Talk:2019 El Paso shooting

Manifesto

Hello, The 4 page summary/justification was on the article as a reference. Why was it removed? Willbb234 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you give a link to the reference in question? puggo (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bug2266 "The Inconvenient Truth" (PDF). 8chan. Retrieved 3 August 2019.. Just realised its a primary source, so don't worry. Willbb234 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 No deal, there's no sources mentioning this so we can't even use it as an external document to look at. puggo (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Recommend hasty removal of manifesto since it advocates violence. Also, it is unconfirmed. JimsMaher (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DISC? If that was the motivation of the shooter, then it should be included. Willbb234 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"If that was the motivation of the shooter" You answered that question yourself. We're not the ones to determine whether this is indeed the motivation. We'll put this up when the suspect and motives are confirmed by the police. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed in any way? JimsMaher (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

According to CNN, an online posting is being investigated by law enforcement but they have not confirmed that it was written by the suspect. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Until that key detail's established, nothing about this belongs in the article, for any reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

It definitely should not be reported as fact right now, but why should the article not mention that it is being investigated? Alex of Canada (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Most news sources, including NYT [1], WaPo[2], etc, are reporting that a manifesto is being investigated in relation to the shooting. This info should certainly be mentioned in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You tell a lot of people some detail or another is under investigation, a good chunk leave convinced there must be something to it. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. In general, a huge amount of policework is chasing leads to nowhere, rather than somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

It's an exact rerun of what happened with the alleged Christchurch shooter's manifesto. As discussed there, it may well have been written by the attacker, but various problems occur with reliable sourcing and legal issues by saying this. 8chan was also the main original source of the Christchurch material. History repeating itself here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Weapon

The weapon was apparently an AK-47 style according to a video here--> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/el-paso-walmart-shooting-today-police-confirm-active-shooter-cielo-vista-mall-today-2019-08-03-live-updates/, but it keeps getting reverted. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not yet fully confirmed. https://time.com/5643110/el-paso-texas-mall-shooting/Lxxl (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

EDG 543, which video? The embedded video is live transmission. If you are identifying the gun from video of the shooter, that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Also if a Twitter user says it that is an unreliable source. Wait till a source says it clearly. Just wait and be cautious in general. Don't rush to add information. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It was an AK-47 based on images from the security video and his manifesto. Specifically a WASR-10 Romanian AK-47. Also reference from New York Mag and NY Post http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/everything-we-know-about-the-el-paso-walmart-shooting.html47.184.228.187 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)jeff

Should we name the suspect in this article?

Before contributing to this section, it may be helpful to familiarise yourself with WP:BLPCRIME

Wikipedia must comply with US laws and must avoid defaming people. Therefore it is critically important that we consider whether to name the suspects. WP:BLPCRIME states as follows:

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

So naming the suspect is prohibited, but we should seriously consider not naming the suspect. So off to you fellow editors. Consider away. Thanks in advance for your contributions:

With mass shooting suspects, resistance is futile. Name away, but wait for the court to decide the truth of the charge before echoing it in Wikipedia's voice. Uncharged detainees should not be named. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

He's being named by multiple major news outlets. Any presumption of privacy, at least with regards to his name and age, is gone. I think the current wording ("CNN cites federal sources that the suspect is [name]") is fine. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. We should always interpret and enforce WP:BLPCRIME strictly. In this case, from what I can gather, the suspect has been detained but not charged with any crimes (yet), which makes the case not to name him even stronger. TompaDompa (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There was (and still is) a discussion about this at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. The TL;DR for me is that the person named in media reports in connection with the El Paso shooting has not been charged and appeared in court yet. If and when he does, he can be named in the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the Christchurch shooting, New Zealand has laws against naming suspects. The US doesn't generally have such laws. If multiple sources are naming the suspect, I'm not sure why we shouldn't. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The susperp is named in media outlets around the world. The horse has bolted. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Even for vermin like this, we need to uphold correct standards. In this case it means that he's innocent until proven guilty. Newspapers may have different standards, but we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait for a guilty verdict. Given that this person up till now was a complete nobody, I don't see the encyclopedic value of giving his name. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

status of mall

Like almost all mass shootings, this one also took place in a location where it was illegal for the victims to defend themselves.

This is relevant to this article, because the subject of gun control always comes up every time there is a mass shooting.

This shooting is another example of how gun-free zones are a magnet for mass shooters. Mass shooters almost always choose a location where their victims are not allowed to defend themselves.

