL, Sunni, Shiite, and Islamic Terrorist were repeated in the article. There are editors trying to use this article as a political WP:SOAPBOX for promoting a narrative that Muslims are teh evil, or that particular types of Muslims are evil, all based on original research, poorly-sourced speculation, and just plain pulling it out of their asses. Fortunately, a couple have already been blocked, so hopefully we can get back to using reason.- MrX 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be prudent to block editing by newly-registered editors. -Mardus /talk 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

White washing trolls on anti-LGBT attack & photo for Muslim American reaction section

Is it possible to ban editing from those trying to white wash this? Here, this is a USA Today article interviewing the owner and others, who clearly states that not only is it a gay night club, but it is a place of the LGBT activist movement. Now give it up with the white washing. Anyone who wants to use this in the article, I think it would highly benefit it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/12/pulse-more-than-just-another-gay-club/85785762/ On a side note, I think we should include a photo from a rally to include in the Muslim reaction section (I'm not clear on the fair use laws, but I can find photos to possibly use). There was a lot of unity support between the LGBT and Muslim communities. JanderVK (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What edit or edits are white washing? - MrX 15:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's our non-free content guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:04, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Trump bit

Well, as we predicted, introducing candidate-by-candidate breakdowns in the "Reactions" section is not going well.

An editor is repeatedly changing our summary to characterize the remarks in a way directly at odds with the sources (NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist), and in a way that makes no sense as well (i.e., this newly added text is gibberish: "radical Muslim immigrants posed a danger to U.S. security and asserted they must form a partnership with the Muslim community"). Neutrality^talk 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The same user is now deleting all the secondary sources (news accounts) and replacing them to a YouTube clip of Trump's speech. Can someone intervene? Neutrality^talk 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable and are weighted against Trump, saying opinionated things such as he is "antagonistic" and outright LIES, like he said "all muslim imigrants" are to blame. I replaced it with DIRECT QUOTES from the speech as well as purely citing the speech itself. Clinton's bit doesn't have contradicting and inflammatory information in her paragraph, so why does Trump's? Even if the sources are reliable if they are reporting false information that was not said, it should not be added! TJD2 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing other people's sources is obnoxious, more so when it's edit warring. However, I do believe the Trump primary speech should be included, because I always believe in letting the subject have his say. Unless we get rid of anything about Trump's political reaction (fobbing it off on the reactions sub-article instead) we should have that source here so that people have the horse's mouth link. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

TJD2: sorry, but news accounts in the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. are reliable sources. Ask at WP:RS/N if you would like more input. The current version adequately reflects the range of sources, and the sources do reflect Trump's own remarks. There are many other cites to the same effect, e.g., CNN: "The real estate magnate also appeared to equate all Muslims who seek to come to the United States with the perpetrators of recent terror attacks -- another claim that seems to fly in the face of the evidence about a community that has been present in the U.S. for decades. 'We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer,' Trump said.").

The summary of Trump's remarks contain more controversial material than the summary of Clinton's remarks because Trump's remarks were more controversial. See, e.g., CNN: "[Trump] delivered some of the most explosive and forceful political rhetoric uttered by a major U.S. political figure in many years, seeming to show little regard for facts...Trump's rhetoric ... contrasted sharply with the more nuanced and conventional response to the attack delivered earlier by Clinton.").

We follow what the sources say here. That is simple, basic principle. Neutrality^talk 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• The sources are misquoting him though, shouldn't that be acknowledged?? I watched the entire speech and he never said what these "sources" are quoting. TJD2 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" section, there are more sentences about Democrats than Republicans. It should be even. Moreover, didn't Trump address this prior to Clinton? Why is Clinton mentioned before Trump, if he did? Finally, did Clinton talk about the Clinton Foundation's links to those Middle Eastern countries she decried in her speech?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How is it NPOV when Hilliary's paragraph has what she plans on doing should she become president, but none of her statements are refuted. It seems as though the entire paragraph for Trump was put in solely to demonize him and make him out to be wrong on everything he said. Put the facts, what he said, and not "interpretations" of what he said. Washington Post itself is a reliable source but come on, the author is clearly trying to push a narrative and we on Wikipedia need to maintain a balance. TJD2 (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is not an article about what political candidates think about Muslims. Edit warring and poor-sourcing are not acceptable, especially when combined.- MrX 15:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is NOT poor sourcing!! I included a complete video of his speech. Relevant and reliable. TJD2 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@TJD2: Take a tip from real life here. If ideology inspires one guy to build a beautiful mosque and another to build a beautiful gay bar, that's a good thing. If ideology inspires one guy to shoot up a beautiful mosque and one guy to shoot up a beautiful gay bar, that's a bad thing. POV on Wikipedia works the same way. Be the guy who is out finding new sources with respected Republican commentators who refute Hillary and justify Trump, not the guy taking out the sources that do the opposite. Don't be the guy shooting up the article. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

