Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack

Devout Muslim edit

This edit is a BLP violation, cherry picked content and UNDUE. I have removed it.

According to Farook's father, he was married, had a child and was a devout Muslim.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. No true muslim would ever do a terrorist act. Therefore no terrorists are muslim - even though they quote the Koran and follow it to the letter carrying out their sick crimes. Did I get your "logic" right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't object to the information. The source is reliable and the primary is the suspect's own father, so that's a fairly solid source. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the assertion about the degree of the suspect's Muslim faith, it expresses only the opinion and belief of the father. Let's wait on that until there is more to back it up. Some would argue that a devout Muslim would never engage in behavior like this (while others would claim it explains the behavior). General Ization ^Talk 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Risks WP:SYN to mention it in connection to this event, however. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes; to be clear, I was suggesting we not mention it. And without that nugget of info, the info that he allegedly was married and had a child is not remarkable (at this time). General Ization ^Talk 05:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the name of a second suspect was posted in Twitter and picked up by the Washington Times. This article falls under WP:BLP and we need much better sourcing than that. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Twitter post was by Rick Serrano of the LA Times, who was likely live tweeting from a briefing, but I agree we should wait until the Times actually publishes it. General Ization ^Talk 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

With Muslim spokespeople at the press conference, shown on live feed, obviously the authorities and the Muslims think this is relevant. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It may very well prove to be relevant, but it is not urgent that we include it here until the facts are more clear and better sources are available. General Ization ^Talk 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Names such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik indicate they were Muslims of Pakistani background. If sources are found then we should add this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This source says he was Pakistani-American. [1] See also [2]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sayed Farook's father described him as a devout muslim so that should be included in the article. This especially since members of the Farook family had a press conference making it a point to describe him as a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information directly related to shooting can be included. Unless you have a source stating that the shooter's religion had something to do with the shooting, that particular factoid is not notable. Stating that the shooter is a muslim without stating that particular fact's relevence to the shooting also violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like his trip to Saudi Arabia might be relevant. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is a source reporting that the trip was relevant to the shooting? If not, such speculation violates WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Biographical information about a shooter is relevant. And since he and his wife are quite dead, BLP does not apply. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information about the shooting itself is relevant. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Its basic bio info, like his age and job and the relationship between the shooters. Nothing wrong with it. The Muslim part is in the middle of a three point sentence so its just two words, hardly undue. I restored the line.Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's very relevant at this point, considering he recently traveled to SA. According to our Wikipedia article on state-sponsored terrorism, "Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism" and "the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism". Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That is speculation and thus violates WP:SPECULATION. No source is reporting that his trip to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas are you saying that, since he traveled to SA, that trip must have been Islamist terrorism-related? How does that not violate WP:SYNTH? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in fact a POV to not mention it. If he was strongly evangelical, atheist, or was strongly into a political movement it should be noted like anything else. He is being described by his father as being very devout, with strict adherence to prayer. If he was a minor part of his life then it would not be worth noting. . --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No sources are reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. Including the shooter's religion would be the same as including information about the shooter's taste in music or his favorite color. Unless it has something to do with the event of the shooting itself (which is the topic of this article), then it is not notable. This is not conservapedia. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Cwobeel and ParkH.Davis on this one, at least for the time being. Some reports have indicated that Farook had a beef with a co-worker; say, for example, if—and that's a big if—that beef was specific to Muslims or Islam and is reliably linked to the shooting—say, as a motive—it would most certainly be germane. To include this data now, without context, is potentially inflammatory. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the FBI brought in the Joint Terrorism task force and that Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia AND that his own family describes him as a devout Muslim; his religion is relevant to this article. The same way a person who shoots up an abortion clinics religious Christan beliefs is relevant to a story like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we also omit that the suspect "worked locally as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels" or should we only omit that the suspect was "very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim"? [3] Bus stop (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, with all respect. The former speaks to his presence; the latter speculates on a motive that cannot possibly, at least at this point, be synthesized. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooter worked for the organization throwing the holiday party which he attacked. Thus his employment status actually has something to do with the actual shooting itself. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So why do we display religion in the Bio info boxes of people from political figures Ben Carson, Stephen_Harper to terrorists Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ? Muslim leaders are all over this thing. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are biographical articles. The subject of this article is the event of the shooting, not of the life of the shooter. It violates WP:NPOV to state facts about the shooter which have nothing to do with the shooting and which promote a biased position against muslim people. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, the collaborative effort—theoretically, anyway—of thousands of active editors, many of whom—let's be honest—push an agenda. Not that you are; not that I am. Ideally, however, this fact would be mentioned only where germane, even for a person who self-identifies as whatever. Are you a Muslim? Irrelevant. Are you a Christian? Irrelevant. Are you an atheist? Irrelevant. Unless it is part of why you're relevant. Do you fund Islamist terrorism? Relevant. Did you build the biggest church in your community? Relevant. Did you file numerous cases against school districts to abolish prayer? Relevant. Ideally. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We just report the information from RS. Same as his name, age, relationship with the girl etc. No one here adding the info is saying his religion lead to the shooting, but scrubbing it out is POV by the editor removing it because that editor is saying it is not important. 08:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Unless a source says that it is relevent, then it is not relevent. This is not conservapedia and it clearly violates WP:NPOV to state the shooter's religion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, we're seeing different things (and, no, we don't "just report".) His name is germane; he's the suspected shooter. His age probably is not germane, but that's rarely contested. His relationship to the woman is germane; they were together when killed in the shootout, per police. His religion, or whether he even had one, is not germane unless it can be tied with some degree of certainty to the shooting itself—like his name and his apparent partner are. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Hussam Ayloush with the Council on American Islamic Relations said Farook was married for two years. He wouldn’t confirm whether Malik was the wife." Source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Other sources have since confirmed she was his wife. It's likely that the reason the above source couldn't confirm it is because they didn't know. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Please do not re-insert this material unless there is consensus for inclusion, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - there is consensus that his religion is important, look around this page. Also it was removed by an editor on his 6th RR removing the religion, so had he not edit warred it would still be there. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any emerging consensus for inclusion. We don't indicate the religion of Dylann Roof or Robert Lewis Dear because it was not relevant to their actions. If and when the religion of the perps in this incident becomes known as relevant, it can be added, but not before. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my adding it back after a now blocked editor removed it is edit warring. I template you for disruptive editing already. There are tons of sources discussing his religion. Reverse your revert now. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? There is a discussion here ongoing and no emerging consensus for inclusion. Please respect WP:DR and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and be aware that this article is under discretionary sanctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

His religion is presented as a biographical and uncontroversial fact with other similar facts. Since you brought up discretionary sanctions... Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline. If this emerges as a crucial issue out of the investigation, it will be added and expanded. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, and it's your job to determine what "crucial issue" means? Not hardly. It is being widely reported by all the news organizations cited by this article, and there is a consensus to include his religion. It's not your sole decision to make. --Dan East (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, he was a Muslim? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!

(No, it doesn't really matter. It should really seriously be removed unless it's relevant here.) epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus: For

1. Cla68
2. Legacypac
3. Krzyhorse22
4. Harizotoh9
5. Viriditas
6. 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68
7. Bus stop
8. Dan East
9. Dream Focus
10. Bod
11. Viriditas

Against

1. Cwobeel
2. General Ization
3. ATinySliver
4. epicgenius

Dan East (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I also expressed a position of "against" as is well documented in this talk page. Please keep in mind that as per wikipedia policy, if, in a discussion, 10 editors support one side, and 7 support another, this does not mean the side with 10 automatically wins. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it a dog whistle when everyone can hear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.195.122 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• If devout Muslim should be added to this article, shouldn't devout Christian be added to the Robert Lewis Dear article? Frankly, I don't like it in bio boxes unless the person is a religious leader. Objective3000 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  That article is being deleted, but mention of him being a Christian is in the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting article. "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic". If their personal belief was part of the cause of something, it shouldn't be censored out. Dream Focus 21:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Couldn't find the word devout. First, we need to have a relevant reason to include religion. Second, we shouldn't be measuring a person's religion based on what someone else said. Further, the entire concept of measuring a person's devotion and expressing it with an adjective is bothersome. And please, don't use that "censorship" label. Not adding content that is not right to add to an encyclopedia article is not censorship. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devout deeply religious : devoted to a particular religion. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelistic the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ. So "extremely evangelistic" means the same as being "devout Muslim", only different religions of course. Removing content and keeping it from an article is censorship. And if reliable sources believe something is significant enough to mention, relevant to this case, then that's what we go by, not your personal opinions. The news has already covered the Facebook post where his wife made a post pledging allegiance to an Islamic State leader, this according to federal law enforcement officials. They were clearly jihadists. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihadist Dream Focus 05:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing bio details

User:Firebrace sees the suspect traveling to Saudi Arabia to marry the other suspect [4] and the man growing a beard [5] recently as irrelevant. I disagree. Everyone is digging into background, movements and state of mind and yet this editor is discarding sourced information - which is a POV act. Perhaps a better explanation? Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask people to explain why they removed content when you didn't explain why you added it. Firebrace (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Him traveling to Saudi Arabia and marrying someone from there is quite relevant. Read the Wikipedia article for that country. Search for the word "terrorism" to find the relevant parts. Is growing a beard part of his religion though? Does it symbolize anything? We should also mention he was very religious and of course mention his religion. Was his belief system influenced by Wahhabism? Dream Focus 09:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Him traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet the other gunman and marrying her is kind of relevant. Their relationship is central to the case. We can leave out speculation but we can state just the facts for the time being. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why growing a beard is unusual behavior? I mean, beards are very popular right now. Firebrace (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not usual. It seems as if some editors are seeking to associate the shooters with terrorism. This violates WP:SPECULATION as no motive has been established. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, you are bordering on trolling.[6] Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since lots of news outlets and the FBI are talking terrorism... And why is a 6RR editor still editing here? [7] Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Visa status of his wife are important as that determines whether simple possession of a firearm is legal. Pipe bombs, however are not legal. This incident is more akin to the Boston Marathon bombing. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Beard issue

• Support If a coworker thought it was relevant enough to mention in sourced material, please stop removing it. I was surprised to see this in the history just by chance. Bod (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

He might have been asked a leading question. Firebrace (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have personal anecdotal evidence that security people are more wary of bearded men. Bod (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

See stereotyping. Firebrace (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose 'cos men with beards are not all suspicious or may be terrorists! WWGB (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - we have RS saying he had become more "devout" recently, this may be considered a piece of supporting evidence (see Beard#Islam, and/or Viriditas's link above). Or one might take it simply as a straightforward physical description. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove. We definitely should present information like this in such a way that it doesn't give it more value than it deserves and lead readers to a potentially false conclusion, but we also have to trust that they won't ascribe too much value to it on their own, and therefore censor it entirely in an attempt to avoid that. We're supposed to present it neutrally and let them do the rest. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support AdventurousSquirrel is right. I clicked his link and read that article, and this is relevant. He embraced this belief system, very devout, grew a beard because of it. Dream Focus 15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Whether or not the shooters had beards or not and when they may have begun growing their beards is completely irrelevant to the shooting itself. It seems as if some editors here are actively seeking to promote an anti-muslim agenda on this page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This user edit warred 6X to remove this and other Muslim info. Not sure why they can still work on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Only perpetuates the myth that bearded men are scary, Muslim or not. Fine for a sensationalist newspaper, not fine here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
• Support I added it because it was a recent change noted by a coworker that shared a table at the event with the shooter. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if a tablemate noted it, it must be significant. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not generally categorize people here by the quantity or quality of their facial hair, and I can see no real relevance to this article. Anyone who follows links to cited articles that include the subject's picture will be able to see that he grew a beard at some point and to draw their own conclusions (though I am not sure any conclusions should reasonably be drawn). General Ization ^Talk 22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I support mentioning the beard because it fits the narrative of someone who is becoming radicalized although the imam of his mosque said that he showed no sign of radicalization, the beard suggests otherwise see (Personal grooming in Islam). Ralphw (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It also fits the narrative of an allergy to skin care products or of a personal preference for facial hair. Also, allowing for your interpretation and with regard to your link, it does not say anything about a beard being a sign of radicalization. It suggests that a beard is a sign of a pious Muslim. If you are trying to imply that they are invariably one and the same, then you are engaging in advocating non-neutral editing and synthesis, as others have done before you. General Ization ^Talk 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It also fits the narrative of "Bearskin", if you ignore the inconsistencies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter WHAT change it represents, it represents ONE such change and we currently have nothing. Bod (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

SO FAR: 5 support, 4 oppose. Is there a policy for this? Bod (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is called "no consensus" and the status quo remains. WWGB (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't get why no mention of Mister Beard is the status quo. We just got 2 more supports and 1 oppose. The issue was started because these biographical details were being removed. Bod (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wait and See - There's no rush here. Him growing a beard might be significant, it might not. We don't really know the motive yet. If the motive proves to be religious terrorism, it may be worth including; if not, it is an irrelevant detail. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This just in: his wife pledged allegiance to the self-proclaimed Calif Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and leader of ISIS and since both wife and husband committed the act together religious terrorism is confirmed. Adding the beard at this point just supports the motive. Ralphw (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support mentioning beard as an indicator of his deepening commitment to Islam. WP:NOTCENSORED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per E.M. Gregory. It's sourced, it's relevant to his evolving faith, and his faith is relevant to his motives. Besides, my beard is way cooler. Rklawton (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose with all possible strength. E.M.Gregory invokes NOTCENSORED, which does not apply; rather, SYNTH and UNDUE do. Any "indicator [that his beard was emblematic] of his deepening commitment to Islam" would have to be reliably sourced as such; otherwise, we’re making the assumption in Wikivoice (maybe it’s accurate ... or maybe he just liked his beard, or his wife did, or he’d gotten too lazy to shave, etc., ad nauseam). Rklawton piggybacked with, "it's relevant to his evolving faith, and his faith is relevant to his motives." We can't say that in Wikivoice either. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't relevant to his faith, but we should trust readers to understand this as well. As long as we keep it worded in such a way that reflects RS and doesn't give it more value than it deserves. As for my personal belief...I am not an expert on beards, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that this is not a stylish hipster beard. Nor was he too lazy to shave the mustache area (as, notably, is prescribed by Hadith no. 498 et al). Frankly, it's pretty clear. But no, I haven't seen it clearly stated in RS that his beard-growing was a clear indication of his devoutness, nor have I sought it out, nor could such a strongly worded statement feasibly exist in RS, unless Farook is on record saying it himself. Which seems unlikely. Inb4 Honest Abe, I would still say that that is exceptionally rare now, and the bushiness still sets it apart. But again, all that was noted about the beard was his coworker's opinion that it was uncharacteristic behavior of Farook to grow it out; and this, I think, is not in dispute. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Reaction section

Re "reaction" section and this material - reaction sections are always kind of tough, especially on very recent events where a full perspective haven't emerged yet. I would agree that we don't want to overwhelm the article with trivial reactions (many "International reactions of" articles are plagued with long, repetitive lists).

Nevertheless, the political and media reactions to the shooting (whether we consider them appropriate, inappropriate, distasteful, whatever), are part of the story, and so we can't simply ignore them; rather, we should summarize them. My view is that the few sentences on it (see the diff above) are appropriate because they are in the summary style, are supported by multiple high-quality sources (Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN, etc.) and because they make up a small % of the article. Neutrality^talk 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the content in question until a consensus is reached via this thread. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• It shouldn't say Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws and Republicans sending "tweets of thoughts and prayers." Also not say "some". Mention an exact number and list what they all said. Democrats Name1 and Name2 called for stronger gun-control laws would be fine. As for who sent their "thoughts and prayers", that's meaningless nonsense that all candidates on any political party would do. Dream Focus 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't often hear it from the Libertarian Party. But yes, any of the two we typically cite in these sort of articles would. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

The Tea Party jumped in with "Dead Shooter ID'd: Devout Muslim Syed Farook" and "Before Shooting, Calif. Killer Talked On Phone With Terrifying Person… And Obama’s FBI Knew It".^[8][9] --Marc Kupper|talk 21:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:summary style concerns the case where another article exists, cited as the main article for the section. It's not summary style if there isn't a page being summarized. Also, I reject the notion that whoever wants to delete something should be a "majority one one" until everyone agrees (which he never will). Wnt (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. Neutrality^talk 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Reactions" section was very much POV and agenda pushing. I have deleted it from the article. A quick check shows that the conservative response does not seem to be "tweets and prayers".