This information should be included in the article.

"Yet another shooting at a gun-free zone: El Paso shooting at Cielo Vista Mall is apparently in a place that banned permitted concealed handguns" https://crimeresearch.org/2019/08/yet-another-shooting-at-a-gun-free-zone-el-paso-shooting-at-cielo-vista-mall-is-apparently-in-a-place-that-banned-permitted-concealed-handguns/

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1ae8e7fd114

Banana5742 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

While things like this will certainly wind up in an article like this, especially "near" elections, I'd like to remind anyone reading this that [redacted]. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, August 4, 2019 (UTC) Reminder that this is not a forum for discussion about the shooting, but rather about the article itself. Please take your conversation elsewhere if you want to delve further. As for the OP making the request, his account appears to be new and is making an edit request? If so, his source (crimeresearch) does not appear to be reputable or credible. Others here will determine what to do with OP's request. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Agree Talk pages are for discussing article content and this is veering off that path.Mozzie (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Collapsed discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is wrong as far as I can tell. The store was not a gun free zone but allowed open carry. Reason writes: "Texas is an open-carry state and Walmart allows customers to open-carry inside their stores in such states..." [3] --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twitter account / Newsone

@Nice4What: Hey, sorry, I missed the note [4] in your edit summary before reverting. I did check WP:RS/N for NewsOne, and while it doesn't come up as unreliable, I can't find anything else to support its reliability either. It doesn't even have a WP article (News One is something else). While it may or may not be reliable, that article doesn't inspire much confidence. It seems to be mostly "here's what people are saying on Twitter". Per WP:NOTGOSSIP, that doesn't have a place here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you, though it's worth mentioning the article does collect tweets from journalists verified on Twitter that connect the old account to the shooter. If more reliable sources come up, then we should readd the account. Until then, I suppose it makes more sense to not include this part. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I agree this is worth including if it can be better sourced. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Right wing terrorism

Why doesn’t the article point out that this is right wing terrorism? Are we just trying to be politically correct here? 71.33.134.68 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: Find a reliable source that says its a right-wing terrorist attack and add it to the article. It's really that simple, but you might need to build a consensus for its inclusion if someone disputes it. No need to complain about "political correctness". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Wikipedia editors always defend the conservative PC line everytime there is a right wing terrorist attack. The editors refused to point out that Christchurch terrorist was a terrorist even after the PM of New Zealand pointes it out. The editors here are too afraid to offend the right wing trump supporter editors and not concerned enough with the objective facts of an event, even if they’re widely reported in the media. I’m tired of pro gun violence activists using platforms like Wikipedia to force their agenda on everyone. It’s time to end gun violence forever. #RepealThe2ndAmendment. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC) @71.33.134.68: Another editor removed your entire reply, so I'm re-adding it along with a collapse template per WP:FORUM. At the end of the day, we can only edit in what reliable sources are reporting. We can't call this right-wing terrorism if nobody else is calling it that. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC) I agree. Lately, most mass shootings in the US carried out by white men are because of white supremacy. What's so supreme about white people? Imperialism? Racism? Nevertheless, we have to wait until the FBI declare this a domestic terror attack (we all know Trump would never do, and I'm a Republican.) Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All we have to do is have reliable sources calling it terrorism. That’s all. This isn’t a place to push pro-right wing and pro-gun propaganda. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:TERRORISM: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Additionally, there's a WP:BLPCRIME issue: terrorism is a type of crime (it has a legal definition, depending on jurisdiction), and nobody has been convicted of terrorist crimes (yet). Similarly, we can't call a killing a "murder" prior to a trial (if there is a trial), because the perpetrator could be convicted of a lesser crime such as manslaughter. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting anti-gun violence comments

Why are all anti-gun violence comments being purged from this talk page? Is this conservapedia now? 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: The talk page is for discussing the contents of an article, not criticize Wikipedia as a whole. Where do you feel you're being censored? I saw that your earlier message was removed, so I readded it. If you want, I'd invite you to express your concerns on my talk page or yours as that's where the conversation better belongs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the editor on their talkpage, pointing out WP:NOTFORUM. They're not listening, and are about to be blocked if they don't stick to specific discussions for article improvement. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am mad that my posts are being deleted. Thank you for re-adding them. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