...and now, thanks to a cherry-picked quote, Trump is trumpeted as the defender of the LGBLT community? I saw the entire speech also. The content as written doesn't come close to representing the widespread reporting that Trump was using the mass shooting as an opportunity to further his platform (and so did Hillary).- MrX 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is time.com an unreliable source? I was just directly quoting a presidential candidate's response to the horrible attack. Zaostao (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why talk down to a fellow editor in a condescending tone? I added a new source and quoted him directly from what he said. It is obvious from what I'm seeing here that most editors have a distaste for Trump, and it's definitely coming out in the talk page. I'm done here. Not worth my time getting into it any further. We might as well go all the way and call his speech racist and bigoted and write that it "only solidifies the imminent disaster of a Trump Presidency we cannot allow to happen", or something of that effect. I'm sick of trying to instill a bit of neutral POV in an article that is obviously weighted towards Clinton. Now I get personally attacked and told I'm not doing anything constructive? Nothing I put in here will stay more than 20 seconds anyways, so I'm done. TJD2 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Trump said he would keep all Americans safe, including the LGBT community. Has Clinton addressed the Clinton Foundation's links to the countries she decried in her speech?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please stop trolling. - MrX 16:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Zigzig20s, your account dates back to 2006—you should know better than this. Don't troll. Neutrality^talk 16:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. Please assume good faith. I have no opinion about this. But there is this...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So this is how you act MrX? Apparently anything positive about Trump means they are trolling and deserve to be compared to the shooter? I still cannot believe I was compared to the shooter simply for trying to instill balance. I'm considering reporting that to the admins. TJD2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly how I act. If you are concerned about my behaviour, I invite you to avail yourself of one of our noticeboards. This is not an article for making Trump or Clinton look good. I don't know who compared you to the shooter or what that has to do with me.- MrX 16:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry MrX You didn't compare me to the shooter, Wnt did. I should have expressed that in my original sentence. I am however concerned that you jump to the conclusion someone that adding neutrality to a section biased towards Clinton means they are trolling. TJD2 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@TJD2: My intention isn't to compare you to the shooter in any moral way. Putting a hole in a person and putting a hole in a Wikipedia article are two different things. But please, don't take out useful, reliable sources simply to "tone down" or "balance" a point of view. If those sources are misrepresented, you can add more text based on them, or even change which parts you cover, but leave the sources themselves! And if they're not misrepresented, if they're partisan, then by definition there will be other parties writing other sources that this article needs to have added for balance. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nuke all but Obama and Gov. Scott. Summarize the rest in two or three sentences. Punditry, coatracking about gun control debate, and the inflmaatory comments of various politicians running for office have no lasting notability and are UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support this. (Maybe with a quote from Mayor Dyer). The more content is added, the more this sprawls and sprawls. If you wanted to WP:BOLDly attempt a major shrinking, I wouldn't object... Neutrality^talk 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I couldn't disagree more. Trump's policy-based reaction should remain. It has received too much media coverage to be redacted from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Will this be even remotely notable in 2 weeks? Does it have enduring notability? Just because it's been reported on doesn't mean we should include it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because he is likely to become the next POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is likely to become the next POTUS too. Point, Trump's statements isn't supposed to take precedence over every other candidate in the election. Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I have undid this edit, which removes (with no policy-based reason whatsoever) the text that notes that no evidence supports Trump's claim that American Muslims were somehow complicit in the attack. To include what is effectively a slur on a whole community community—without noting that no evidence supports the claim—diverge from the sources and actively misleads the reader. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Seriously, what is it about Trump's statements that ABSOLUTELY MUST make it into the article?! This is what I meant when I earlier stated that there might be some pro-Trump bias going on! Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to provide perspective by mentioning that Hillary wants to violate the Bill of Rights by attacking the civil rights of all Americans because of the actions of terrorists - since that is what she means by "gun control." In the Trump section there should also be a list of recent terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims, as Trump has quite valid arguments, as evidenced by what is called.....reality. As it stands, the article makes it appear that Wikipedia is in the paid propaganda branch of the Hillary campaign, and Wikipedia is against the Bill of Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMan (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Phone calls to 9-1-1 by Mateen