• http://www.foxnews.com/
  • "REMEMBERING VICTIMS: Vigils, prayer sessions spring up following San Bernardino massacre"^[10]
  • "Alveda King on rampage: 'We have to pray and get direction'"^[11]
  • "Obama: Thoughts and prayers are with San Bernardino victims"^[12]
  • No mention of the word "tweet" and so it does not seem to be a headline thought.
• https://www.gop.com/platform/ - no mention of this incident
• http://www.teaparty.org/
  • No mention of "pray" and the word "tweet" appears once and was by Guy Benson who is a conservative journalist and pundit.^[13]

I'd summarize the conservative response as blaming Obama, radical Islam, liberals, immigrants, and leftist California. Here's the text I deleted in case someone someone wants to figure out how to make it WP:NPOV and to see if it gets consensus here.

Some 2016 presidential candidates reacted to the attack, with Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws and Republicans sending "tweets of thoughts and prayers". The latter reaction was critiqued by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who wrote "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing—again". The New York Daily News' front-page headline, "God isn't fixing this", was accompanied by "images of tweets from leading Republicans who shared their 'thoughts' and 'prayers' for the shooting victims".

--Marc Kupper|talk 01:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Marc, with respect you are mistaken on all counts. The section is NPOV and there is a consensus for inclusion.

On the use of sources, I think you have it backwards on policy. The official party website ("gop.com") is not the exclusive source for the stance of the group or any individuals. In fact, it's often not the best source - the best source is usually a reliable, well-respected independent source (the AP, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, etc.). See WP:PRIMARY. It is these sources that can best summarize stance, and we usually cite to them. As to the tea party website, the same logic applies, except the tea party official website is doubly irrelevant, since our section never purported to sum up Tea Party views.

As to the rest of the section, every proposition is directly supported by a reliable, high-quality source (Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN), and every opinion is framed in terms of the voice of the person expressing the opinion. No opinion is framed in Wikipedia's voice. Neutrality^talk 14:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The section was an attempt to belittle Republicans using emphasis framing. It was very much POV wording and was balanced at all.

A more neutral summary would be that Democrats and Republicans both immediately introduced legislation that pushed their traditional agenda with Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws (need specifics and a citation about 'traditional agenda'). Republican Senator Paul Rand introduced legislation to loosen gun control laws^[14] and to suspend the U.S. visa program for countries that pose a high-risk to the U.S.A.^[15] Both of Senator Rand's proposals were defeated.^[16] None of Paul Rand's press releases include dates. Use this page to get the dates. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, so your idea of a "more neutral" version is to cite three times to Rand Paul's press releases on his campaign website? It beggars belief. Neutrality^talk 20:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

With every respect to Neutrality, I stand by this edit. Wikipedia is neither newspaper nor crystal ball; to have a paragraph that says, essentially, "the president will be giving an address soon" is completely irrelevant. What he says during the address will almost certainly include something worthy of inclusion—after he says it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the speech is complete now, so it's all a moot point. But it is certainly not crystal-balling (which implies speculation) - the White House had announced the speech ahead of time and it was well-covered by the media. Nor is it "just news" in my opinion - the imminent speech was part of a complete discussion of the shooting incident. It is no different than having an article on the Paris climate talks and saying "Prime Minister X, Chancellor Y, and President Z have all confirmed that they will be attending." With great respect --Neutrality^talk 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply; I continue to respectfully disagree. You are quite right about one thing, though: it's now moot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree; in retrospect I would have waited the 5 minutes and then put up the speech details upon the end of the speech. Cheers --Neutrality^talk 01:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Most kind. May I ask a favor? It would really help a lot if you'd employ one of the {{cite}} tags in your references. With thanks. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward's edits - insertion of unsourced material, deletion of sourced material, etc.

DHeyward: this series of edits concerns me greatly:

• You added "The shooters traveled internationally and were not on the no-fly list" without a source - do you have a reference for this? This seems like blatant original research/synthesis to me. The authorities have not said whether any of the suspects were or were not on the no-fly list.
• You removed the well-sourced paragraph (citing to the Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Atlantic, etc.) on reactions from members of Congress, etc., writing that it was an "unrelated to the shooting" - which is simply not true, as all of the sources deal directly with the shooting and the response to it.

--Neutrality^talk 20:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored that paragraph and removed the unsourced sentence. We don't know whether they were on the no-fly list. On the other hand, sourced and relevant material was removed, as it was related and was not editorial (though I have doubts about the NY Daily News headline's relevance). epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - much obliged. Neutrality^talk 20:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

support keeping NY daily news headline mention as it received notability per se. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callinus: How come you think this falls under WP:RECENTISM? This does read like the "Reactions of horror to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting" article to me, but it is too early to tell if WP:RECENTISM applies. epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sniping at people over tweets using the word "prayers" is petty in the extreme. Wikipedia articles on events like this should be written in past tense - if the event causes changes in gun control policy then that result should be discussed. But if it's only a bunch of Democrtic leaning "blog" sections on websites discussing tweets then it's insubstantial and fails RECENTISM. -- Callinus (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't know whether this will lead to gun control discussions yet, though... epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since there's 2 editors who don't agree with this material's inclusion, I have tagged it with {{relevance-inline}}. epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Political reactions - point scoring and recentism

Per WP:RECENTISM, only material that satisfies the 10 year test should be included. Wikipedia is written in past tense, designed to document what happened, not for hour by hour coverage of "blog" sections on news sites that give a blow-by-blow analysis of Democratic and Republican tweets.

I think that political reactions should be limited to a very few (eg the President and the Cal. governor).

Mentioning Democratic senators attacking Republican senators reads like trivial point scoring and petty politics.

The motive isn't yet fully documented by the FBI or other agencies, and there are still details around the motive that could break in the next 24 hours.

-- Callinus (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

True... but what about public reactions? Popular reactions? Should we not include them as well? It depends on whether this is covered by the news a week from now. epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We simply cannot ignore the political and policy implications of the event, as reported by the reliable sources. For better or for worse, it has been publicly reported that, for example:

• The tenor of the immediate responses to the mass shooting in California exemplified the partisan divide. (Atlantic)
• The mass shootings from California to Paris stoked fierce debate Thursday between Republicans who maintained that the killings must intensify the focus of Congress and the nation on Islamist terrorism and Democrats who demanded an end to “thoughts and prayers” for victims and immediate action to control the sale of guns. The angry back-and-forth highlighted how violence at home and abroad, rather than uniting the country, is escalating the ideological fights over gun control, immigration, foreign policy and religion. (NYT)

Neither of these sources, nor many others, are "blog posts" - nor are they trivial. The long-term impact remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: this is part of the story, for better or for worse.

The issue is "blogs.wsj.com" -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely that political reactions shouldn't dominate the article. But by my count, we have 3-4 sentences of congressional and media reaction, in the context of a much wider discussion. That is entirely appropriate. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is definitively becoming part of the story, in particular as the guns and ammo were purchased legally, rendering moot arguments by gun ownership advocates that "bad guys" gets their guns illegally. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If concrete policy changes are proposed as a result of this shooting then the policy changes should be discussed - Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Gun Control includes five paragraphs - there is no coverage of inflammatory tweets, only legislative proposals, official actions by the President, or limited coverage of remarks - notably there's no inflammatory mockery of tweets.

The comments by Chris Murphy where he mocks the term "prayer" feel like an internet flame war, that doesn't meet the 10 year test. -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

#NoReactionsMatter InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

The presidential candidates reactions will only be relevant for a week or more, then forgotten. No one will care about this in even a years time when most of these people will have dropped out of the campaign.

Imagine if this shooting had taken place in 1980. Would anyone care about any of the random candidates in that year in 2015? Not at all. Unless it some major event that completely disrupted the campaign or something of that nature. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the candidates (much less the "random" candidates) are mentioned by name in this article. Rather, this is a broad overview, generalizing the split reactions by party. If this was some sort of blow-by-blow with quotations from a dozen of different members of Congress, a handful of different governors, etc., I would say it was excessive. But that is simply not the case. This is 3-5 sentences in a much larger article. We cannot have a complete article if we ignore the political reaction entirely, as you seem to advocate. Neutrality^talk 21:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It would be disingenuous to argue that these type of incidents do not have political connotations. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They have policy changes proposed (eg Newtown) but the reactions by low-level politicians mocking other low-level politicians is relatively mundane. I'm Australian - I know of all of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, and Jerry Brown. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is a political nobody outside the U.S. - a senator I've never heard of mocking other people on Twitter is not particularly interesting outside the U.S. - especially to other Anglophone readers that know that Democrats and Republicans mock each other on Twitter all the time. -- Callinus (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A U.S. senator is not a "low-level" politician. More to the point, though, the subjective views of you and me on the level of "importance" of a given figure (or whether various readers may find him "particularly interesting") is irrelevant. The question is: do multiple high-quality, reliable sources make note of what the person said? Is the statement either part of, or an illustration) of part a wider debate of social importance that ties into the event? The answer is yes and yes. Neutrality^talk 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They also have vague, implicit connections to all sorts of fields. Religion, policing, sociology, business, entertainment. Giving undue weight to opinions of politicians (the most well-known liars, especially when speaking generally) is silly and undue. Ignore everyone equally, so long as it's just hot air. If one of these people actually do something in direct consequence, that'd be notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

In no way is 4-5 sentences in the context of an fairly large article "undue." Neutrality^talk 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is when the other guys get zero sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

What "other guys"? Neutrality^talk 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

These guys. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

And far less prominently, these guys. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Most people would agree that policymakers (members of Congress, etc.) are more worthy of note than random celebrities. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to hear Google News tell it. About split. ABC treats them roughly equally. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add more, go ahead and see if they stick. I have no objection in principle to the addition of (brief, properly-sourced) responses from the community; e.g., the prayer vigils scheduled (4,000 are expected to attend at San Manuel Stadium); Muslim communal leaders' condemnation of the attack (NBC News, LA Times); the mayor of San Bernadino's remarks (Press-Enterprise, NPR), etc. These would be sensible inclusions; Chrissy Teigen would not. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You apparently missed my "#NoReactionsMatter" and "ignore everyone equally" comments. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, and think it plain that this kind of blanket approach—"ignoring" all responses, rather than doing the hard work of including a sampling of significant responses and excluding the rest—has no basis in policy and will necessarily lead to an incomplete article. As Cwobeel said above, it would be disingenuous for us to ignore the reactions to the event. Neutrality^talk 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hard work sucks, don't get me wrong, but that's not the issue here. I just find none of them significant. They're all "the rest". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

The knee-jerk political cheap shots need to go as do the irrelevant "solutions" posturing like quotes about "no-fly list" people being added to NICS. It has nothing to do with the shooting. If we include the "no-fly list" comment, it's fair game to point out that they flew to/from Saudia Arabia without an issue (do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of why people with pipe bombs in their house aren't on the no-fly list). If we want to include background checks, it's fair game to point out that the women entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa [17] which expires 90 days after entry and she is a prohibited possessor that would have failed a background check to buy a gun. But all of it (including quotes by Obama and congress critters) should be dropped as unrelated. This event is akin to the Boston Bombing and the Paris shootings. The initial blow-up on gun control is too RECENTISM to include. Maybe we could rename it "The War on Christmas."--DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think people would indeed be interested in the political details, in much the same way they'd be interested if somebody had a fistfight on the deck of the Titanic while it was going down. We've just seen huge political capital, quite possibly the fall of the Fifth Republic, made out of a somewhat similar attack in France, and so there's no reason to assume there's no historical significance to this stuff. My suggestion is let's do the article split sooner rather than later, get a Political reactions to the 2015 San Bernadino shootings fired up, and start dumping most of the data there. The politicians are going to be pimping this thing for all it's worth for the next month... unless someone does something a lot bigger. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Or a lot more recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

• Of course activists and politicians are going to use this incident to try to score points for their social agendas, whether it be gun control, the danger of religious extremism, workplace violence, immigration reform, etc. Adding sourced content to the article documenting the bickering and point scoring between prominent political parties or leaders is fine, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• It will run the gamut. The republican response isn't "thoughts and prayers," it's more active anti-terrorism, opposition to middle eastern refugees, illegal immigration control and any number of things. That the shooter is a U.S. citizen will be as irrelevant to them as much as the fact that the shooter passed all gun background checks and isn't on the no-fly list. Listing every pet project doesn't change the basic narrative but just adds noise. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The New York Daily News‍ '​ front-page headline, "God isn't fixing this,"...is not a political reaction and doesn't belong here in this section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a political reaction to the political reaction. As such, it's inherently a political reaction the shooting. Not made by a politician, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

It's the cover of a Newspaper offering their opinion in response to tweets from candidates, it's not a political reaction by a politician and it doesn't belong there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Does The Daily News not offer political commentary anymore? You don't need to be a politician to make a political statement anymore than you need to be a chef to sell food. If the section is now only reserved for politicians, that's even more slanted than only allowing politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

I agree the headline related sentence does not belong. It is a headline, not the content of an article authored by a journalist, but that written by an editor to grab attention. Therefore I'd suspect it is meant to be sensationalist by nature. Velojareal (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Every source here has a headline writer looking for clicks. Here's the content, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the Daily News took a very strong editorial view favoring more gun control in that issue (not just the front page). Gun control is a highly divisive topic in US politics so that is certainly a political reaction on the Daily News's part. There is also significant secondary coverage of the Daily News cover,[18][19][20] secondary sourcing of course being the touchstone of notability on Wikipedia. So per NPOV, the Daily News cover should be documented as part of the media reaction to the shootings, and should be weighed into the article's presentation of the shooting itself (how much weight to assign is debatable of course). 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus emerging for including presidential candidates' comments, such as the recent addition of Ted Cruz. if we report what Cruz says, we have to report what all other said. Not encyclopedic, not news, recentism galore. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that we should exclude individual reactions (were to to include all of them, we'd have 20...). A generalized statement about the varying reactions by party would be my ideal. (I have not had a chance to draft some language). Neutrality^talk 20:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Islam / Muslim

We've got a handful of people working very, very hard to keep the words "islam" and "muslim" out of this article, even though nearly every news story referenced contains those facts. Is there a barnstar for defending the islamic faith? --Dan East (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's about what, 10 paragraphs before "Muslim" is even mentioned. The primary motivation for the attacks. You liberals... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 04:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just mention it but don't focus on it. People want to know if he was Muslim. If he was Christian, it would say. To omit this is POV. Bod (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned quite appropriately, but User:Cwobeel is whitewashing the article of any mention of islam as fast as he can. It was said that the FBI are now investigating links to islamic extremists and he edited that out as well. He has also threatened me, and others, with discretionary sanctions for including that fact, and that was my one and only edit to this page was undoing the removal of a properly cited fact. --Dan East (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted Cwobeel's deletion of Islamic extremism from the lead. He claimed it was unsourced after someone removed the citation. I find that a bit disingenuous on his part. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel's conduct has been reported to WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor excluding widely reported undisputed religion of San Bernardino Shooter. As far as the article content goes, at present it has "Farook was a devout Muslim according to his father and coworkers." which seems fine. If we wanted to add more about that we could add that he went on hajj in 2013^[21] which is when he met Malik and her family.^[22] The article already has that he then went to Saudi Arabia in 2014 to marry Malik. At present we do not know if religion was why they carried out this attack. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There's every point in mentioning the religion of the perps. Why? Because it's arguably all tied in to their belief system, and even more importantly, the perpetrators themselves mentioned their religion as pertinent, beforehand, to why they even committed these acts. Political correctness = suppression of facts. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be like that (though sometimes unfortunately with ideologue-ish gate-keeping it turns out that way). But if the article is to be complete, thorough, careful, accurate, factual, blunt, and informative, it is not really even debatable (especially at this point) that it should be included, even deeply included. Redzemp (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page cleanup