While I've been re-adding your comments (with some collapses), please don't keep using this talk page as you've been doing. Please read WP:FORUM. I understand your frustration with how Wikipedia reports on shootings, but I hope you understand we are bound by using reliable sources and can't use our own interpretations. Acroterion has already attempted to help you on your talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have stated exactly that. Reliable sources are required. My problem is that despite the existence of reliable sources, the content is still be curated to promote a specific pro-gun ideology and consistently uses the language of the pro-gun movement. This is what I am complaining about. This article and others concerning other terrorist attacks are the same. And that is a shame. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: Please let me help you out. If you see any biased language in the article, please point it out as that would be against WP:NPOV. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The simple fact that this event is called “mass shooting” and not “terrorist attack” is evidence of bias. We must pick our words carefully and this is no exception. It’s no secret that there is a systemic hesitancy to label terror attacks committed by right wingers as terrorist attacks. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the terrorist was Muslim or black. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: I understand your frustration but please cite reliable sources that establish this event as a terrorist attack. Also, read MOS:TERRORIST first! I want to point out to you that an ongoing investigation surrounding domestic terrorism is included in the lede, so it's not like the article mentions nothing. And the event is without a doubt a mass shooting, something that people on either side agree with. I have to say if there is no biased language included, then I don't know what more I can tell you. Let me know if you need help with anything else but use my talk page instead to avoid more removed/collapsed comments. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Calling this “mass shooting” and not “terrorist attack” is evidence of bias. There would be no wait for reliable sources before calling it a terrorist attack if the shooter was a Muslim or was black. Pro-gun activists want it to be called “mass shooting”, even though it’s clearly and obviously a terrorist attack. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) @71.33.134.68: I'm collapsing your comments again. You seem to be picking a fight with how the media reports the attack. Read the message I left on your talk page. Don't continue misusing this article's talk page please. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't explain my self-redaction without an edit conflict. But for now, in short, I wasn't bullied into silence. Just realized I was technically promoting regular violence as a prevention. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Suspected motive

Would it not be fair to add "Anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican (suspected)" to the infobox under motive? I see under the lede that the manifesto is believed with "reasonable confidence" by police to be written by the suspect and also that he told investigators that he "wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible." I think that that would at least indicate that this motive is suspected. I'm not saying this is the established motive as the investigation is ongoing, I'm saying this motive is suspected. Bringing this here because I don't want to continue an edit war and it feels odd that the article is missing this. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Need a source saying such sentiment is suspected of motivating him to shoot these people before it's even arguably fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto which explains a motive has been linked to the suspect [5]. Also read this, which states:

While investigations are ongoing into a motive, the attack “has a nexus to a hate crime,” El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said. Authorities think the gunman posted a manifesto online listing “the Hispanic invasion of Texas” as one of several motivations for the massacre.

This wouldn't even be WP:OR to include a suspected motive, but rather WP:COMMONSENSE at this point. The manifesto has been described as listing motivations for the attack and now the manifesto has been linked to the suspect. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Also to add "Anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, racism (suspected)" as a potential full proposal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're getting closer with that "authorities think" line, but that's still them thinking he wrote the piece which mentioned a motive, not that he (as the alleged shooter, not the suspected author) acted upon the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

"Authorities think" updates to "Authorities confirm that the gunman posted a manifesto online listing 'the Hispanic invasion of Texas' as one of several motivations for the massacre." Then what? Is that not enough? Again, want to point towards WP:COMMONSENSE here cause this feels a bit ridiculous. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it not also ridiculous to equate "Hispanic invasion" with "Mexican immigration"? What about American Latinos who cross from Oklahoma? Are they invading Texas? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to he told investigators that he "wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible." 🙄 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

So perhaps regardless of their migrant status or race? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what point you're trying to make. The manifesto has been described as anti-immigrant so the attack most certainly isn't regardless of their migrant status. Speculating is a bit off-topic too. Have you read the manifesto and its listed motives? Maybe then you could make more sense of this obvious suspected motive. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're cobbling bits together to arrive at your own conclusion. In under a day. With the news as your only evidence. Police and prosecutors are trained and paid to establish motive, and they take months to build a case. Because it's complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

If "the news" is reliable, we're allowed to use it. We have no policy saying we have to wait months. That's why I'm stressing that we put a suspected motive, not an established motive that might be later determined by police/prosecutors. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're combining two pieces of news, the manifesto and the interview, to make one hybrid claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Manifesto → Anti-immigrant. Interview → Anti-Mexican. Except now I believe that the interview may not suffice (will strike until more reliable sources report on this). I would still believe the manifesto which lists motivations could be used to fill in a suspected motivation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Imagine whatever you want. But don't hold other people's hunches to higher standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Donald Trump in the lead?