I read that he made three separate calls to 9-1-1. And I think that one -- perhaps two -- were hang up calls. This should be included in the article. I do not see any mention of it there. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think a brief mention would be good.- MrX 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Topic Sentence/Paragraph

Several people have attempted to change the lede paragraph from

The Orlando nightclub shooting, also known as the Orlando massacre, was a terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting. It occurred at the Pulse a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016. The attack was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

to

On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were murdered and fifty others were wounded inside the nightclub by a gunman before he was killed by police after a three-hour siege. The attack, which has been deemed terrorism, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

The original is the better one, as per MOS:BEGIN, and MOS:BOLDTITLE. If you wish to discuss this, please reply to this section. ~ Henry ^TALK 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Usually, on these articles, the title is not repeated exactly in the lead if it interferes with the natural flow of the text. Also, adding "Orlando massacre" is imprecise and slightly sensationalistic.- MrX 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the title interferes with the flow of the text. If anything, it is more descriptive. Also, I disagree with you about "Orlando massacre". The phrase is used both colloquially and in media coverage, so it has a place in the beginning. It could be compared to the lead sentence in the Virginia Tech Shooting article. ~ Henry ^TALK 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your actions are in blatant disregard of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes. Please stop reverting Mootros (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see here: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Mootros (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: Please see my response to that at my talk page ~ Henry ^TALK 18:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The "also known as" is not necessary because WP:BOLDTITLE uses this for situations where two different names are common, like "Mumbai, also known as Bombay". Here "massacre" is just a less-specific, more sensational form of "nightclub shooting." Also, there is information present in the second version missing in the first. So I suggest:

The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

This includes the number of people killed and wounded.

Roches (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) @Mootros: I was going to say the second/former version is also acceptable. Per your citation of the MoS, the version beginning "On June 12, 2016" is better than the version I suggested. Roches (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I like how you included the number of people killed and wounded, but I have to disagree with you on massacre. Both 'shooting' and 'massacre' are commonly used throughout the media, politically, and colloquially. ~ Henry ^TALK 18:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both terms are used, but the terms are synonymous. Roches (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't need clumsy sentences like The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting... Please read the beginners guide Mootros (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mootros. Repeating the word shooting and treating the title of the article as if it were an official title for the shooting is not good writing style.- MrX 18:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this?

The Orlando massacre was a terrorist attack that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

Henry ^TALK 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is what others seem to have agreed on... Simplicity and clarity Mootros (talk)

On June 12, 2016, a terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States.

I was trying to paste the suggestion above in to avoid edit conflicts and didn't see the relevant part of the MoS until after. So yes, that's right about repeating "shooting". I really think "massacre" is sensationalistic and I certainly don't think it should be the only title. Since there is no formal title, there does not need to be any bold tile. (Nearly all the leads I edit have formal bold titles.) Roches (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that "massacre" is sensationalistic. Massacre is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". ~ Henry ^TALK 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Awkward. "Orlando massacre" is tabloidesque. The lead was fine before people started messing with the first sentence. This