I archived stuff that was resolved in case anyone is missing something. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find my watch. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I misplaced my pony. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is set up for auto-archiving for topics that have been idle for five days. Maybe this should be trimmed down to 28 or 24 hours. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a pretty drastic move, but I dropped it to 4 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 had a 24-hour expiration for a while^[23] which caused some disruption but for the most part worked well. I had meant to suggest 48 or 24 hours, not 28 or 24. 48 hours would clear off some of the cruft while giving people time to check back in a day or so for topics they are interested in. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

assault rifles

The term "assault rifle" is back in the article. The weapons in question are semiautomatic rifles. They do not meet the formal definition of "assault rifle" in that they are not capable of firing multiple rounds on a single trigger pull. They are not "assault weapons" because "assault weapons" are banned in California and neither rifle met the legal definition in California (or federally) of an "assault weapon". They were (as well) reported to have been legally purchased in California which (again) makes them neither assault weapons nor assault rifles which are not legal for purchase in California. There are multiple reliable sources using the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" incorrectly (including the New York Times). But there is no obligation on the part of Wikipedia to reflect their mistakes or false information. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that non-American publications refer to them as assault weapons. Is the term accurate outside the US? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The term originated in the US. The legal definitions of the term (assault weapon) also all originated in the US. Use of the term in many sources outside the US is simply derivative of the widespread use of the term in the US media and in US political debates. The US was somewhat unique in creating a whole series of laws (assault weapons laws) which ban guns based on cosmetic appearance or even product names rather than the actual firing capabilities of the weapons. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Assault rifle begins, "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle ...". Unless we have information that the weapons were selective-fire (firing full automatic or capable of doing so), we should not use that term. I agree that many news sources don't know the technical definition (or care to), so the mere appearance of the term in a source is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this: there's apparently a conflict between common usage and specialist jargon. There are many search hits for "AR-15 assault rifle" including on gun enthusiast sites. I don't know anything about this stuff but always thought the term didn't entail automatic fire. Also the AR-15 article mentions that the AR-15 was subject to various laws regarding assault weapons. I'd go as far as to say that the assault rifle article should discuss these nuances if it doesn't already (I didn't check). 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Assault rifle later states: "Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities." That's good enough for me. If that article is incorrect and needs work, it's outside the scope of our responsibility here. As of this moment, Wikipedia believes that a semi-automatic AR-15 variant is not an assault rifle. If that changes, this article can change with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a whole mini-industry that profits off providing misinformation to gun enthusiasts. Many of them do indeed think that they are buying "assault rifles". But its not so. In the 1970s, the military and civilian versions of the AR-15 were very close. But starting in the 1980s, while they still appeared the same, they became totally different guns inside. Civilian "assault weapons" are ordinary semi-automatic rifles dressed up to look like military equipment. But they are not the military equipment (the real assault rifles).

Bans on "assault weapons" are bans on guns with particular names or particular sets of cosmetic features. They are in reality bans on scary looking guns. And the reality of the law is that a gun can go from being an illegal "assault weapon" to being a legal semiautomatic rifle with sometimes very minor changes. You cannot buy an AR-15 in California because a gun named "AR-15" is banned. But you can buy something that looks almost exactly like a banned AR-15 that has a different name and tweaked set of cosmetic features. There have been problems for years with the terminology and the confusion it creates. But there are people on both sides of the gun issue who profit from creating confusion about these definitions. The gun control crowd is able to completely misrepresent the effectiveness of these bans and gun dealers have made a fortune off people thinking they are buying military rifles. I'm rather passionate about the issue because misuse of these terms has ruined public discussion of the real issues for years. This isn't really "specialist jargon". Its widespread public misinformation and misunderstanding. I realize that misuse of the terms is very popular, but correcting that misuse has to start somewhere. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Another nit. The info box refers to the rifles as AR-15s. But they are technically not AR-15s because AR-15s are explicitly banned in California by law. The real names of the rifles should be exclusively used. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the NTC tracing back where the guns originated? Maybe not from CA, unless they finished that already. Didn't see any articles yet. Definitely agree that "AR-15" is almost never used correctly. Snd0 (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

According to [24] the pistols came from a store in Corona, CA; the rifles came from another store that wasn't identified. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is important to get this terminology right - accurately reflecting the thoughtful discussion here - among other reasons because this actually is a part of this article that has BLP implications, at least when we start reading about who sold them the "assualt rifles". Wnt (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of sources have addressed this with "assault-style rifles" (they are all rifles in this case, not carbines or sub-machine guns or personal-defense weapons (PDWs)). We should use "semi-automatic rifles." Background: The lower receiver (the part the the ATF considers a firearm because it receives the least wear and never needs to be replaced so the serial number goes on that part) is generally a mil-spec compliant variant if the lower receiver of an M-16 without the select fire hole drilled for the cam needed to make it select fire. That receiver can be made into rifles, pistols, carbines, etc, etc. The lower receiver is the only part considered a firearm and is usually made of aluminum. It has no moving parts itself but contains the trigger, hammer and safety. Since it was lawfully sold as a rifle in this case, it is not select fire and not an "assault rifle". It has a barrel length of at least 16 inches (the currently issued M-4 rifle in the U.S. Military is 14.5 inches and is considered a carbine). The .223 caliber is woefully under-powered/under-sized for hunting except squirrels and other small animals. Larger calibers in that platform are suitable for hunting and are used for it. (i.e. "it has only one purpose" is oft repeated but lacks proper understanding). In California, the law prohibits magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. It also prohibits any rifle that allows detachment of that magazine without a tool. Gun dealers (in any state) that sell rifles to residents of California are required to be licensed through the California's attorneys general office (in addition to ATF). --DHeyward (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up .22 Long Rifle ammunition (very cheap and common for plinking, small animals, target shooting, Olympic biathlon) versus the .223 Remington (aka 5.56x45mm NATO ammo used by the US military in M16/M4 rifles that is most certainly deadly). -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the rifles had been modified to take magazines with more than the 10 bullet California limit and one had been modified for fully automatic fire (though the mod might not have been fully successful)[25], [26]. It is pretty straightforward to do modifications of these weapons, so "they are not assault rifles because of the limited magazine and one shot per trigger pull" is bogus. The basic Californa-legal weapon plus some mail-order parts and you have an assault weapon. Its like the old days in farm states where at the insistence of the dairy industry margarine was sold as white grease in a plastic bag, along with a tube of food color the buyer could mix in to make it look like butter. Edison (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is NOT straightforward to modify a civilian AR-15 to fully automatic or selective fire. The civilian AR-15s are not at all designed for automatic fire. They simply have the appearance of a military AR-15, but not the firing mechanism. They may have attempted to convert it to fully automatic fire, but in practice that is not really practical. (as they discovered) The trigger group mechanism for a civilian AR-15 is designed strictly for semi-automatic fire. It is totally mechanically different than the military AR-15. Decades ago (in the 1970s), the trigger group mechanisms were the same and conversion was more practical. But that is no longer the case. Assault weapon is a *cosmetic* definition in California. You can turn a legal semi-auto rifle into an illegal assault weapon by threading the end of the barrel. But it doesn't change the basic capabilities of the gun at all. You are correct that modifications to accomodate larger magazines are rather trivial. But these were still legal semi-auto weapons in California. Pretending otherwise simply encourages misinformation about the law in California. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, both rifles they have versions that are available for civilian purchase in California. Its still not known if they were purchased in California, but nothing known about the guns so far suggests that would have needed to go out of state to purchase them. The major unknown is where they got the 30-round clips. I've yet to see anything about that. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The point I was hoping to make above is that this debate belongs at Talk:Assault rifle, not here. This is not an appropriate topic of discussion at every article like this one. Wikipedia should agree on this point, right or wrong, and Assault rifle should be regarded as Wikipedia's current best judgment on the question. If Wikipedia does not use a consistent definition across all its articles, the term "assault rifle" becomes ambiguous and meaningless in all its articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally true, but there is a specific wrinkle that there is some person who sold the not-assault-rifles, who is bound to end up featured on news reports shortly. This is one of the more serious instances of BLP because it's not that unlikely whoever it is might get a brick through their windshield from someone who condemns selling "assault rifles" to terrorists, and I don't want Wikipedia to be at blame. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree they are not assault rifles. period. They may be assault weapons. They were not purchased as assault weapons, but subsequent modification may have brought them back into the California definition. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Shooting"

PLEASE CORRECT THE MENTION OF "mass shooting" the first paragraph says "4 people were killed and 21 injured in a mass shooting " this is incorrect, some of these people were first responders killed by a bomb, please change this to "terrorist attack" before I do it myself, consultation is important of course but this is a WELL DOCUMENTED terror attack with the president of the USA calling it by this name (and not mass shooting) on Monday December 8 during his address on the topic from the oval office. 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy3565 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You better show us your sources. Bod (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is being reported as a shooting, but this is a shooting and a failed bombing attempt. The bomb didn't go off and was destroyed by the bomb squad, so it's easy to forget about the bomb. As such, this should not be called a simply a "shooting". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be remembered that Columbine in CO was also a shooting and bombing with some of the bombs even detonating (not the largest ones though) however this event is largely identified as the 'Columbine Shootings' and not sure how changing that title would be productive. The failed bombing certainly deserves a place in the article however not sure the main title needs to reflect it.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooting is what actually happened. Let's stick with that, and not include things which could have happened but didn't. Firebrace (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "2015 San Bernadino shooting and bombing attempt" would be a bit much. It's possible to overthink a title. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

True, but the bombing should be noted. Even though they sucked as bomb makers, it does take concerted effort to construct them. For the title, how about "2015 San Bernadino Terrorist Attack" Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL related (Inspired or Directed)

To editors that don't edit war by deleting every hint of their religion, or scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT this is not a big surprise. Community Sanctions now apply, which means 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

• If this is really the case, then shouldn't this notice be at the top of the page, where everyone can easily see it? ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac added the ISIL template acting as a lone wolf. This despite the fact that ISIL was not involved in the attack, and Farook has no known allegiance to ISIL. Malik "liked" ISIL on Facebook. It seems that Legacypac applied the ISIL template because ISIL was mentioned in the article. WWGB (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It was at the top but WWGB removed a 1RR notice twice in just a few hours. Suggesting I am a terrorist is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I suggested you are a terrorist? Oh, please! The long-established definition of "lone wolf" is one who acts alone. See [27]. That definition long-preceded modern terrorism. WWGB (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear if the WP:GS/ISIL sanctions would encompass this article based on a Facebook post by one of the perps pledging Bay'ah on Facebook. It seems to be a stretch. OTOH 1RR may be helpful here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification here Wikipedia talk:General sanctions#Request for clarification: WP:GS/ISIL sanctions - Cwobeel (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this issue. Please weigh in there - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Was it actually a holiday party?

Not according to this Dec. 3 Washington Post article.

In that article, the event is described as "another requisite all-staff meeting" and one of the survivors claims to have said at the start of the day to Syed Farook, "Ready to be bored?" There is a reference to Farook leaving his "papers" at his seat when he left (to collect his wife and weapons).

And the shooting is said to have happened at about the time that "The division chief had just finished a talk about statistics. The county supervisor had announced more hiring for next year and then given everyone a five-minute bathroom break."

(And how many staff holiday parties start at 9:00 a.m., anyway?)

NME Frigate (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)NME Frigate

Feel free to make required changes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"A technician wheeled out a lectern." Sounds pretty wild. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

The article is very detailed and should be used to expand the attack section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

From one of the press conf I got that it was a staff training session in AM transitioning to a Christmas party in the afternoon. Nearly all victims were county employees. It appears the first person he shot was a jewish man who he argued with about islam not being a violent religion (that was on Nancy Grace so maybe exaggerated). Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Anything involving Nancy and a Jew should be taken with a Grace of salt. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a hate crime against Christians. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino terror attack

The FBI is now investigating the case as an act of terrorism. Therefore it should be moves to "2015 San Bernardino terror attack". -Metron (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast. With 7 July 2005 London bombings and November 2015 Paris attacks, neither of them have "terror" in their titles. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Other examples of precedent include Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, Boston Marathon bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, and Centennial Olympic Park bombing. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And some of those were actually reported as terrorism. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not even September 11 attacks gets the terror treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

Investigating something as something doesn't mean it is that something. Just means that's the leading theory. "The officials said investigators were still looking into additional motives...". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

Per Paris and the fidning of explosives and multiple shootings sites as well as the pledge to ISIL, it should be renamed "2015 San Bernardino attack". It doesn't need "terror" in the title but it's clearly more than a myopic "mass shooting." It's beyond simply gun politics in the U.S. --DHeyward (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well start an RM then. I think it's too large a question for a little talk page thread lost in a forest of talk page threads. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait for an official report from the FBI or DHS. These could come 24 hours to a week later. If the FBI puts out a report declaring the attack terrorism then it will belong in the lead sentence, but there's no rush to do so with just news reports for now. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline -- Callinus (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be San Bernardino Attack, just like the September 11 terror attack. Same motivation, same attack on the homeland of the United States. XavierItzm (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be 2015 San Bernardino attack. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

too much emphasis on "mass shooting" in the article?

Early on in the incident, it was assumed that this was a "mass shooting" characteristic of a great many other "mass shooting" events in recent american history. That it fit an "American" pattern. But things have greatly changed since then and now it seems more clear that this was an act of terrorism. While a "mass shooting" can be an act of terrorism, I think its not really appropriate anymore to compare this to incidents like Sandy Hook or San Ysidro. Particular areas of concern in the article are:

The material in the introduction comparing the incident only to "mass shootings" such as Sandy Hook. At a minimum, it should also be compared to other terrorist incidents such as the Oklahoma City bombing (as one example). In my opinion, it would be better if the comparison to Sandy Hook went away entirely but I can see the other point of view on that.

Parts of the early reaction from Obama now seem very dated and incorrect. In particular Obama's comment that: "We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world". This incident was not part of any "pattern" of mass shootings and it very much does have parallels as terrorism in other parts of the world.

The line "Malik was one of a small number of female mass shooters in the U.S.; according to FBI statistics, women constituted only 3.75 percent of shooters of active shooter incidents between the years 2000 and 2013". Malik should be examined in terms of "mass shooting" statistics, but rather in terms of females directly involved with terrorist incidents.