I'm not super comfortable with that meeting WP:DUE. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it fails to meet WP:UNDUE? I'd like to comment that though the linked account was inactive for two years (which I would then question its inclusion), the manifesto does mention Trump. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at some of the coverage, I see this is getting a lot of play in the media and press. Under the circumstances I am OK with it for now. This can be revisited later if it looks like the degree of attention and coverage justifies it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto DOES mention Trump, but just insofar as the suspect anticipates media mentions of Trump and says that his attitudes pre-date Trump's election such that a connection to Trump is a reach that isn't supported by his circumstance.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Political affiliation fact check: Democrat. Prior to events of Patrick Crusius, shooter, was a registered Democrat, Online changes were made to his public profile after events occurred from Democrats to Republican https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/leftists-change-shooter-patrick-crusiuss-mylife-page-after-saturday-shooting-from-democrat-to-republican/ DavidGoliathMediaPRFirm (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for information on the suspect's political affiliation, the article already covers his support for Trump on a Twitter account active until 2017. Also, the website that your article covers, MyLife, is user-edited. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 06:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

We simply cannot take anything on MyLife as fact. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of people in the Walmart

The LA times is reporting that there were about 3,000 shoppers and 300 employees inside the Walmart at the time of the shooting, and we're repeating it here. This seems ridiculously high. A typical Walmart Supercenter is 180,000 sq ft. In an otherwise empty space of this size, 3,300 people who are evenly spread out in a hexagonal packing arrangement would be a little less than 4 feet apart. Closer to 3 when you consider that people have width, and even less once you account for shelves, racks, counters, etc. It seems extremely unlikely that there were this many people inside the Walmart, even if it were twice the average size. I'm guessing this was the number in the entire mall complex (still quite busy but within reason), but who knows. I've tagged it as dubious, hopefully this can be clarified. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. Remove, for now, I say. Willbb234 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

USA Today attributes a guess of up to 3,100 (a hundred staff) to Sheriff Gomez, which is maximum capacity for that Walmart. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It seems high. Let's remove it for now. We can always add back an accurate number later on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

sources

some of the sources are dead links?

Which ones? It helps to specify--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:58CC:C983:EAB3:71FF (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove any political references

lets report facts...not opinion...the word 'reported' should be stricken and anything after. if the information is CONFIRMED post it HERE

if you want a BLOG for political rhetoric and speculation call it that...not HERE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.108.68 (talk)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you have specific concerns, please bring them up here, but this event is heavily intertwined with politics and independent sources report it as such. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Politics exist everywhere. Venting your frustration at the shooter's political beliefs being listed in this article (as reported by reliable sources) is a poor reflection on yourself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement- Change it to 'white-nationalist conspiracy theory'

In the official article, it says that it is a white nationalist theory. So then, why are we using 'white supremacist' instead of what the designated page describes it as?

I only see the term white nationalist being used on the article at this moment. No mention of white supremacy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: It's been changed now, sorry. Before it was called a white supremacist conspiracy theory.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Sam hyde meme picture, please remove 71.204.179.216 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What it is exactly you are referring to? The picture of the alleged shooter? 331dot (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is meant to be satire. The Sam Hyde meme is a running joke about a lone white gunman.[6] Presumably 71 wants a photo removed, but there isn't one of Patrick Crusius at the moment (and there shouldn't be either).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Referring to this diff. Willbb234 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Shooter?

Why is the perpetrator referred to as a "shooter" in this article? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, the article is not going to say "X did it" until a court says so. From past experience I know that not everyone likes this approach, but that is how things are done on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be addressing a different point to the one I'm making. I'm arguing against a specific word - 'shooter' - simply because it's the vernacular, verging on slang, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. 'Gunman' or 'assassin' would be better here. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please offer any reliable sources you have that use that terminology to reference the alleged shooter. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post: "EL PASO — Officials continued searching Sunday for answers after a gunman killed 20 people and wounded dozens more at a shopping …". So you're saying that in Wikipedia articles we must slavishly follow every single word in references and there is no latitude for using alternative words meaning the same thing? Anyway, the vast majority of sources in this type of article will be newspapers, and newspapers typically use different styles and words to those used in an encyclopedia. They adopt the vernacular quite readily; and this is not normally suitable for an encyclopedia, except when providing a direct quote. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

White Nationalism Motive

Shouldn't white nationalism as a motive be backed up by a reliable source? Lokii192 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of "hold the front page" editing, and although it may turn out that the shooter was some sort of race-obsessed wack job, it is early days to say this for sure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think editors should more often simply admit that we don't know; it's better than spreading conjecture. Lokii192 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The politicized narrative based on info adjusted after the shooting.