"On June 12, 2016, a terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting occurred at Pulse"

is especially poor writing, and mere speculation that this was actually a "terrorist attack".- MrX 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by facts Mootros (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: in the very video that you reference, the president himself calls the event a 'massacre', yet you say that the term massacre is sensationalistic - why do this? ~ Henry ^TALK 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there somewhere else where this has been discussed? There seems to be a huge lack of consensus in the naming of such articles (see Columbine High School massacre) and the lead of Virginia Tech shooting is near identical to the previous versions of this article. Seems like the type of thing which would need arbitration. Zaostao (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine example of a poorly written lead. Mootros (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: The URL you added to the hidden comment in the lead is not a functioning URL at ABCNews. Could you try again? General Ization ^Talk 18:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it. You had omitted the story ID. General Ization ^Talk 18:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@HenryMP02: I don't think The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting... is natural wording, but the practice of using the article title in the lead of mass murders (like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Columbine High School massacre) is pretty well established, thus why editors may be compelled to have such a wording as The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.... Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the current first para as shown in this revision. In this case, any attempt to shoehorn in the article title, based on a convention that too many incorrectly see as something required by guidelines, will result in awkward and cumbersome language. No matter what we settle on for this title, it will probably not be a "household-word" name like, for example, Oklahoma City bombing. However, if such a common name eventually emerges, that will take at least a couple of months, and we can revisit this at that time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wife of perpetrator - knowledge of attack beforehand

Should it be noted at the end of trump's section that Federal agents have confirmed that the gunman's wife knew well in advanced about the attack?[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.86 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The above post was misplaced within the section "Trump's reaction". I have moved it here for visual clarity and to break it out from the general Talkpage hubbub. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The information is reliably-sourced and does seem worthy of discussion here and/or inclusion in the article. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely worth including in the article.- MrX 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Must use caution. This amounts to alleging a crime, so we need to attribute the statement to the source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Corroborating sources and careful wording are needed.- MrX 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

United States

It seems fairly sensible to state the country where such an incident has occurred, but someone keeps removing "United States" from the opening sentences. I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary. Is there anyone on the planet who thinks Orlando, Florida is in some other country?- MrX 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. But there are certainly a great many people who don't know which country Orlando, Florida is in. We're writing a global encyclopedia here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The infobox seems sufficient for that. No need to put in lead sentence. We also provide links to Orlando, Florida which can inform the reader if they are unfamiliar with the location. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The infobox, important though it is, is collapsed for mobile users and hidden from users of other systems that pull in the lede of the article; as may be the link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Honestly don't think it's necessary but I'm not going to fight to remove it. More worried about the bloat in the reactions section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So really we're talking about the few people reading an English language article on a mobile device, who have not heard of Orlando, Florida, and who cannot or will not click on the wikilink. Are we sure that they have even heard of the United States?

Somehow, I think we can safely leave 'United States' out of the lead sentence.- MrX 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead should say United States. There are English speaking readers from all over the world and they need to have complete information. Its not our job to guess at whether most people know where Orlando is or not. I suggest that assuming everyone knows where this city is, is a US centric position. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC))

I guess I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. Also, November 2015 Paris attacks.- MrX 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Its important as an encyclopedia that we have and are responsible for encyclopedic knowledge which does not assume anything. The Paris article should also note the country in which the city is located. There are other towns/cities named Paris in the world. We have children reading this encyclopedia. They should have the information in the first line about country/ city. As editors we cannot assume the educational level of our readers.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC))

I have to agree with Littleolive oil; English is the first language of many countries not in North America, and a common second language in many, many more. Knowing the fact that English-language articles are oft better fleshed out, and far greater in number than articles in many other languages, it is not unreasonable to believe that there would be readers who do not necessarily known that Florida is part of the United States, or that Orlando is in Florida. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

They do both sound a bit Spanish. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

'Terrorist Attack' in the lead?

The lead now refers to the shooting a "terrorist attack", although the sources I checked say that President Obama called it an "act of terror". Should we prominently call the shooting a terrorist attack, when so many sources are still speculating on motive? I think we need to establish some consensus for this.- MrX 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

From a semantic point of view I don't think there is a great deal of difference. The Orlando shooting easily meets the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.[24]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This was terrorism. I cannot comprehend the desperation of some editors to play down that, even with all the media sources and government sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a great deal of difference, just like between a case of alcohol and a case of alcoholism. But there are a great deal of people successfully tricked by the wordplay, and many of these people publish news. So I'm fine with it, albeit in a surrender sort of way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Great article - some feedback

I did a top-to-bottom reading and it's a great article. I saw three items that could be improved.