Again, I fully accept that terrorism can be a mass shooting and am not calling for the removal of the term. But I think the article has to be careful not to compare this incident to other incidents where terrorism was not any sort of motive or (worse yet) lump the incident into a "pattern" of other events into which it does not really fit or look at the incident from too much of an American-centric perspective. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you may infer more from the term than anyone intended to imply. A mass shooting is simply one that kills three or more people (or thereabouts). It has nothing to do with why. If you find a reliable source ranking this among terrorist attacks, we can play the "deadliest in/deadliest since" card with that, too. But it'd still also be yet another mass shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

Possible overthink. To use the same term for two events because they both meet the definition of that term is not to equate the two events. Apple and orange are both fruits, but that does not imply that apple is equivalent to orange. For starters, only one of them is a citrus fruit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And you don't see Apple County remaining vigilant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

The myopic mass shooting aspect needs to go. It's a term from gun politics and this is clearly beyond it. It's the deadliest terror attack since 9/11. It's closest cousin is the 2015 Paris attacks or the Russian passenger plane bomb. The foiled train attack is another. Those are clearly beyond the scope or lens of gun politics in the U.S. when the weapons include IEDs, attackers include foreign nationals and pledges of allegiance to ISIL. We don't have an epidemic of terrorist attacks in the U.S. and we shouldn't leave in outdated quotes and analysis that will look myopic in 25 years. "Thoughts and prayers" quotes need to go as well because those taht angrily accuse republicans of only offering thoughts and prayers are now defending immigration and soft foreign policy regarding troops on the ground fighting ISIL and concerned about backlash against Muslims. This isn't the article for any of that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You prefer to attach the gun politics connotation, I prefer to limit my thinking to the simple definition in the lead of Mass shooting. There is no reason we can't include five or six different items in "Attack type", if they all apply, and that includes terrorism if and when it becomes appropriate to say that in wiki voice. This is a different situation from article title, which is being addressed elsewhere on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the official definition of a mass shooting is an event in which 4 or more people are shot. To that end, all terrorist attacks that involve 4 or more people who are shot are mass shootings. But not all mass shootings are terrorist attacks. San Bernardino was a terrorist attack. More specifically, it was an Islamic terrorist attack. The evidence is overwhelming at this point--from the planning involved, type of weaponry involved, to the "IED factory" found at the house to the pledge of allegiance to ISIS. To hide behind a fig leaf at this point, given the evidence and statements by officials is absurd and the article on this event should accurately reflect what we now know. If this were a terrorist attack by the IRA or Basque separatists we wouldn't even be having this discussion. grifterlake (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you've seen all the evidence, what do you figure was the point of this obvious terrorism? What message was sent? To whom? By whom? The IRA and Basque guys were much clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

I think we take ISIS and their supporters at their word, that they can strike within the United States whenever they want, disrupt the way of life in the United States and that its days are numbered, and that no one is safe. The same motives for the Paris attacks and countless other attacks over the years. grifterlake (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not wise to treat all ISIS members as a single-minded hive, but even less so to assume anybody who (allegedly) Facebooked a Like their way inherits everything you think you know about them. If this had anything to do with Beirut, Ankara, Paris and the plane, where's the bragging? If America is such a big deal to them, they'd have made a big deal by now. Or at least SITE would publish something to that effect. Nothing. Sometimes homicidal maniacs just dig other homicidal maniacs. That's the "link", I think. InedibleHulk

Actually, they should be seen and treated as members of a "single-minded hive", since the stated goal of ISIS is the reestablishment of the Caliphate and that's what all supporters of ISIS are tasked to work towards through individual jihad. ISIS supporters aren't just running around and perpetuating violence against people because they are upset. They have a focused goal and all of these small terrorist attacks and their larger military operations are intended to advance that goal. That's why it is misleading to label this as some kind of generic mass shooting. Guns were one small aspect of the events that unfolded. Bombs were another. Terror was another. Poking a finger in the eye of the United States was another. But it was all to advance a common cause shared by all Islamists in general, and ISIS in particular: The reestablishment of the Caliphate for the Ummah--the one community of Muslims. grifterlake (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 03:54, December 5, 2015 (UTC) It's a terrorist attack. It's no longer just a mass shooting. Change it. It's misleading. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, we don't have to choose between mass shooting and terrorism for Attack type. Nor should we. Attack type is not a POV battleground, that's what article title is for. In any case, as the Hulk has said, the fact that the FBI is investingating this as a terrorist attack does not mean we can declare it a terrorist attack in wiki voice, a couple of days into their investigation. As usual in these things, people need to calm down and slow down. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The intention of the original comment was absolutely *NOT* to force a choice between mass shooting and terrorism. But when this is compared to "just" Sandy Hook type events or we keep including an reaction that this event is part of an "american" pattern of mass shootings and say that this even has "no parallel" in any other part of the world, those are POV problematical for some people. It is a mass shooting, but there should not be inferences that lump it in with other events that are not necessarly similar. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with characterizing this as a "mass shooting" is that it is incorrect to do so. The terrorists left remote controlled explosive devices at the scene of a coordinated attack. The fact that they were not yet detonated is irrelevant. Up to the point where they were killed they retained the option to detonate them. They were also set up to stage another attack, with even more explosive devices at their disposal and their house was described as an "IED factory". When multiple weapons are involved, be they bombs, knives or even throwing stars it becomes misdirection to paint the event as a mass shooting. That's like saying Grenada was a Field Training Exercise. In military terms this might be called a "combined arms operation", which would a heck of a lot more accurate. grifterlake (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC

If its a problem, its a bigger problem than this one article. The November 2015 Paris Attacks article characterize those attacks as including "mass shootings". The other issue I have with your saying is the issue of detonation is meaningful. I think that we should avoid confusing the intentions of attackers with what they were actually able to accomplish. The best you could do is say "attempted" bombing. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hence my mentioning the term "combined arms operation", which more accurately describes both events, along with others. Note the difference between the "Attack type" descriptions for the San Bernardino and 2015 Paris attacks, and the 2012 Benghazi attack type, which is listed as, "Coordinated attack, armed assault, rioting, arson". That's a very accurate description, and the only substantive difference between the two is the number of people. Both were directed at people who were some type of government functionaries. Both involved multiple weapons systems, significant planning and coordination. Both were terrorist attacks. grifterlake (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comparing this to Benghazi is just wrong. Benghazi was not a terrorist attack. It was a full-blown planned military operation by a paramilitary group in a failed state. What happened in California was in no sense of the word a "combined arms operation". It was two morons with guns and poorly made bombs that didn't work. People talk about planning. But I don't see any evidence of that. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

??? The Benghazi attack was initiated by an al Qaeda affiliated group. The San Bernardino attack was initiated by an ISIS affiliated group. The only difference was the number of perpetrators involved. You could describe the attackers of both events as being executed by a paramilitary group. And at this point we don't know if the bombs didn't work. We just know they didn't detonate. They were supposed to have been built according to ISIS standards, which can be found all over the Internet. grifterlake (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Two people in San Bernadino is not a "group" in a reasonable sense of the word. The degree of their affliation has yet to be established. There is no reliable source that the bombs were built to "ISIS standards" (whatever that means). A bomb that does not detonate is by definition a bomb that didn't work. The situation in Benghazi was much more complicated than an attack by an "al Qaeda affiliated group". There were a number of different groups involved and it is still difficult to draw any conclusions which group was actually responsible. US public accounts of what happened are still incomplete or inconsistent. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Landlord inviting media into suspect's apartment. Suggestion

This spectacle is making some news. Would like to read about it in the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So, write it, then. You're just as capable as anyone else here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is chaotic and strange and the sources are conflicting. All agree that the event happened, but whether it was a media break-in, an FBI screw-up, or the landlord taking matters into his own hands, we do not yet seem to have clear answers. How it will impact the investigation is also not known at this time.

Obviously the landlord did NOT have ownership of the contents of the home -- the next of kin did (including the grandmother and the baby) -- so this angle of the story really does need careful sourcing and watching, as it may be subject to change. One source mentions the landlord being taken away by law enforcement, for instance. Other sources feature outright doxing of the grandmother, who is not a suspect and is not under arrest. This requires a cautious approach, and i, for one, am not going to attempt to write it.

Experts Shocked Media Allowed Into San Bernardino Killers’ Home

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-killers-apartment-media/

Media broadcasts live from inside San Bernardino attackers’ home

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/04/in-televised-broadcast-journalists-show-pictures-other-possessions-inside-san-bernardino-attackers-home/

MSNBC, other outlets gone crazy in shooting suspects' San Bernardino apartment

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-tv-news-going-crazy-apartment-san-bernadino-20151204-story.html

San Bernardino shooting: Mayhem at suspected California shooters' apartment as media allowed entry

http://www.smh.com.au/world/san-bernardino-shooting-mayhem-at-suspected-california-shooters-apartment-as-media-allowed-entry-20151204-glg56s.html

Media Enter San Bernardino Assailants' Home; Ethical, Legal Questions Follow

http://www.newsweek.com/media-enter-home-san-bernardino-assailants-ethical-legal-questions-401287

"Miller [the landlord] allowed reporters inside despite a California law that specifies that in the event of a tenant's death, "the tenancy continues until the end of the lease term."

Frenzied Media Pore Over Home Of San Bernardino Killers During Live Broadcasts

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/04/458502872/frenzied-media-pour-over-home-of-san-bernardino-killers-during-live-broadcasts

75.101.104.17 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

One CNN reporter standing by the townhouse door was saying no police around, but they must know because based on the media there and the languages he was hearing this event was available on every TV set on the planet. Anderson Cooper called it one of the strangest things he has ever seen, and Coopers seen a lot. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone seen any source questioning the legality of the landlord's actions? This seems something worth attention. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This article, from Newsweek, addresses the legal issue:

Media Enter San Bernardino Assailants' Home; Ethical, Legal Questions Follow

http://www.newsweek.com/media-enter-home-san-bernardino-assailants-ethical-legal-questions-401287

Relebant quotation: "Miller [the landlord] allowed reporters inside despite a California law that specifies that in the event of a tenant's death, "the tenancy continues until the end of the lease term."

75.101.104.17 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like obstruction of justice by contaminating a crime scene that could have been subject to further investigation. Any evidence remaining has been compromised by this media stunt.--Naaman Brown (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, police were done with it as a crime scene. No yellow tape. If they missed something, that's their problem, not justice's. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

Father's alcoholism

Farook's father's alcoholism has been noted by several reliable sources. So it shouldn't be removed as BLP or irrelevant. If we are noting the heritage of his parents (Pakistani), then I don't see why his father's alcoholism and domestic abuse, which Farook grew up with, would be considered irrelevant.VR _talk 21:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because this is not a bio of the shooter. Including every published detail about his upbringing would be inappropriate and beyond the mission of the article. Encyclopedia articles are not intended to be include exhaustive details about things, but to provide more generalized coverage. Marteau (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I fail to see how Farook's father's alcoholism is relevant to carrying out this shooting. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources that mention it, use it as a detail to paint Farook's early life as "turbulent" and that he grew up in an "abusive home". Wouldn't details of the shooter's early life be relevant? If this is not relevant, then perhaps other details about Farook's parents should also not be relevant.VR _talk 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That could be their own original research though, and it might have nothing to do with his carrying out this attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The definition of original research is research done by wikipedia users. Reliable sources are allowed to do original research.VR _talk 05:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Was slcohol served at the party? Maybe the motive was a liquor run gone terribly wrong. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The party hadn't started yet. A technician had only just gotten the lectern wheeled out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there was an argument before when someone at the Christmas party said something about the dangers of radical Islam and this angered the shooter and he stormed off. This was a shooting "War on Christmas" and I guess the guy the shooter was arguing with won the argument but not in the way he liked. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful with sources as Farook's father and brother share his first name, only their middle names are different. Likely why there was so much hesitation by police to confirm the townhome was where the shooter lived at first and why they were looking for his brother as a possible suspect at one point. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the father's anything is irrelevant. Sorry but including details that lay blame at someone else's feet in any way is BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The claims that the father was an alcoholic, along with other claims related to his mental state, are all based on claims made by his wife in divorce proceedings, when many outlandish claims are likely to be made. None of these claims have been verified by a neutral third-party. Furthermore, the father is not a public figure and has not been directly linked to this event, so the addition of controversial material about his personal life is a violation of WP:BLP/WP:NPF. --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the statement as "According to sources, he had a "troubled childhood" and "abusive" home." The way it is phrased now talks about Farook directly, not his parents. If we can talk about Farook's bachelor's and master's degrees, then I think we can have one sentence on his childhood as well.VR _talk 05:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Article name change probably warranted at this point

Since it's been confirmed that this was not just another mass shooting in America, but was more significantly and a bit more uniquely (in a way), "an act of terrorism", there's probably some reason to maybe change the name of the article at this point. Like "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" somewhere in the name of the article, perhaps, being more fitting and warranted. Any thoughts? This is being treated differently than any other "mass shooting" by major authorities in law enforcement. (And, by the way, the FBI only considers five of the shootings this past year in America as "mass shootings", NOT "355", as has been exaggerated by the media.) Anyway, the point is that it's been discovered (and confirmed) that what happened in southern California could have easily and frighteningly been worse, with the arsenal that these two people had stocked up, and the plans they have been proven to have had. Name change of this article is probably in order. To make it clear that this is not just another "mass shooting". Because the present name of the article is giving that inaccurate impression, in a way. Give your opinions. Thank you. Redzemp (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with adding "terrorism" or "terrorist" to the article title. The Paris article is still at November 2015 Paris attacks. But, there's nothing wrong with opening a formal move proposal to gauge consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, RM is the way to go with this, imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Earlier today a drive-by editor moved this page to 2015 San Bernardino Terrorist Attack and I immediately moved it back. Any page move requires a thorough discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't even know that that happened. He should not have done it that way. Though I agree with that editor's sentiment, I don't agree with how he went about it, as that is in violation of WP protocol. It's known that any move for name change (especially in high-profile articles like this) needs discussion on Talk first. But the point though is that it proves that others feel that the current article name is too generic and vague, and not specific enough. Redzemp (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely requires a move after ISIL connection, terrorism links, the discovery of bombs and bomb making equipment and radical Islamic connection makes it more in line with the other radical Islamic attacks such as the train attack, the paris attacks, the bombing of the Russian passenger jet, etc. Maybe "2015 War on Christmas parties"--DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont know that I agree. The article somewhat follows the prescident of the somewhat similar Foot Hood Shootings of 2009. (Title: 2009 Fort Hoot Shooting). The ISIL connection is still rather thin (per RS) at present and while they were making bombs, they don't seem to have been able to use bombs in the attack successfully. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagree all you want. Within the last day, all RS have taken to calling it "attacks", and the shooting narrative has since been dropped. I've changed the article title accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering the title was under discussion, with a recommendation for RM, and you knew that, I consider your move an act of disruption, on the same day as you threatened to report other editors to arb enforcement for disruption, their crime being what you considered excessive humor in a talk thread. But I'm staying off the revert button. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's recap for those who can't keep up: consensus to move to a new article title is established. Since there is only one option for a neutral title supported by naming convention and reliable sources ("2015 San Bernardino attacks"), I moved the article accordingly. It was then absurdly reverted for no reason. What exactly do we have to discuss when there is only one logical option for moving an article to a title supported by both our naming conventions and all of the current RS that have been published? Are you unaware that RS are now calling this an attack and not a shooting? What exactly is it that you feel the need to discuss? Do you need personal attention of some kind? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Am RM discussion must take place before a title change. If you wish to advocate in favor of a name change, then you are welcome to initiate an RM. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no such rule or requirement, and since consensus for a move has been established above and there is only one logical target for a new title based on naming conventions and RS, a request for move is unnecessary. Do you oppose a move to a title currently reflected by our best sources? Why? Sources are no longer calling it a shooting, they have been calling it an attack for the last 12 hours. Please get on board. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no current proposal and no consensus. There are rules and you need to follow them. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There's clear consensus for a move, and there's no rule stipulating a formal move discussion. You're the one who needs to follow along. The majority of current sources refer to this topic as the "San Bernardino attacks". End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussion also puts the brake on inept editors who rename an article at "attacks" when there was only one attack. Avoids clumsiness. 124.169.4.54 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Step right up and claim the "inept" description for your argument: the terrorists attacked the workplace and then attacked the police. Are you done? Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The situation and your options have been explained to you. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "situation" and there is no rule requiring a RfM. As this thread shows, there is no good argument against a move and my move should not have been reverted. Now, would you like to login using your primary account? Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument against your move was that you made no attempt to establish a consensus first. The reversion of your move and the discussion above involving multiple persons shows a need to establish consensus through an RfM. You are not going to convince those who disagree with you to change their opinions. Your only way forward is the RfM at this point. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still primarily a shooting. "Shooting" is more precise than "attack". Why would we make it ambiguous?VR _talk 05:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I suggested either "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" as more apropos (to make it clear that this was not just another "mass shooting" per se), as the FBI and all federal, state, and city law enforcement are treating this differently...given real solid indisputable facts that have come up in the past couple of days. Name change of this article is both warranted and due. And please don't use "well Fort Hood is still called" blah blah blah...as that was never treated and viewed by the FBI quite like this. And also, it's an appeal to "other stuff" too, but not even correctly anyway. Name change of article is warranted now. The wording is too vague and PC at this point, in my opinion. It's like I said on the other section on this page dealing with "oh should we mention their religion?", that Political Correctness = suppression of facts. Either in the body of the article itself, or in the actual article name itself.

