Talk:West Freeway Church of Christ shooting

New article

I know it's not complete. I actually can't believe nobody has created it already. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the raw unfinished version. It's been so long since I created or edited anything here, I forgot most of it. But the beauty of wikipedia is the crowd effort. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You know, instead of adding tags, you could, you know, do some editing and clean up and fix the things you tagged. Because it actually takes less time. Just saying. Fxmastermind (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is super weird that live video of the shooting is on twitter, but you can't use twitter as a source.

When did an actual video of an event, posted on Twitter, become "not a good source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind (talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Who posted it? What are their credentials? How do we know it wasn't doctored? Since Twitter is a user-generated source, these are important points of caution. Unless the video conveys essential information, linking to it is liable to be simply gratuitous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your rebuttal might have held some merit back on December 29th, in the few hours after the livestream had occurred. But I have no idea why you are posting that comment and asserting those points three days after this video was livestreamed. Because the situation today is vastly different than it was on Sunday morning. Look at all the national news outlets which have had this video broadcast ever since Sunday afternoon. We are not talking about just one random Twitter user. You can check CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc, etc, etc. They have all used the very same video. Each applying their own standards for editing to shield sensitive viewers from the horrendous violence.

And there is absolutely nothing gratuitous about this video. It happens to be the rare case where the public was shown an entire mass shooting incident from the moment he walked into that room up through to the end. This video has astounding historical value, and it will be studied for many many years to come.

You asked, "How do we know it wasn't doctored?"

This video was livestreamed.

Aside from that fact, perhaps you have some awareness of the effort that it takes to do a manipulative edit of a video. If the video in question had been a reposting the next day of the livestream, or even later that evening, then this would be a good question to be asking.

However, the incident happened at close to 11am, and here is what might be the most viral of the Twitter repostings, which is timetagged with a 12:30pm uploading: https://twitter.com/GrantB911/status/1211384089019858946

So then your question would be more like asking, "How do we know that GrantB911 does not own a time machine? This would have given him time to doctor the video and then upload to Twitter back in a timeline of immediate posting.

So of all of the points you have raised in your rebuttal, I myself do not see a single one to hold any merit. In general, yes, they would. But it is absolutely clear that in this case they do not. For all the reasons explained above. --Concord19 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Video shows 8 armed responders / 3 shots in 2 seconds

THIS edit removed key info which showed that 8 church members responded to the assailant with their own guns. The video which was included as the reference highlighted seven armed responders after the shooter had taken two shots, and did not count the first armed responder who was killed while attempting to draw his weapon after having stood up. So it is clear that the total number of armed responders clearly shown in the livestream was 8. The edit summary offered by WWGB was this:

"number returning fire not in a reliable source, just OR"

The rebuttal I presented in the subsequent edit included this:

"the edit which states that a total of 8 church members responded with their guns is accurate. Info was erroneously removed as being OR. Anyone with access to the source video can confirm this for themselves. The reference vid merely zoomed in on each person."

Simple observation of a source video does not constitute WP:OR. Anyone can watch the livestream and count this themselves. I myself have no current plans to make any more edits to this article. But it is clear to me that important and accurate info got deleted under improper interpretation of the OR policy. And that proper action will be to re-add the info that this livestream clearly showed 8 church members responding with their own guns. I will leave it to others here to improve this article. My opinion is that removal of those words was not necessary, nor useful.--Concord19 (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where people argue over what is a fact, and what is a source. Fxmastermind (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no foolin.

And I'm actually part of the problem here. I had initially removed that CBS 11 News report reference. And then I made the bad decision to re-introduce it to support the statement that was being presented, saying "within six seconds of his first shot".

But here too, anyone who watches the livestream can see that all three shots happened in TWO seconds. It was bad/lazy reporting on the part of CBS 11 News to make that statement that:

"From the first gunshot to the last, it took only a matter of six seconds."

It is clearly an inaccurate report. Yet I made the decision to re-add that reference, after I had already removed it, with this purpose of using it to support the inaccurate info being presented in our article here. The proper fix would have been for me to change "within six seconds of his first shot" to read "two seconds after his first shot". And then use the Primary Source of the livestream as being the easily verifiable reference. The most recent edits were to change this to "three", and then someone reverted it back to "six".