• In the Perpetrator section he marries and divorces someone but then shifts to that his wife drove him to the nightclub to case it. I found this to be a confusing shift.
• The Perpetrator section also has an unusual claim from a single source. It's cited but the citation also has a long thing with additional unusual claims. While the source is NBC News which should be a WP:RS I was not comfortable with this being in the WP article and feel we should wait until there's better confirmation. I see that the #Wife of perpetrator - knowledge of attack beforehand talk thread above also covers this. The sentence and citation is: NBC News reported that Mateen's wife "drove him once to the Pulse nightclub" to case it. Cite: "Omar Mateen's Wife Tried to Talk Him Out of Orlando Attack, Sources Say". NBC News. Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
• In the Political responses section at the very end of the article is a call-out quote if something U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump said. It's the only call-out in the article and appears to be WP:UNDUE. It would work better if this quote was in-line text or removed entirely as it's essentially political posturing. The #Trump bit thread above sort of covers this. Overall, the Political responses section looked like decent NPOV except for the use of a call-out.

--Marc Kupper|talk 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: Thank you for the feedback! Greatly appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you from me as well.- MrX 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. For #3, are you talking about Trump's block quote going after Hillary? If so, that's already been removed. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political responses

Should we rename the Political responses section to Responses from journalists to political responses? If not, why is it that a direct quote from a politician is "much too much" to be included, but analysis by journalists of such quotes are fine? (see diffs: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725291547&oldid=725289680 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725294197&oldid=725293719)

Please remove your bias when editing, it's not helpful for anyone and it reeks of animosity. Zaostao (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to rename. Need to trim it. Remove all the crap from Clinton and Trump, as well as the coatracked stuff about gun control from the NYTimes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with EvergreenFir.- MrX 19:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't agree. Trump's reaction has received too much media coverage for it to be redacted from this article. You may not like what he said, but that's not an argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could put it into his bio then.- MrX 20:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No because he reacted to this.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then he can post it to his Facebook page or start a blog. His comments are purely political opportunism and have no business being in an encyclopedia article about a shooting. Note, I'm also opposed to self-serving political commentary from Clinton, Sanders, and Johnson.- MrX 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to rename. The last thing we want to do is start adding sentence- or paragraph-length block quotes from politicians. If we start doing that, the article and reaction section will absolutely bloat. We should keep this reasonably short (shorter than it is now), and rely on news pieces that have already synthesized the relevant info for us. (The sourced cited there now are news articles, not analysis or editorials). Neutrality^talk 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with the "Remove all the crap from Clinton and Trump" suggestion, but it must be both, not one or other. It is not right to push a certain opinion, or to only criticize one candidate as this is not for political punditry, it's for recording the responses of political candidates to the tragedy. "accused" is biased enough towards Trump's statements, let alone the tangents about how his statements were supposedly wrong. Zaostao (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)16 (UTC)

I caution you against appealing to "balance" though. We need to reflect sources and give the topics they cover WP:DUE weight. That said, imho, WP:NOTNEWS still trumps (pun slightly intended) here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The text must follow the sources. Is it your contention that the Washington Post, Economist, New York Times, CNN, AP, etc. are all biased against Trump, and therefore we shouldn't rely on these sources because you view their reporting as critical? Neutrality^talk 20:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting we rely on Trump's actual words to dictate what his response was to the tragedy, not a journalists response to his response. Zaostao (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. We would do better to go by the news agencies' coverage, if at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political response. Again, if the section is to be renamed Responses from journalists to political responses or Chinese whispers or whatever then this section is great, but if not, what is better to ascertain what a politician's response was to an event than to actually quote what that politician said in reaction to the event? Zaostao (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, EvergreenFir was correct.

(1) What you refer to as "responses from journalists" is really just reporting. This is not commentary, but reporting.