And also please don't come up with this "well that professed Christian shot up Planned Parenthood", because guess what...I personally consider that an act of terrorism too. Though that nut was no real follower of the teachings of Christ or the Apostles ("turn the other cheek" "put the sword away" "be peaceable towards all men" etc), I call the Planned Parenthood shooting and murders "terrorism" too. But regardless, this event here in southern California, by those two Muslims and ISIS-sympathizers, is A) terrorism, no doubt, period, and B) should be called that somewhere in the actual name of the article, since both the FBI and even liberal media are treating this differently and discussing it a bit differently than any other "mass shooting" in the past years. So let's not fight anymore about changing the name of this article, and see the honest point. But consensus will decide, and it seems (at least) that consensus is pointing in the direction of more straightforward and clearer article name. Redzemp (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ideally it should be "San Bernardino Terrorist Attack" but since the PC police does not even allow "Terrorist" on the "September 11 Attacks" wikipedia page, then a mushy-mealy "San Bernardino Attack" must suffice. XavierItzm (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - see earlier discussions about "2015 San Bernardino terror attack" above - there is consensus not just here at this article, but across all shootings and attacks articles to not introduce "terrorist" into the title. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose changing the title - Even if terrorist-inspired, the perpetrators knew many of the victims and the events don't seem wildly different from other mass shootings in the US. "Shooting" is also more descriptive than "terrorist attack." For example, take the Boston Marathon Bombing article - widely considered a terrorist attack, but uses just the descriptive term "bombing" in the title. -KaJunl (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I said, that's why I suggested either "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting". "San Bernardino terrorist shooting". Regardless of whether the perps "knew some of the victims". To say (sighs) that that makes this 'no different' than the other mass shootings is kind of silly. It's being treated by EVERYONE (in law enforcement and even the liberal media) as different than any other mass shooting in recent history. In fact the lib media itself has called this "the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 911" etc. Wikipedia, unfortunately, with this (and other articles), is not really reflecting that distinction in the article names. But again, "San Bernardino terrorist shooting" is what I suggested, and what is logically factually more clear and apropos, in context. Maybe we should all finally take a formal vote. Redzemp (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wold be to start a section with {{Requested move}}. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So maybe we should start one. Redzemp (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What metrics do we use to differentiate "shooting" from "attack" or "massacre"? Meatsgains (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL template usage

My edit adding the Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was reverted by User:WWGB stating that "ISIL did not sponsor this event any more than the Catholic church sponsored the Irish trouble." The perpetrators were inspired to act as ISIL operatives despite possibly having operational independence, which is why it is discussed in the article. Since ISIL inspired the shooting, that makes the template's inclusion just as relevant as its discussion in the article. ISIL overall is a relatively decentralized global terrorist organization, so it doesn't make sense to me to not include an attack related to ISIL in its template because it is consistent with a characteristic of that same terrorist organization. Reliable sources are covering ISIL in relation to the shooting, so the template should therefore be included. Hello32020 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RS coverage is required for inclusion, but it does not require inclusion. This concept was recently articulated quite well by an admin, here. So your last sentence is moot. The difference between the template and the treatment in the body is that the latter can include explanation and attribution; I don't think it's a valid comparison. It comes down to how badly one wants to pin everything they can on Islam, to the greatest degree possible. I lean toward general exclusionism in articles, so I would set a high bar for inclusion of that template. I don't think you have cleared that bar. My opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think its too early to characterize how ISIL was associated with the event. People are drawing conclusions based on what is currently very thin evidence. We know one of them made statements that supported ISIL, but we don't have sources & facts to say they did it "inspired" by ISIL. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda may claim attacks like this, but it wasn't reported to have been co-ordinated or planned by them, so shouldn't be included. -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that Reuters reports the woman was from Punjab, with a hardline religiously conservative father in a region with influence from the Lashkar-e-Taiba. If ISIL wasn't in the news the shooters probably would have declared themselves to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. -- Callinus (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It was not ISIL. It was someone inspired by ISIL. Just like 7 July 2005 London bombings is not by Al-Qaeda, but by someone inspired by Al-Qaeda, not that either of them is desirable anyway. epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While the RS part of my argument wouldn't meet the bar for inclusion alone, it wasn't the only reason. This is adding the template of a terrorist/militant organization which the New York Times says "has relied mainly on “lone wolf” followers to strike Western targets with relatively low-tech assaults." [my emphasis]. Since this attack is consistent with what a reliable source describes as ISIL's "main" method of attacking outside of ISIL-controlled territory in Iraq and Syria, the template should be included. Additionally, the "lone wolves" aren't unsolicited supporters of ISIL, they were actively encouraged to carry out attacks independent of direct tactical coordination with/by ISIL leadership. Hello32020 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I pledge allegiance to the United States. The United States encourages killing terrorists in the Mideast. If I went and killed a terrorist in the Mideast, would we add the template "United States" to my article? Most probably not, since association is different than inspiration and single-sided pledges of allegiance. epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The United States does not actively and publicly encourage whoever reads its statements to take militant action on its behalf independent of active coordination with its government/state agencies. ISIL does. Hello32020 (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Army of One" pitch strongly implied it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times article says that ISIL relies mainly on lone wolf attacks on western targets. But the article does not back up that statement with any proof. In fact, the list in the article of incidents seems to disprove the theory that most ISIL attacks on the west have been "lone wolf" operations. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert Lewis Dear expressed support and admiration for the terrorist activities of the Army of God, but this does mean that the Army of God had anything to do with Dear's attack. Until it is shown that ISIL was involved in the planning or the execution of this shooting, I think it wise to not include the ISIL template. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL template is appropriate as they are terrorists associated with a terrorist organization. The train attack in France, Charlie Hebdo shootings and Paris attacks are equivalent to San Bernardino. Militant extreme Islamists that support the objectives of ISIL through the use of terrorism. They aren't Kurds or Shi'ites or Chechnian but they are ISIL. Fale equivalencies above do not negate the overt connection of the shooters and ISIL. There allegiance was very specific to ISIL. --DHeyward (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Only the female shooter has been reported to have had expressed support for ISIL. This is well documented in the sources and is mentioned several times in the article currently. Are sources reporting that the male shooter expressed any sort of support for ISIL? Are there any sources which state ISIL was involved in the planning or execution of the shooting? ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of most of the other attacks you mention, the group responsible made a public announcement of its responsibility. For example, ISIL proclaimed its responsibility for the November Paris attacks. In this case, there has been no claim of responsiblity (yet) by ISIL. The shooters themselves made no statement of their motives. We have one social media post by the wife in favor of ISIL but nothing else. As the investigation continues, more information may come out. But the article needs to reflect what we actually know right now. If official sources release new information that clarifies the situation, the change can be made at that time. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was inspired to play guitar by Metallica. By shitty logic, I'm related to Metallica. Yes! But no. That's just stupid. Same here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

ISIL is not a baseball team where members are picked, a social club that votes in members, a company that hires representatives. It is a volunteer terrorist group that demands all Muslims pledge allegiance and assist them. If a Muslim pledges to ISIL and carry out an attack, it is an ISIL attack, period. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it count if a Shiite does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

The moronic level is approaching 11. There are many factions fighting in the middle east. If she expressed support for Houthi's or Kurds or Palestine or any ethnic group, we would report that differently than expressing support for a terrorist organization. ISIL is not a religious denomination or ethnic minority. If this was a bombing in the name of the IRA, and the IRA cheered it on, there would be no question that it was an IRA bombing. Not Catholic and not Irish but IRA. We don't need to find their special laminated ID card. --DHeyward (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. ISIL-inspired but not direct connection yet. Bod (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - At this time we have just a Facebook post attributed to one of the perps, which is IMO, a very tenuous connection. Adding that template is almost as if WP is giving its imprimatur to this issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support since someone started voting. This will go on the List of ISIL attacks pasge too, where ever that is. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Create a template for ISIL-inspired attacks.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Thalasinos

User:WWGB removed this because he said "no evidence that a two-week-old argument had any bearing on this incident". However, the timing of this incident might have occurred sooner because of the argument between the co-worker.

Prior to the shooting, there was heated argument at the Inland Regional Center involving one of the victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, a “born again” Messianic Jew who worshipped Jesus. Thalasinos was a restaurant inspector who worked with Farook. Thalasinos' wife argued that this argument was likely between Thalasinos and Farook. According to Thalasinos' friend, there was a previous incident where Thalasinos and Farook argued whether Islam is a peaceful religion. Being critical of Islam, Thalasinos maintains a Facebook page denouncing it, with one of his posts blaming Islam for the September 11 attacks and another accusing U.S. President Barack Obama of being a Muslim. However, Thalasinos' wife believed that Farook was radicalized "behind the scenes" and was not due to the dispute between them.[28] 3D Face Analysis (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems your position is based entirely on original research and supposition. WWGB (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was it original research? The statements were summaries referring to direct messages and the quotes taken from the article.

"Prior to the shooting, there was heated argument at the Inland Regional Center involving one of the victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, a “born again” Messianic Jew who worshipped Jesus." -> "Nicholas Thalasinos, a devout Zionist, became furious with Syed Rizwan Farook, a fellow restaurant inspector, during work, declaring that the Muslim man “doesn’t agree that Islam is not a peaceful religion.” & "“He knew Syed. He worked with him,” Jennifer Thalasinos, 41, told The Post outside her home in Colton, Calif. “And he never had anything bad to say about [Syed],” she said."

"Thalasinos was a restaurant inspector who worked with Farook. Thalasinos' wife argued that this argument was likely between Thalasinos and Farook." -> "As for initial reports that Farook argued with an unidentfied co-worker at an office holiday party moments before returning with his wife and weapons, Jennifer said that worker could well have been her husband."

"According to Thalasinos' friend, there was a previous incident where Thalasinos and Farook argued whether Islam is a peaceful religion." -> "Farook shot back that Americans don’t understand Islam, to which Thalasinos responded by saying, “I don’t know how to talk with him,” according to Kuuleme Stephens, a friend of Thalasinos’ who told The Associated Press that she heard the exchange while talking with him on the phone."

"Being critical of Islam, Thalasinos maintains a Facebook page denouncing it, with one of his posts blaming Islam for the September 11 attacks" -> "“On behalf of this guy . . . You can stick your Million Muslim March up your asses,” Nicholas posted on Sept. 11, 2013, with a photo of an office worker plummeting to his death from the blazing World Trade Center on 9/11."

"and another accusing U.S. President Barack Obama of being a Muslim." -> "A post from October 2013 also included a photo of a man falling to his death from the trade center. Above it, Nicholas posted the quote and attribution: “ ‘The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer’ — Barack Hussein Obama.”"

"However, Thalasinos' wife believed that Farook was radicalized "behind the scenes" and was not due to the dispute between them.[1]" -> "But Jennifer also said she believed Farook may have been radicalized “behind the scenes” in the years before Wednesday’s mass shooting but wasn’t showing “that part of himself” at work."

I left out irrelevant stuff about Thalasinos' online activities unrelated to Farook, including him arguing with other Muslims on his Facebook page.

3D Face Analysis (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It also seems to violate WP:SYNTH as it is connecting two seperate events without a reliable source. ,ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it SYNTH? All of the statements (including the Facebook statements) come from the same article. I did not synthesize two different sources.3D Face Analysis (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just newspaper blah blah gooky goo. We can't include every possible detail and argument that cemented Farook's faith...Bod (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, hopefully LE is following up, but does seem like SYNTH, as ParkH.Davis pointed out, without RS stating the same conclusion Velojareal (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it SYNTH? All of the statements (including the Facebook statements) come from the same article. I did not synthesize two different sources. 3D Face Analysis (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems pretty tenuous. Here's the edit [29]. One thinks it was a heated conversation with Farook, the other apparently said there was a dispute ... but neither really has any data to prove a direct link. We're talking about people who had been in Saudi Arabia, the wife with a hard fundamentalist background, the husband practicing target shooting for years, both with lots of equipment and a plan... it seems really far-fetched to suppose they threw it all together in two weeks on account of an argument. I'm not saying the argument can't be mentioned somehow, but be careful not to exaggerate its meaning. Wnt (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the ISIL article in the NYT below from earlier in the year, they recommended that lone wolfs attack during events (like a holiday party), presumably to maximize damage. I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this. Anyone who thinks this was a simple case of workplace violence needs to remove themselves from this topic. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: That's true, but it doesn't make these issues totally meaningless. The killers may well have veered this way and that looking for higher-value targets like the guy with the rainbow gay pride earring and the one they argued with a few weeks back. I would imagine that there is a certain psychological comfort one could take if that's true -- more people would have died if everyone was equal, whereas if they pursued these targets out of proportion to the tactical situation, the deaths of those particular victims may have saved a larger number of lives of those who escaped in the meanwhile. Of course, that part we cannot say in the article unless a source says it, but I think we can allow a little leeway to mention that certain victims had particular traits that might have annoyed radical Muslims. As long as we don't make it sound like they planned the whole rampage around it, since we don't have any such indication. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: Again, I'm not getting this line of reasoning. This had nothing to do with workplace violence. They dropped the baby off because they planned the attack. There are indications, according to various victim reports, that there was at least two weeks prior planning involved. Although it's a terrible source, I'm referring to the victim testimony published by Hannity. I'm generally considered a libby's libtard around here, but conservatives do have a point that there seems to be an attempt to downplay this incident as a terrorist attack. I'm sympathetic to the reasons why officials would want to keep this quiet. First, they don't want to panic people. Second, they don't want to endanger mainstream Muslims who are law abiding and good citizens. Third, the number of people killed since 9/11 is quite small. And fourth, any reaction is bound to endanger civil liberties. However, they cannot expect the public to feel safe unless they start enforcing restrictions on people who come from the countries that are causing these problems. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't believe I just read this on an encyclopedia talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything I've mentioned has been discussed in RS related to this incident. "In the aftermath of the recent scourge of mass shootings—from San Bernardino to Colorado Springs to Charleston—as well as attacks aimed at Black Lives Matter protesters, many have asked why the media and public officials have been hesitant to call the suspects 'terrorists.'"[30] Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There was hesitancy in the beginning (out of caution, I would argue), but that is no longer the case, now that more information has been gleaned by the investigation. Obama will address the nation on Sunday: The President will also discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. "He will reiterate his firm conviction that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values -- our unwavering commitment to justice, equality and freedom -- to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology."[31] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And therein lies one of the problems in relying on the government to affirm motive in situations like this. President Obama still says that the 2009 Fort Hood attack is workplace violence, and not terrorism. He also refuses to say incidents like the San Bernardino attack is "Islamic" terrorism, claiming that the perpetrators aren't acting within the tenants of Islam. To the extent that an Administration can order those who report to him to follow his lead this kind of propaganda permeates the public statements and is gladly reported by media who are only too willing to comply. Virtually every terrorism expert I heard was calling it Islamic terrorism from the first day. grifterlake (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it gets better. Cwobeel is claiming below that we can't call this "Islamic terrorism", only "terrorism". Have I entered the Twilight Zone? Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, no twilight zone. WP:V zone. Please WP:AGF. What I am saying is that in WP we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See for example 2014 Las Vegas shootings described as domestic terrorism, and not as right-wing terrorism, white supremacy terrorism, or patriot movement terrorism. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel, WP:V, and it's been "verified". Verified by the two "P"s. By both the PRESS and the POLICE. That this attack was inspired, moved, and motivated, by radical Islamic ideology and sentiments. It's been "verified" sufficiently at this point, otherwise they would not be investigating this as Islamic terrorism at this point. Not just "terrorism", but ISIS-inspired stuff. Redzemp (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It describes it at "domestic terrorism" because you can't logically derive "right wing", "white supremacy" or "patriot movement" (other than that they "supported the Patriot movement", but didn't belong to it) leanings from the WP article. But you can logically derive "anti-government" leanings from the article, so that's why the motive is "anti-government beliefs". They were primarily anti-authority, and specifically anti-police. Based on their membership in Cop Block you could logically conclude they might have been supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. When a devout Muslim commits acts of terrorism it is specifically to advance the cause of Islam--restoring the Caliphate, spreading Sharia law, making Islam the dominant world religion, striking at the infidels for Allah, etc. That's why you can put the word "Islamic" in in front of terrorism in this case. grifterlake (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

they might have been supporters. Exactly. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet the big difference is that the "patriot movement" isn't a terrorist group or terrorist related. ISIS is an Islamic terrorist organization. You can be in the patriot movement and not be a terrorist. Likewise, you could be in the patriot movement and be a terrorist. The two operate independently of each other. But if you are in ISIS, or support ISIS through illegal actions you are by definition, an Islamic terrorist. Come on, people. It's not like we are debating whether some discovery by the Mars rover means there is life on Mars. When people support a terrorist organization whose mission statement is built around advancing a religion it's perfectly legitimate, if not preferred to put the name of that religion in front of the word "terrorist". grifterlake (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does the info box in the article have the word "possible" in "possible Islamic terrorism"? Why is the word "possible" there, when it's already pretty been confirmed? This was not a shooting by disgruntled employees over a pay raise or promotion or some tiff of personalities. And the type of place that was shot up was not a controversial one at all. Helping infirm and disabled people. No, it as a neutral soft target, that just happened to be where they worked, conveniently, from Islamic State ideology to shoot up. Is this still a matter of "possible" Islamic terrorism, as the info box conveys it (no doubt due to the minimizer editors getting in there with that)? Also, as I said in another part of this talk page, let's take a vote already on name change of the article to "2015 San Bernardino terrorist shooting". Thanks. Redzemp (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Anyway, I see that the info box wording was changed to "investigated as...Islamic terrorism"...which is better. Redzemp (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I can live with that. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Motive