Before the shooting the gunman had an online MyLife page that said he was a Democrat. It wasn't until a little after 4 PM, after the shootings, that the shooter's online presence was changed to Republican, Christian, NRA, and Q supporter. [7]

The name of Trump being spelled out with guns is also being attributed to the gunman although a reverse look up of the image shows it has been around for a long time.

This Wikipedia article is attempting to lay out a political narrative using this shooting as a tool of deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c42:7a80:c901:3878:34ec:da0c:4d3b (talk) 2019-08-04T17:16:44 (UTC)

There is a Snopes article about the alleged shooter's Twitter account (since deleted) which confirms that he did not create the image with the word Trump spelled out with guns.[8] However, Snopes says that the alleged shooter's account did post a "like" of the image in February 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

Further above you'll see discussion about MyLife: suffice it to say, nothing from that site can be used here, as it is not reliable and is used edited (much like IMDB). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is just a little embarrassing... MyLife is user-edited and thus unreliable (this was already discussed above). Also, though the picture of the guns spelling out "Trump" wasn't taken by the gunman, it was liked by a Twitter account associated with him. That Twitter account also had other pro-Trump content if I'm not mistaken. There's no "politicized narrative" being pushed here, it just seems you might be upset with the true views (as supported by reliable sources) held by the gunman. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(it just seems you might be upset with the true views) The same fake news that said the Garlic festival shooter was a white supremacist that turned out to be an Iranian pro-Islamist that Instagrammed anti-white posts? So this white supremacist used his real name on 4chan/8chan, a place where everyone's name is "anonymous" with a number. And it is conveniently gone and only thew gatekeeper fake news got to see it. I think it is a sad state of affairs when wikipedia plays along with the political propaganda to use shootings a tools and weapons of deception. 2600:6C42:7A80:C901:3878:34EC:DA0C:4D3B (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)me

@2600:6C42:7A80:C901:3878:34EC:DA0C:4D3B:If you have a problem with "fake news", bring it up to the RS noticeboard. Also, the article for Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting goes in-depth about the doubts that it was a white supremacist attack. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "playing along with the political propaganda" but there is a need to be careful about using screenshots of Facebook accounts etc as a reliable source. Some MSM sources may do this, but there is a possibility of it turning out to be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Twitter account that the alleged shooter liked is John doe @juhhhjgghk here. However, I couldn't find the specific tweet from February 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd ignore the IP. At least until they can show mainstream claims that the Garlic festival shooter, whose profile said he was Italian and Iranian, was an Iranian pro-Islamist. --Doug Weller talk 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mention of 2019 Dayton shooting

A shooting in Dayton Ohio took place less than 24 hours after the shooting in El Paso. Cincinnati resident (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I wondered whether the article should mention this, but there is no obvious link between the two shootings. It has set off the routine debate about gun ownership in the US. At the moment, it is only in the "See also" section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

List of victim names

When the names are released, and even though they will have been, we must respect the WP:BLPPRIVACY of the victims and their families. This is also not a memorial. There is no need to list the victim's names and ages here. What we can do is describe them as a group ("The victims' ages ranged from xx to xx ...") and link to the articles that contain this information, so it is available to a reader who wants it. General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoth WP:BLPPRIVACY: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". Traditionally, articles such as this do name the dead victims. It's rarer for living victims to be named, however. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope it won't come to the formula I had to apply to the Virginia Beach shooting (the same one that was brought to ARCA and was ruled in my favour) — but it looks like it might be the case here, too. El_C 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It just wouldn't be Wikipedia without an argument over whether to include a list of the victims' names. Not all articles do, there was a clear consensus not to do this at 2017 Las Vegas shooting where it would have been a long contextless list. Wikipedia articles are not news articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: What are you even talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Include or exclude victim names

• Include – This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. I believe that victim names should be included in this article. They are a pertinent part of the story / event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)