(2) Wikipedia prefers secondary over primary sources because we are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. Reliance on secondary sources is superior to reliance on primary sources for two main reasons. First, reliance on primary sources is an invitation to "cherry-picked" content. Second, if only primary sources are relied upon, than we lose much of the context and factchecking added by journalists. Neutrality^talk 20:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Seeking comment on these two edits by Zaostao:

• This edit added the words: "Trump referenced the November 2015 Paris attacks in his speech..." Is there any reason at all to include this? This tells the reader almost nothing of substance. Hillary Clinton also mentioned the Paris attacks in her speech. It is irrelevant, and I am inclined to remove it.
• This edit removed sourced content noting that no evidence supports Trump's assertion that American Muslims were complicit in the attack; it leaves only the accusation (introducing it with the word "alleged that..."). If we are to include Trump's statement on this point at all, it seems to me that we are absolutely bound to note (as all the sources do) that no evidence supports the claim. This is not quite a WP:BLPGROUP issue, but it certainly raises similar concerns. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I amended the first, I was trying to remove 'bloat' but went too far, apologies. The second, Trump was referencing "terrorist acts" plural, not this specific attack. If anything else is to be added, it should be mention of the San Bernardino attack and the surrounding controversy as to members of the Muslim community not taking suspicions to the police. Zaostao (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Explosive vest or no Explosive Vest

Do we know yet if this supporter of Muslim Violence against Americans, Omar Marteen's vest was of the explosive variety, like those of many of what these Islamists have used against the citizens of western democracies in the past? It seems as this has been silenced by the government agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.218.67 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen told police that he had a bomb belt or explosives during the hostage situation.[25] It was this information that made the police blow a hole in the wall and storm the building, as they believed that this was the best way to save lives. Whether he did have explosives is unclear. My guess is that he didn't, because he would have found them harder to obtain than a gun in Florida.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So we still do NOT know for sure???

Current wording in the article is "Officers initially believed he was armed with a "device" that posed a threat, but it was later revealed to be an exit sign or smoke detector that had fallen down." This is one of many things that is still unclear, but it looks unlikely that he had a real bomb.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Seddique Mateen - father of the perpetrator

It seems like Seddique Mateen is giving interviews to the press. Some of these interviews gives the impression, that Seddique Mateen is living or has been living in a state of denial. I have not read any of the English language interviews, yet, but I am confident that there must be something worthwhile adding to this article. After reading the interviews with Omar Seddiques father, I feel more enlighted about what state of mind Omar must have been in all of his life - in case he actually was gay. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Last I looked, all of this had been transferred to Omar Mateen. This is valid WP:summary style. We should not lose these clues, but for now they don't seem of top-level relevance to our understanding of the case, and can be fobbed off to the more specialized biography. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Was he killed by police or did he commit suicide? FIX THIS-

On June 12, 2016, 49 people were killed and 53 others were wounded inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States by a gunman before he himself was killed by police after a three-hour siege.204.99.118.9 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It means EXACTLY what it means. Don't know what you're missing here... Parsley Man (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and rewrote the first sentence, so anyone confused now is just confused. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest" is the wrong word.

There are not degrees of "deadly". It is an absolute term indicate the causing or being able to cause death. Every fatal shooting is deadly, by definition. A proper description, of a mass killing of more people than in any other mass shooting in the given time/locale, may take more than a tagline-length sentence. LowKey (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It is deadliest, meaning it has more deaths than other attacks. Don't really see why this is a problem. United States Man (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^^ Concur. There's the dictionary definition, and there's the almost universal usage of the word in news coverage of such incidents, and we can reasonably go with the latter. Besides, there would be no way to measure or quantify "deadliest" using the dictionary definition, so it's fairly obvious what we mean by it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If there were no degrees of "deadly", "deadlier", "deadliest" or "deadliness" wouldn't be words at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Is "most deadly" a more acceptable term (or sounds better) to the most scholarly qualified persons who might answer this discussion, than "deadliest". I actually think that LowKey might be on to something; either an attack is deadly, or it is not. Suggestion for replacement text: "This deadly attack, counted 50 deaths and 53 injured survivors; such an attack has not had a higher death count since ...". On the other hand, this is not a website only for the Rain Man movie character and Mensa members with a major in English and perhaps also Boolean algebra. 46.212.55.223 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)