Throughout the day, I have seen the motive listed in the infobox switch between "Islam," "Islamic terrorism" and something like "Radical / extreme religious views." I think we need to pick one thing and stick with it, at least for the time being. It might not be a bad idea to get some form of protection back on this page either. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would contend that we still don't know enough through RS to conclude a motive. Let the investigation take its course. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, has anything been confirmed yet? Is the investigation into a cause all done? Why is this being changed back, and forth? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That's just what Wikipedia does. Everybody only knows everything about developing stories. Once the story's been established, they stop caring. Then a new story develops, and we have all the same detective sections on the Talk Page, because only a few of us bother remembering anything we learn during the other ones. Give it three more days, it'll look quieter and truer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Should the motive not be set to "unknown" or is there a reliable source which gives a motive? ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

All reliable sources are reporting that Malik pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on Facebook. Is there a reason why such a self-evident motive of Islamic terrorism should be ignored in favor of "unknown"? Please explain you reasoning. ISIL explicitly encourages individuals to commit isolated, lone wolf attacks, unaffiliated and without centralized directives. How is this not a clear and obvious motive? And how could one possibly argue that it is "unknown"? Please explain. Malik acknowledged her motive with her Facebook posting. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's multiple independent sources discussing this pledge, and the pledge itself doesn't convey a motive (since she posted it under another name and presumably didn't expect it to be connected with her). The pledge info apparently comes from the FBI rather than independent reporting. All this should be in the article but stated precisely. I'd prefer not having a motive in the infobox, or listing it as "under investigation" or some such, since the matter is complicated. The article can go into the details. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Its not self-evident. Saying that her pledge is equal to her motive is a conclusion. We should not be providing analysis. You need to find reliable sources that report that her motive was "Islamic terrorism". If it is as clear and obvious as you suggest, you should have no problem finding RS material that says so. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am confused how anyone could argue that a pledge to ISIL doesn't imply or suggest a motive. In fact, I am having great trouble trying to consider any other kind of motive. RS have reported on the increased threat of ISIL-inspired lone wolf attacks since July.[32] And the FBI has been talking about it since at least February.[33] How then, is her pledge not equal to her motive, when we've been aware of this kind of threat for some time? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

She pledged to ISIL, which encourages attacks on soft targets with weapons easily found - then shoots up a room creating a horrific bloodbath for ... what reason again? Maybe she got bored with paintball... Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unknown reason again. Maybe she was pissed off at something. Someone. Somewhere? Anger, despair, guilt...all way closer to most of these sorts than boogeymen from Syria are. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

The reason is known. ISIL has already talked about it and RS reported on it. This is what ISIL terrorists do. I don't see any questions about motive. It's called Islamic terrorism. Seriously, is it that hard to understand? What's the problem here? Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So, just Islamic terrorism. She was motivated by Islamic terrorism to kill people without making any demands or political statements? Just saw an ISIS ad, and said "Yep. That's for me." And then her husband said he knew some people they could kill, and off they went on their radical journey. Or is there more to it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

I'm really confused by your statement, and similar comments by others who believe it isn't Islamic terrorism unless they are directly connected to a terrorist network, receive explicit instructions, and then make demands or an official statement. As all of the RS articles on ISIL repeatedly point out, that's not how it works anymore. ISIL uses social media and other platforms (such as the Inspire magazine in possession of the aforementioned terrorists) to actively encourage and promote decentralized lone wolf attacks with the sole purpose and motive of inflicting casualties on infidels. What is so difficult about understanding this? Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

People inflict casualties among "the infidels" every day in America. Without either a (real) link to a terrorist group, or an indication that this was meant to persuade someone of anything through terror, it just doesn't make sense to call this terrorism. And even if we do, that's the act, not the motivation for it. Were they passionately pissed about something to do with Islam? Syria? America? War? Peace? Sources indicate nobody noticed anything "extreme" about them, up until a last-moment "pledge" on Facebook, whatever it allegedly said. Let the forensics guys unbreak the computers and dig around, then we can start talking about motives. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Are you just saying this stuff as a contrarian or have you honestly not read the news today? It's an unambiguous terrorist attack committed in the name of ISIL, whether connected directly or as lone wolves. Reports indicate Malik had ties to an extremist mosque and Farook made comments indicating long term planning. Please stop positing this stuff and read the news. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And I think you've read too much news today. Seems to have boggled you. I know I've read too much Wikipedia talk today. I'm off to collect the bones of an undead child molester and burn them, once and for all. You have a good weekend, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to read the NYT link up above. It describes the motives for the attack down to the target itself. I am surprised anyone is claiming that the motive is unknown when this fits the pattern for an ISIL lone wolf attack that we already know about. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? That article, written 2 July this year, does not (and cannot, absent a not-yet-if-ever-there update) reference this attack in any way, which means your assertion that "this fits the pattern for an ISIL lone wolf attack"—however much likely—constitutes OR. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you are the one who is kidding. OR only applies to article space. I established that the motive of lone wolf ISIL terrorists who act on their own has been well established by reliable sources and law enforcement. Therefore, how can anyone say their motive is unknown? We know it, it's called terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about—or, at least started with—what goes in article space (and, on an article's talk page, it's supposed to). We can speculate all we want here, but until a reliable source specifically says the act itself was one of terrorism—and what I've seen so far refers only to "ties" between the perps and Islamist extremists—the article cannot say so, and the 2 July article certainly cannot be used as a RS for this event. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the motive of ISIL lone wolf terrorist is already known. It's published just about everywhere. Read "What ISIS Really Wants" in The Atlantic. Are there RS saying this was not a terrorist attack? It seems that there are political games being played here, and Wikipedia should steer clear of them. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"It seems that there are political games being played here, and Wikipedia should steer clear of them." I could not agree more. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Spoken like a true President! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

The hopeless attempts to whitewash and censor continue, with the silliest of sophomoric arguments. Edison (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please WP:AGF with editors here? This is why we have WP:OR, namely WP:SYNTH as a policy. Investigations take time, I for one believe that it was terrorism but we need the dust to settle a bit before labeling it as such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys the motive was parking dispute, just like 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. Twitteristhebest (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2015

2015 San Bernardino shooting → San Bernardino shooting – Already redirects here. No point in using the year when there are no conflicting articles. RS's already use the "San Bernardino shooting" title. Can be moved again in the future. Bod (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strongly Oppose see discussion earlier. There are many notable shootings (some really unusual ones) in the area's history. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide one (or two, since there were 'many')? I don't see any others linked from San Bernardino and google is obviously flooded with current events. Velojareal (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

See a few here [34]Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And none of them have a wikipedia article?Bod (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose accomplishes nothing over "2015". The year is common in other articles. -- Callinus (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - no reason to bother, and it seems weirdly optimistic to think disambig wouldn't be needed in the future (or even the past). Wnt (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is but one of many notable shootings which have taken place in San Bernardino. Some disambiguation is needed. Would you have "Chicago shooting" or "New York City shooting" if attacks took place there? Please quit wasting everyone's time. Edison (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title adheres to the current standard. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The Germans have already named their article "terror attack in San Bernardino" with no date and the Germans are the most logical people on the Earth. Bod (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment about who the most logical people on earth are, but there sure ain't much logic in the comment above.VR _talk 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting do not include years. Paris does, but it has unfortunately also endured the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks. Logically speaking, if another event does take place in 2015 (hope not) it can be renamed to something more specific then (would need to anyway, as 2015 San Bernardino shooting would overlap either way). No need to make it this specific initially, imho. If the "current standard" is to include the year, there are at least two renames which should probably take place....2:1 1:2? Velojareal (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your example Boston bombing supports NOT changing this article. That is a redirect and rejected title (as too imprecise as I recall) for Boston Marathon bombing which is quite percise without the date because there has never been another bombing of the Boston Marathon. Same for the Sandy Hook example-only known shooting in that location. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point. I may have crossed this with a rename that included 'attacks' as opposed to the more general 'shooting'. Velojareal (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep the date and keep the redirect. As others stated, San Bernardino is more likely to have additional incidents that Sandy Hook. Plus, it's not unheard of for terrorists to plan and attempt additional strikes on the same target. grifterlake (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance re: naming, but why not just rename it if another awful tragedy were to occur, rather than planning ahead for it? Velojareal (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, how about that... another rational being frequents these parts. Bod (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. In other words, we cross bridges when we come to them. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the scheme of things, it's a minor matter but I don't have a problem with any "incident" type of event including the date in the title. Kind of like a flight number included in the title for a plane crash article. In this case it provides an organizational chronology for Islamic terrorist incidents. However, it shakes out though, this might be something for Wikipedia to look at and consider establishing a more consistent naming convention, especially for terrorist and other violent incidents. And by violent I would also include weather and geologic phenomenon along with other natural occurrences. grifterlake (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support, no need for the disambiguation at present and the redirect from the desired title to the current one already shows that there's no reason to not move it. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here as it's by far the most notable shooting incident in San Bernardino, solidifying itself as one of the worst in the state as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose only because it should be "attacks", not "shooting." Those pipe bombs didn't make themselves and the objective was terrorism by radical Islamists. --DHeyward (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose San Bernardino is a site of many shootings, the current title is already not precise enough. WP:RECENTISM on this being a primary topic, as WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this cannot be a primary topic just because it is in the news. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose particularly per very valid point by User:Grifterlake, see also four of five points of WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So if you were starting a conversation with something like, "What are your thoughts on the San Bernardino shooting?" They would obviously say, "Wait! Are you talking about the 2015 one?" Bod (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If we go out 25 years, the question will be "Do you remember the terrorist attack on San Bernardino?" The year (hopefully) won't be necessary. It's rare for the year to be associated with an event but convenient if the agenda is to create a list of events that appear to all be the same problem. Even the 9/11 attacks don't have the year. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per DHeywood. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean DHayward? Bod (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

More likely DHeyward Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The year in the lemma makes it clearer. -Metron (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same as everyone else.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - San Bernardino is a large populated area that experiences shootings as a regular part of simply existing (vs. Sandy Hook or Umpqua Community College as small locales that do not) - the "2015" part of the title signifies this is indeed an article about a particular occurrence. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, weakly and for now - Let's wait until the end of the year before we even think about renaming. "San Bernardino shooting" (and various misspellings) are already redirects and I assume that most of the significant others are too. What if, in 2016, there's another shooting in SB, this time in a deli robbery that some celebrity got mixed up in? As long as your favorite name has a redirect, I don't see what the trouble is. Do you like bean sorting? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As Fuzheado notes, San Benardino is a large city, and one would expect at least a few shootings to occur within said city in a single year. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 01:50, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Everyone's already got all the explanations and reasoning covered. Parsley Man (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I dont understand the reasoning behind the proposal. As someone else said, there is already a redirect for the proposed name and it would likely that the old name would become a redirect after the move. What is being accomplished? 75.17.124.228 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unlike Sandy Hook, which is unlikely to have another shooting, the city has shootings every year. In fact, the present title is almost not specific enough. I'm not suggesting this at all (not common name) but Inland Regional Center shootings would not need a year. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• How about San Bernardino shooting, 2015, which places the year as an afterthought? Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • But that's not the style of how we do articles about current events. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Part of me thinks something like "Inland Regional Center shooting" might be more appropriate, but given that the media is calling it the "San Bernardino shooting," I guess we should stick with that. Given that it's just a city name, including the year seems okay. -KaJunl (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should close this per WP:SNOW- Cwobeel (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What should we do about the third perp?

At first all the news reports said three shooters, then it became a husband-and-wife thing. I'm still seeing divergent statements about how many shooters - this one makes it sound like there's a guy in custody, while this one makes it sound like it's pretty much two. Can people suggest some good sources and a balanced sentence to deal with the third shooter or lack thereof? Wnt (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's common in early reporting and investigations. Someone will be taken into custody on suspicion and then released later when there is shown to have no connection to the case. After Breivik's rampage in Norway, a student was taken into custody for acting suspicious, but he had nothing to do with the attack.
We've heard nothing about this third person since the attack, so we can just assume it was unrelated. The deafening silence on this is pretty telling. If there was a third person in custody there would be a lot of media coverage. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above, although I can't claim to be intimately familiar with all the coverage. In any case, if there was nothing to it, we needn't include content to clear that up for the reader; we're not a rumor clearing house. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, with the additional caveat that I did follow the coverage fairly well. Yes, this was something that came up during the initial coverage, but as has been said, nothing has come of it. I agree that we don't need to worry about having anything in the article about a third perpetrator or the reporting of one unless we do end up hearing something more about it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The police cheif covered the third person. They were checking people fleeing the gun battle area and one guy happened to have a minor warrent outstanding and so got arrested. End of story Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is significant and worthy of inclusion because they closed down a whole neighborhood during the search until they found the third suspect. Bod (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects of the "third perp." Some above in this thread correctly note that a third person was detained around the time of the shootout on the road. Other sources have said this third person was not part of the shooting plot, but was detained because of some unrelated matter. The harder part is the reported third shooter. Eyewitness testimony is often wrong. At least one eyewitness gave an interview in which she clearly stated that there were three shooters who entered the banquet, all with rifles, all clad in black. How many eyewitnesses saw two shooters at the banquet and how many saw three? I agree it is common that one shooter is reported as many, and this delays the entry of medics at a mass shooting even after the lone shooter has finally committed suicide. In one case a lion escaped at a zoo and mauled someone to death, and the emergency personnel were in fear of the other reported lions, so no aid was rendered to the for a prolonged time. Psychology experiments or demonstrations have been done in which one or more actors rush into the classroom in a pretend shooting, and the prof asks the students to write a description of what happened, wherein they get the number of persons, what they are wearing, and the weapon and number of shots wrong. I suggest we just watch for coverage of this point, when the media have had time to mull things over (its called secondary sourcing). Edison (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling this third suspect will be mentioned no more, so best if someone could get the facts on this aspect... and list them here for eventual inclusion. Bod (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Police chief said NO third shooter. Was very clear about it. That is why media dropped it. Legacypac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Initial eyewitness reports were wrong and the third *suspect* found fleeing the scene near the final shootout was nothing. The shelter-in-place order I thought was associated with this suspect... was actually surrounding the neighborhood of the townhouse. No further importance. Bod (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I found an article from the LA Times quoting the police chief as confirming that the third guy was unrelated to the attack, and cited to it. Neutrality^talk 23:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems there are two issues, which may have been confused with each other:

1. At least two alleged witnesses interviewed by network TV news have claimed there were three shooters who were white, including one employee of the Inland Regional Center (Sally Abdelmageed):
   • Sally Abdelmageed via CBS News - http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/witness-describes-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
   • Juan Hernandez via NBC News- http://www.nbcnews.com/video/it-sounded-like-a-gun-range-578218563875
2. There have also been reports from the police, news, etc of a "third suspect" who was apprehended at some point, and as User:Neutrality mentions above, is no longer a suspect in this shooting. There may have been one or more of these "third suspects", it's not clear to me and I haven't sifted through all the sources of this aspect.