It is clear that the proper info is "two seconds after his first shot". So these are now TWO fixes that need to be made. And I contributed toward the problem in this second example where our article is not presenting the best info. Again, I will leave it to others here to do those fixes. I will check back later. --Concord19 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC) [last edited 16:56, 31Dec2019]

All 3 shots were triggered in 2.210 seconds

This is the exact timing of how long it took for all 3 shots to be triggered. The shooting was over after 2 seconds. I know this because I took the source audio, and timed it. And NO, it does not constitute Original Research to apply something as simple and basic as a stopwatch. When an editor takes a source, and examines it in the easiest of ways that absolutely anyone else can check on their own, then it is not "research". It is simply documenting facts. --Concord19 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Not every fact belongs in an encyclopedia. When we have published analysis, interpretation, and evaluation by reliable sources, then we'll know what's duly weighted and what isn't. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who has listened to reports on this incident has heard that one of the defining characteristics of this shooting, compared to so many others, is how quickly it ended. Along with being captured on livestream, these are the two major aspects which has set this apart from other mass shootings and church shootings. If your argument is that the info that the shooting, from start to finish, was over in 2 seconds does not belong in the article, I could not disagree with you more. And the point which has already been asserted is that it is not necessary to wait to have some Secondary Analysis to publish the simple fact which has already been published here in the Talk section. All 3 shots happened in the span of 2.210 seconds. Use of a stopwatch does NOT constitute WP:OR original research. Anyone can watch the video, which is widely available to everyone, and listen to the shots themselves, and verify that yes, the shooting happened in 2 seconds. And then it was over. Simple fact.

I have no idea why you are highlighting this policy which states "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."

Again, just listen to the reporting which is being done. And you can clearly hear how it is widely stressed how quickly this incident ended. --Concord19 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Who are you going to believe?

An actual video of an event, or what somebody on the TV tells you happened?

One might ask the same question about a wikipedia article.

Fxmastermind (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Award for Jack Wilson

The Governor gave the "highest civilian award" to Jack Wilson, for his role in the shooting. This should be added to the article. Source: Parishioner, 71, who shot dead church gunman is honored with Texas' highest civilian award but claims he's not a hero, he's just 'not one to walk away'. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

More Information of shooter

Given the shooters criminal history, it would make sense to have that information in the article. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Particularly the shooter's motivation. Failing to do so is censorship, which Wikipedia supposedly does not allow. I'll also mention that the reasons for the Sutherland Springs Shooting seem very weak to me. Yes I know reliable sources quoted the FBI for the information, but still you don't kill an entire church full of people when you are mad at your mother-in-law. While I also understand the prohibition on "conspiracy theories", I do think a healthy sense of skepticism is warranted on any mass shooting, particularly church shootings in the US, given that many people feel that it's their obligation to suppress factual information about these types of shootings (such as mentioning the shooter's name) in order to try to prevent copycat shootings, or help the shooter "accomplish his goals" or however one chooses to phrase it. The idea that giving publicity and attention to the shooter and his/her purposes makes you complicit in the crime. Which might be true in a moral sense, but that's not what Wikipedia says it is, i.e. an information platform that selectively censors information in order to achieve a political objective, or prevent one. The Las Vegas mass shooting is yet another example of where someone went to great lengths to accomplish killing as many people as possible, and the motivations for the actions are missing from the public awareness. I'm detecting a trend here, or a pattern, and I object to it.68.206.249.124 (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The policy of not naming names or giving any attention to mass murderers

I don't know where it's stated, or if it is Wikipedia 'policy' now, but it seems there is some sort of organized effort, both on Wikipedia, and in the actual world, to not mention the name of anyone who kills a bunch of people. Nor to have an article about the person, but rather bury them inside an article that is just about the murders.

By this reasoning, Stalin, Nixon, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and a whole bunch (like, a really big bunch) of other people should not have a Wikipedia page. Just bury a short note about them inside an article. Eventually we might not even need that. Just refer to them as "the murderer".

Like how we call somebody "the shooter" now.

Fxmastermind (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)