First of all, this subtlety seems relevant to the article, especially since the story has shifted away from "three white shooters" such as by the police's narrative, Obama's address, etc. I would like to consider how and whether this can be elucidated in the article, but unsure about the best path to proceed. Any thoughts? -- Mattsenate (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter reaction

Does the massive number of liberals/democrats/SJWs (including media personalities) blaming white men on Twitter immediately after the attacks rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not even on this talkpage. Stop listening to people with airtime to fill and nothing to say. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Witty and lol-worthy. Bod (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If it gets noteworthy coverage beyond the alt-right, go for it. Otherwise, it's part of the public sphere of Twitter where the liberty of expression allows freedom to say things without evidence. Anyone jumping to conclusions on a massacre is an idiot, I can remember The Sun's front page after the Breivik attack, proclaiming that al-Qaeda had attacked the children on the island '''tAD''' (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotection

As this article will be highly controversial and delicate for an extended period, I have semiprotected it for 3 months. I should add if folks really feel like unprotecting it sooner I really don't mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ready to be bored?"

I'm with WWGB. Farook's movements are one thing, tracking the event's unfolding. The conversation strikes me as trivial and peripheral, absent some indication that its participant found it odd. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, how can an innocuous comment that a meeting was likely to be boring have any relevance to a subsequent murderous attack? WWGB (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant to me.--WillC 11:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend discussing pros/cons for all points here, clearly stating reasons for why a particular view is held. This is a delicate one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to start said discussion by indicating why you think it is "delicate". WWGB (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are serious... Bod (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

When I read the article, I thought this was irrelevant and out of place. Not sure it needs to be included in the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC) --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that "Ready to be bored?" was a running joke between Farook and co-worker he was sitting with at a table. The intent was to show that Farook's actions seemed entirely normal. In the middle of the meeting he got up and left, leaving his jacket, notebook, etc. at the table. People likely assumed he was taking a bathroom break or had to take a call. The meeting continued and reached a planned break. Farook and his wife returned at that moment with some people surviving as they had already left the meeting room and were in a restroom nearby while others were still milling around the meeting room. If we have "Ready to be bored?" in the article it should be as part of showing that things seemed 100% normal with Farook and his actions, what he said, etc. prior to the attack. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Investigation

This section has become a messy, ill-connected list of newspapers clippings and quotings, as well as being overly long, tenuously relevant in parts, and overall showing itself to be a poor example of encyclopedic writing. I tagged it for fixing, but it was removed. Bod (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are certainly parts for which flow could be improved. I do think as more information gets out there and confirmed, a lot of the initial speculation and hedging ("The Times reported this," "The police chief said this...," "investigated as...") can get taken out. The hope is that we can streamline things into a narrative.

I don't think length is a per se problem - at least not yet. This article is currently 61K bytes, which is smaller than, for example, 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt: 102K bytes). Neutrality^talk 23:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Names in Urdu

The following are names of Farook and Malik in Urdu in case anyone wants to add one or both of them:

Syed Rizwan Farook (Urdu: سيد رضوان فاروق / Hindustani pronunciation: [səjjəd rɪzwɑːn fɑːruːq])

Tashfeen Malik (Urdu: تاشفين ملک / Hindustani pronunciation: [tɑːʃfiːn məlɪk])

I'm unsure if the Urdu version of Farook's name should be added since I don't know if he even used the language and because Urdu versions of people's names are usually mentioned in articles about people who are natives of Pakistan (which Tashfeen is but Farook is not). Still, I'm mentioning the spellings and the IPA pronunciations of their names here in case anyone thinks they could be included in the article. —Human10.0 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that needed? Farook is American, born in Chicago. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Farook spoke Urdu in his home. The name we use is an anglicized Urdu name so the name given him is Urdu: سيد رضوان فاروق, not the latin version of it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? We have articles about people in WP that speak French, Japanese, or Russian at home and their names are anglicized versions of their native names, but we don't put their names translated in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added as notes. Bod (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Left Malik's name. There is no reason to spell Farook name in Urdu. He is an American citizen (like it or not), and his legal name registered when he was born is not in Urdu. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you've been reverted by DH. Leave them both in "notes". It is unobtrusive and provides decent information. Bod (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. This is a pretty obvious attempt to make Farook "foreign". Some editors seem to be inclined in that direction apparently, as using foreign names for American citizens referred in Wikipedia articles is pretty unusual to put it kindly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Investigation of man thought to have bought 2 weapons

FBI agents early Saturday raided the home of a man believed to have purchased two military-grade rifles used in this week’s deadly rampage in San Bernardino, Calif., as federal authorities raced to piece together clues about the most deadly terrorist assault on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. at WaPo and Reuters--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 06:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not in source

This text in the "Motives" section is not supported by sources:

The FBI investigated the case as Islamic terrorism inspired by, but not directed by, ISIL.

The FBI is investigating this as a case of terrorism. There is no mention of "Islamic terrorism" in any of the comments by FBI officials.. Respecting 1RR, I am tagging that section as factually inaccurate. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, this may be indeed a case of Islamic terrorism, but the FBI has never used that definition, so that text fails WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Which was exactly why I'd removed that, once upon a time ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If the content doesn't refer to Islamic terrorism, then what does it refer to here? I have never seen anyone jump through this many hoops to remove the word "Islamic" from this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "The FBI investigated the case as terrorism inspired by, but not directed by, ISIL" was an updated version of the edit I'd made, and includes a direct link to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. That this somehow removes "Islamic" from the article is simply incorrect. Meantime, the assumption that your fellow editors are acting in good faith absent legitimate evidence to the contrary would be rather nice ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

... never mind the repetition inherent in, essentially, "Islamic terrorism inspired by the Islamic State". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the islamic terrorism and changed it to terrorism. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism in this instance only refers to Islamic terrorism. The NYT source in the section is more than clear about this: "The attack is the deadliest Islamic State-inspired attack on American soil." An Islamic State-inspired attack refers only to Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, this is yet another instance of Cwobeel and his enablers playing fast and loose with the facts. The sources only refer to Islamic terrorism, no other kind. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The FBI is investigating the case as Islamic terrorism. They've said as much. They haven't linked it to other Islamic terrorist organizations except for the facebook post that gave rise to the inspiration for the attack. They have said this pretty explicitly both on the record and in background. “The investigation so far has developed indications of radicalization by the killers and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations,” FBI Director James Comey said.[35]. And that it was more sophisticated and isolated than other Islamic terrorism where the attackers are more overt “This is not Jihad 101,” the senior law enforcement said. "Radicalized" and "jihad" are not hard to understand their context. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If the FBI didn't use the word "islamic", then neither should we. WP:SYNTH should be respected. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

They used "radicalized" and "jihad." I don't think they used mass shooting, either though. Common sense, however, is allowed and it's not synth to comprehend they are investigating Islamic terrorism when the use words exclusively associated with Islamic terrorism. The dead Islamic terrorists' own family considers it related to his recent swing to a more fundamentalist Islamic lifestyle and question whether the Islamic terrorist female radicalized her husband. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should not use any words which reliable sources are not using. To do otherwise would be to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION. If reliable sources aren't using the word "islamic" then neither should we. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. We use words which reliable sources are not using all the time—it's called paraphrasing. And if you are doing otherwise, it's called plagiarism. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

People here can continue to ignore WP:AGF and cast aspersions about other editors all they want, but last time I checked, in Wikipedia we follow the sources per WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources say they are investigating it as Islamic terrorism and many have said, if proven, it would be the largist Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. That's what is being investigate and that is what is being reported. It's a ridiculous argument to deny it. It's akin to saying it's not a murder a investigation because no one has been convicted of murder or charged with murder. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you are confusing the difference between a reliable source and a government position. The fact that the government is consistently downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism has already been discussed. To promote only one POV as you are doing is called propaganda, which is by definition unreliable. I'm sorry, but it's pretty damn obvious what's really going on here. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. The FBI is conducting a counter-terrorism probe. Obama declared the shooting as an act of terrorism, and added that it was based on a "perverted" form of Islam. That is what the sources say, and that is what we say in the article. So what is the issue here, if there is any? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I also believe that this is an act of Islamic terrorism, but we should respect the sources. If you have sources with significant viewpoints that explicitly call this "Islamic terrorism" you are most welcome to add them. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting: searching for "Islamic Terrorism" in Google News [36], brings up mostly right-wing and conservative politicians and commentators. Fascinating. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I get it now. Using "radical Islamic terrorism" is what conservative politicians and right-wing commentators prefer to use, while Democrats and progressives prefer not to use that term, on the basis that it plays to the hands of ISIL by conflating "Islam" with "terrorism". If this is the case, we should present the contrasting viewpoints in the Political reactions section, rather than take sides and express either in WP's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not just outsource the writing of this article to a government agency? It would save a lot of time. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How is that comment useful? Please enlighten me. You can continue with sarcasm and lack of good faith, but that does not get us anywhere. Find some sources, and do the work. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a stenographer for any official government position or policy. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. So what we do in WP is that we report on significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. I continue to invite you to do just that. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

While you're questioning another editor on how his comment is "useful" and accusing the same editor of sarcasm and lack of good faith, how is the following comment useful and not any of the things you accused him of? "Using "radical Islamic terrorism" is what conservative politicians and right-wing commentators prefer to use, while Democrats and progressives prefer not to use that term, on the basis that it plays to the hands of ISIL by conflating "Islam" with "terrorism"." How about you both take a breather from this talk page and article for several hours before someone gets blocked or taken to a noticeboard? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That comment was not directed at him. It was a general comment on what I found in the sources when I searched for "Islamic terrorism" in Google News. So gimme a break you too, and help make the article better. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

PLEASE CHANGE

Tashfeen Malik

Tashfeen Malik (July 13, 1988 – December 2, 2015) was born in Pakistan but had lived for most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Her hometown was Karor Lal Esan, 280 miles southwest of Islamabad. She returned to Pakistan to study pharmacy at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan and graduated in 2012. Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki denied reports that Malik grew up in his country, and said that she only visited Saudi Arabia for a few weeks in 2008 and again in 2013.

According to one of Farook's coworkers, Malik and her husband married about a month after he traveled to Saudi Arabia in early 2014; the two had met over the internet. Malik joined Farook in California shortly after their wedding. At the time of her death, Malik and Farook had a six-month-old daughter.

Malik entered the United States on a K-1 (fiancée) visa with a Pakistani passport. According to a State Department spokesman, all applicants for such visas are fully screened. Malik's application for permanent residency (a "green card") was completed by Farook on her behalf in September 2014, and she was granted a conditional green card in July 2015. Obtaining such a green card would have required the couple to prove that the marriage was legitimate, as well as requiring Malik to provide her fingerprints and pass criminal and national security background checks using government databases.

Malik was one of a small number of female mass shooters in the U.S.; women constituted only 3.75 percent of active shooters in the U.S. from 2000 to 2013.

TO

Tashfeen Malik (July 13, 1988 – December 2, 2015) was born in Pakistan but had lived for most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Her hometown was Karor Lal Esan, 280 miles southwest of Islamabad. She returned to Pakistan to study pharmacy at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan and graduated in 2012. Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki denied reports that Malik grew up in his country, and said that she only visited Saudi Arabia for a few weeks in 2008 and again in 2013.

According to one of Farook's coworkers, Malik and her husband married about a month after he traveled to Saudi Arabia in early 2014; the two had met over the internet. Malik joined Farook in California shortly after their wedding. At the time of her death, Malik and Farook had a six-month-old daughter.

Malik entered the United States on a K-1 (fiancée) visa with a Pakistani passport. According to a State Department spokesman, all applicants for such visas are fully screened. Malik's application for permanent residency (a "green card") was completed by Farook on her behalf in September 2014, and she was granted a conditional green card in July 2015. Obtaining such a green card would have required the couple to prove that the marriage was legitimate, as well as requiring Malik to provide her fingerprints and pass criminal and national security background checks using government databases.

Malik was one of a small number of female mass shooters in the U.S.; women constituted only 3.75 percent of active shooters in the U.S. from 2000 to 2013.

It has been a Pakistani Jihadi Organizations strategy to target Pakistani women in order to sustain Jihad. Jihadi propaganda books are released exclusively targeting Pakistani women of socioeconomic background like Tashfeen Malik. Actions of Tashfeen Malik prove both the success of Pakistani Jihadi movement strategy, and expose the vulnerability of the K-1 visa system to handle brides from Pakistan.

sources
References

 Not done The text about the Pakistani Jihadi Organizations strategy, is original research. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cwobeel on this, though I'll fine-tune that to say it's "WP:synth". The link you propose may be correct - I have no data to rule it out - but it also may not be. How do I know if she had anything to do with those organizations before Saudi Arabia, or before getting married? So far as I know, journalists are still citing reports of investigation as to whether she 'may' have influenced her husband rather than the other way around [37] or that she 'may' have been radicalized in Pakistan [38], but these are very, very weak statements to rely on. An article from 2008, without a source to make the connection to her, won't get you anywhere. So keep looking - for neutral sources that do the analysis and make solid conclusions! Wnt (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Malik photograph?

I have nominated the photo of Malik for removal. As near as I can tell, the photo originated with the FBI but that doesn't mean that the FBI prepared it. I don't know whether the photo is from a US passport or a foreign passport, probably Pakistani? Can a person with a conditional green card, like Malik, obtain a US passport? Does Pakistan have the same rules as the US about public domain? You can also discuss this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tashfeen_Malik.jpg --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

US passports are issued to citizens only. Green card holders cannot obtain a US passport. The photo is from her Pakistani passport, released by the FBI as part of their investigation, so it may fall under that licensing. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has moved to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tashfeen_Malik.jpg --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Past tense error

Article says: "The FBI investigated the case as terrorism..."

Should say: "The FBI is investigating the case as terrorism..."

98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Used As of December 2015, the FBI was investigating the case as terrorism, so that the chronology is preserved if this changes later on. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Syed Farook Islamic State connection

Syed Farook senior tells reporter that his son 'supported the creation of the Islamic State' The father of San Bernardino shooting suspect Syed Rizwan Farook said "My son said that he shared [IS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi's ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel [39][40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.148 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I can read Italian, and the Stampa source brings up new information based on an interview with Farook's father. I'd wait until other sources in English pick up on the story. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

i24news already picked up the news, or are you waiting for other source to have an interview with the Father ? 37.26.146.148 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am waiting for other sources other than i24News to pick up the story, a fact that would give more weight to these reports. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the father was a disgruntled member of the family, and may have ulterior motives, so that is why we need to weight for other sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in original research just because a source contradicts your personal opinion. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I've been watching your activity all over the place, it's mostly "I", "I", "I"... first you don't own Wikipedia so nobody cares what you don't want included. Create your own website, there you can exclude stuff to your heart's content.

2. Whenever something disagrees with your agenda, your first line of defense is "not sourced". When it gets sourced, you then go "there is no consensus". When there are 20 people for inclusion and it's just you against it, suddenly it's abbreviations raining time...

Please leave and let people actually find what they want to read, it is an encyclopaedia you know, not a selectopaedia. Acting as if the religion of the shooters is not the FIRST thing that readers want to know, is damaging the objectivity of Wikipedia as a whole, and some of us are actually interested in having it once again allowed as a source in actual scientific research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.153 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors simply because they disagree with you. Please assume good faith. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors simply because they disagree with your role model acting in bad faith: ditch / bury the fact in which visitiors are MOST interested. Also this isn't high school, Cwobeel is mature enough to be capable of commenting (if he wishes so) on his dictatorial removal of sourced, searched-for, expected information. Your charging to his rescue is laughably childish.

over-simplified

I understand that this article is extremely "hot" and contentious. So it is perhaps no surprise that currently it looks rather over-simplified. It seems to be missing the somewhat meta aspect that this event attracted extreme attention in at least the whole of the US while it was happening, over a period of hours. Is there some objective way to source this? Measure how much mainstream media broadcasts were pre-empted nationwide, etc... The article does summarize the aftermath and reactions, but again does not adequately report the extent to which this event has dominated national politics and general public discourse over the last week, sort of hijacked the collective consciousness. Again, how to measure and summarize this objectively?

The article uses the phrase "active shooter", but only in passing, with no emphasis of this as an important emerging category. Even though the original attack only lasted for minutes, and was actually over by the time police arrived, there was uncertainty about ongoing on-site dangers, and a more vague regional sense of ongoing imminent danger, lived somewhat vicariously nationwide for hours until after the van shootout. Suddenly "active shooter" seems to be an important new concept, with many in the US thinking, talking and/or acting to prepare themselves for the possibility of being in such a situation. Maybe we need some separate terminology for area-lockdown; this seems to have been a very mini version of the day-long lockdown of the Boston area as the Marathon bombers were being pursued.

In a related vein, it is quite weird that the whole "three shooters" aspect has been erased from history in this article. It does seem that a third perp as part of the main attack did not pan out, and so is in some sense now irrelevant -- with 20/20 hindsight. But for a number of hours the general understanding was that there were two or three attackers; this was an important part of the impression of unfolding events in the minds of the audience for an extended period of time. Even the way it just kind of fizzled and faded from relevance without any definite acknowledgement/resolution was weird. In any event, it is a creepy re-writing of history to pretend that this did not happen.

We cannot know how this event will properly appear, looking back from the future, years from now. But it seems that a good summary history would highlight how important this was as a shared country-wide (and perhaps world-wide?) social experience, during and afterwards, with major impact on US politics at least for 2015. And a good detailed history of the hours from the start of the first attack until some time after the van shootout would mention the general confusion about how many shooters there were (two or three), whether there was an additional unknown person still at large posing an imminent threat -- and what about the person seized fleeing from the van scene...-71.174.188.32 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The "three shooters" bit has not been erased from the article. We mention it under "shootout and death of perpetrators" - "A person seen running away from the scene was initially thought to be a potential third suspect, but police determined he was not connected to the shooting.[13] The person did have an outstanding misdemeanor warrant, for which he was booked." Neutrality^talk 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the "third suspect" that was found needing more coverage, but not that much more. It almost seems like a cover-up the way it is treated now. Bod (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of deceased victims

The list of deceased victims here seems OK, but isn't it overkill to have the hometowns, family statuses, and number of children to the page? This doesn't seem notable in the long run, as per trivia. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would keep name, age, hometown, and job title, and drop marital status and number of children. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I removed the marital status and children. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Victim as cousin to NFL player?

Is the fact that one victim was the cousin of an NFL player really worthy of not? I realize that it has been reported, but it strikes me as trivial? Neutrality^talk 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a somewhat firm consensus on the "Deaths in 20xx" that WP:NOTINHERIT applies to listing family connections in blurbs, even for notable people directly related to other notable people. This is something like one of those blurbs. Personally, I find it significant when someone had a large influence on the other's notability (like Gretzky's dad, or most First Ladies). Everybody's everybody's cousin, to some degree. Even your dog and your cat. If the connection (verifiably) mattered beyond a family level, note it. Same goes for coaches or teachers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a matter of discussion. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see this fact mentioned in the article anywhere. And I think that's the way it should be, as it is trivial to what the purpose of this article is.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does this article lead with a list of weapons used in the attack at all?

The least significant thing about this event is the exact weapons used. So why does it lead with a categorical list of the types of weapons and ammo used? Listing every weapon used and the type of ammo and where they go it, especially first, has the effect of fetishizing the weapons / weaponry at the expense of the social, emotional, and political aspects of this event. It is also potentially providing a roadmap to assist others with similar plans. While this may be of interest to gun people, it insensitive to the victims and irrelevant to what makes this event newsworthy. I think this section should be eliminated, moved to the bottom and/or severely edited to remove specific references to the exact make and models of the guns and ammo. WikiUserSF2015 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)WikiUserSF2015

First, take a deep breath, are you new to editing at Wikipedia? Thank you for your concern about the what impression the article leaves. To fix this issue, you would have to petition to have the infobox removed, or just the "weapons" part. Or you would have to take it to Template:Infobox_civilian_attack, but I will tell you right now that you are unlikely to have success with any of these methods... Moving the infobox to the bottom? Well, that won't happen; it is designed for the top. Bod (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiUserSF2015: Welcome to Wikipedia. You suggestion is not gonna happen. We are not censored and the weapons have been widely/extensively covered in high-quality sources. The weapons are obviously relevant as the instrumentality used in the attack, and of course the type of weapons used is also relevant to any policy impacts that arise in the aftermath of this tragedy (e.g., new proposed gun legislation). Neutrality^talk 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This accusation of fetishism has been raised at other articles. The most practical solution for the infobox is to head to Template talk:Infobox civilian attack and make a request that 'Weapons' is moved from no. 6 in the list of 17 parameters, to somewhere much lower in the list. As for this article, there's no real reason this amount of detail needs to be the first sub-section in the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved down to an appropriate place. Bod (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note, Template:Infobox civilian attack says the weapon field "should not be over-used" - I have removed the manufacturer names and XD model number, and piped the words "pistol" and "rifle" so the three lines sit on their own. This should be just the important details. -- Callinus (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarification. The "pipe bombs" part needs to be rethought... They used fake pipe bombs and a failed "explosive device"... Bod (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "fake pipe bombs"? As far as I know, the pipe bombs found in their garage were not fake. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor used. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Do you have RS saying the bundle of three pipes at the conference center was a fake? The sock in tube they threw out of their car was a fake. -- Callinus (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The ease of killing a large number of people varies when the assailant use a semiautomatic rifle, a fully automatic machine gun, a muzzle loading Kentucky long rifle, or a dagger. It is obviously encyclopedic and has been included in almost every mainstream article about the atrocity. Wikipedia is not censored to protect manufacturers of particular weapons. Edison (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Urdu name of Syed Rizwan Farook be included in the article?

Should the Urdu name of Syed Rizwan Farook be included in the article?

Comments

oppose RFS here do not include this. UNLESS its a Reliable source that can be cited that requires the urdu name included

• Oppose - Seems to be that this is an attempt to paint Farook as foreign. He was born in Chicago and was an American citizen. I have never seen in Wikipedia the name of an American be spelled in their parent's language. See Category:American people of Pakistani descent, I see there no other case in which the name of the person is spelled in Urdu. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but include pronunciation'. As a U.S. citizen with immigrant parents, I don't think the foreign spelling is relevant unless there are RS that he used Urdu with any frequency at any point during his life. I do think pronunciation guide is helpful for foreign names, so include that part. Bod (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's an Urdu name. There is no official American language and the anglicized version is for convenience. Urdu was the language spoken in his home when he was born. Censoring it seems to imply that Urdu is somehow a shameful ethnicity in America that should be suppressed. It's not and we provide other names, especially those that are only approximated with latin character sets. --DHeyward (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

• a shameful ethnicity?? No one is arguing anything of the kind. Your comments are increasingly nothing but puzzling. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oh Bullshiat. Your "No True American uses Urdu" argument is blatantly racist. He grew up up speaking Urdu and it's an Urdu name. The omly concern is troll concern about the Urdu name being exploited. It doesn't change the nature of name, heritage or use. It's Urdu. There are Americans with Urdu names just as there are Americans with Italian and German names. There is no shame in Urdu despite the No True American test you are applying. --DHeyward (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless RS are commonly giving the name in Urdu, there is no reason to include it in the article. I'm also going to guess that his birth certificate and other official documents were issued in English, so the "anglicized version" was more than just convenient. --RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - this isn't that easy to resolve. For example, when he was married in Saudi Arabia, what character set were used on the documents? It might be better to say "In Urdu, this would be rendered" to distinguish his case from the other ... then again, does Pakistan use Urdu or English in identity documents? And do those documents define a person's 'true' name, or only the government's opinion of it? Count this as a vote that whatever is decided in the RFC should get a revisit if someone who knows what they're doing gets on the case. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should only use the name which reliable sources are using. There is no reason to use the Hindustani form of his name if reliable sources aren't using it. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with the points made by Bodhi (reliable sources do not show that he used Urdu with any frequency at any point during his life) and RL0919 (his birth certificate and other official documents are in English). Neutrality^talk 22:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Farook was an American-born American citizen. Use of a foreign-language name serves only to suggest he was not a "real" American. How does the inclusion of this language benefit the program in any way? WWGB (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Farook was born in a country which speaks English, and registered with a name in the English language. This is trivial. He spent only short parts of his life abroad, and there's not even a suggestion he even visited Pakistan. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe If the birth certificate is registered in Urdu, the Urdu name is the "real" one and should be noted (but not used). Seems unlikelier for the guy than the girl. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I don't really understand what all the opposition here is for. The standard for inclusion of factoids within an article is only that they be verifiable. If his Urdu name is verifiable, why shouldn't it be included? Obviously Farook will remain the primarily used name, but I see no issue with mentioning his "Urdu name" somewhere in the body of the article. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use American/Anglicized version of the name being used by reliable sources, which is what a solid Wikipedia article is built on.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Like an above user has already mentioned, "Unless reliable sources are commonly giving the name in Urdu, there is no reason to include it in the article." The reliable sources, at least the ones that I have seen, do not show that he used Urdu at any point in his life, therefore I do not think it should be included. He was an American born citizen and has no foreign ties to any other country, which the Urdu language infers. Regardless, the inclusion of his Urdu name does not benefit the article in any way. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

NYT 12-05 Editorial

• Request to move that paragraph on NYT editorial of Dec 5 to place under the Political Reactions sub-section. Its an editorial and so by definition a Political Response. Further that editorial doesn't actually address the actual motives of this shooting which the FBI acknowledge is being investigated as terrorism. Strive for accuracy here. NYT is giving their opinion, their political response, which is a call for more gun control, which by the way many do not agree with. Place this information where it belongs, a politically motivated response in order to keep this major incident write up accurate. 10stone5 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The NYT editorial is OK where it is now, the general "reactions" section. The editorial is significant as it was placed on the front-page, first time in 95 years. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So an editorial advocating a position on a controversial political debate is not a political reaction? Are you saying that this belongs in the same section as cancelled classes and candlelight vigils? The significance of a NYT (or any other) editorial is proportional to your agreement with it. For better or worse, their influence on this issue is not significant.--AntHerder (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, just that the section seems to be more about politicians than just politics. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I oppose all and any kind of "reaction" section, which encourages trivial additions. Instead the material should be added to a small media section devoted to coverage and positions by media outlets. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved to a new "Media" subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The NYT Editorial doesn't belong here for the simple reason it is partisan political statement. The amount of time since they've last printed an editorial on their front page is totally irrelevant. It's still just their opinion, and a grossly liberal one at that. The "reaction" by others (likely included to add some sort of legitimacy to it) are all from the NYTs themselves with only one exception; the no less liberal NPR. If you're going to include it, then also invite the NRA to offer their political view on the matter. Otherwise, get rid of it. It simply has no place here. Either this is an encyclopedia or it's a mouthpiece for the left. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.249.110 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In order to summarize an important debate or issue, or divergent reactions, Wikipedia articles often include various statements of opinion or belief (including, in some cases, "partisan political statements"). This is acceptable so long as (a) the source of the opinion if significant or representative of a wider position; (b) the source is properly cited; (c) the paraphrase or quotation is accurate; and (d) we attribute the point of view. All of these requirements are met here. The fact that you don't like the opinion does not mean that it is irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the terrorist attack. "Gun control" was the first response out of ill-informed people but changed when this act shifted from "workplace shooting" to "Islamic terror attack." We have articles on gun control and the NYT's but this is not one of them. No one seriously considers gun control as an issue related to terrorism (i.e. see Paris shooting or Boston Marathon bombing/shooting - terrorists get guns/bombs/whatever). As an editorial on gun control, the NYTs story is simply not relevant to this article. It's distraction just as editorials that blame Snowden for ISIL terrorism are a distraction. If NYT editorial about GC is relevant this, then editorials blaming Snowden are relevant as well. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Goddamnit, Heyward. Get your head out of the political blogosphere. Regardless of whether the shooting was jihad, robbery, revenge or what, it was still a shooting. So gun control is still highly relevant, and anything that's ever applied in the "debate" is equally applicable. You ever see a terrorist shoot someone without a gun? If America had more guns, would law-abiding citizens shoot more terrorists to prevent more terrorism? Will gun shops laugh all the way to the bank, regardless of which governor says what about which senator? Exact same deal it always is, just has a bonus Islamaphobia angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

And yeah, if someone influential is blaming Snowden, that's perfectly fine, too. If it's Breitbart and The Daily Mail, nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree the NYT's editorial on gun control is not relevant to this article. What is notable/significant about The New York Times, or for that matter, any newspaper or media outlet writing another editorial about gun control? It should be removed from this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's the first front page editorial by NYT in 95 years. And it was written about gun control in the aftermath of this shooting, so it absolutely relates to this subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If the only thing significant about this editorial is - it's the first front page editorial by NYT in 95 years - then that bit of trivial info belongs in another article about trivial facts about newspapers, because that trivial fact is not relevant to this article. And the fact it was written about gun control doesn't make it any more notable.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"...in the aftermath of this shooting...". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

As InedibleHulk pointed out, it was only the first significant thing about the editorial in my sentence. You should've kept reading it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times writes a gun control editorial in the aftermath of every mass shooting, so there is nothing notable about them writing another gun control editorial. The only thing notable about this one is the fact it appeared on the front page. So instead of including a rehash of their gun control talking points in the article, we should be reporting what secondary reliable sources are saying about their decision to make a political statement by featuring the editorial on the front page, that is what this story is about, not their stance or talking points on gun control which is obvious to anyone who reads their paper.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one in the blogosphere. Any idiot can parrot "gun control" after an attack. After all, ISIL has guns and we can wish, pray and scream they didn't. France has had multiple attacks with full-auto (the U.S. hasn't had any) weapons and un control doesn't get any more severe. In Boston, they used pressure cookers for bombs and killed police for guns. Sorry if reality doresn't fit your agenda, but the normal buyer of sporting firearms in the U.S. has nothing to do with terrorism. Even simple criminal use of firearms is only tenuously related as gun crime is highest in cities with the most gun control and crime is related to illegal firearms. The gun control crowd wet their pants when this looked like a normal citizen with legal guns but that evaporated when it became clear that it was a terrorist with illegal guns in the most restrictive state. To compare, please check the legality of automatic weapons and explosive suicide vests is paris (hint: all are very illegal). --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Fox News opined on the NYT editorial. It appears that the editorial itself in noteworthy and probably deserves its own paragraph in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims home towns

The article currently lists the victims' home town. This information is not relevant in any way. No other article on a similar incident includes home town information as far as I know. It should be removed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is basic biographical information, just like their religions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The religions of the victims is not currently listed. Plus this is not a biography, and citing the principle of "biographical information" is irrelevant. Marteau (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooters' religions are explicitly mentioned in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The biographical details of the victims are irrelevant. We don't need to include biographical information on them. Adding their home town does not help readers understand the attack more. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's basic bio information, widely reported in the (serious, respected) press. If we are going to include the names, I see no reason to exclude the places where the lived. I do think it does convey information to the readers - for example, it shows that the victims came from all over southern California (from Riverside, San Bernadino, and Los Angeles counties, it appears). Neutrality^talk 22:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What secifically about the inclusion of the shooters' hometowns do you oppose? ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue I've seen more than once with articles of this type; the potential that we build a shrine to the perps while making their victims little more than an afterthought. I'm of the mind that, because of the extraordinary amount of data that is necessary in what almost has to be a biography of the shooters, data on the victims that ordinarily would be deemed unencyclopedic is all but required to present something resembling some balance (which is why I followed this with this). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The victims are irrelevant. They're notable only because they died. This is a major shooting, and people want to know why it happened. Thus biographies of those who carried it out are important.

Why stop at home towns? Why not list their pets? Their high schools? etc. None of it is relevant or encyclopedic. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree that it's just info overload. Their hometowns have no bearing on the incident and do nothing to enhance the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The victims are no less irrelevant than the perpetrators; they're only notable because they shot 36 or so people. (See how ridiculous that argument is? ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Did I say the victims are irrelevant? So why are you acting like I did? See how ridiculous that is? The victims are completely relevant, their hometowns, however, are not. That's what I didn't suggest removing the victims and did agree with removing their hometowns. See how that works? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at the comments above yours... Bod (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Niteshift36, I was replying to Harizotoh9. I indent; I virtually never use bullets when not making lists. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The people aren't notable for shooting or being shot: they're notable for being published about by reliable sources. Note that I speak of notability in the plain sense - "notability" as a guideline for article creation is not required to give a sentence or three about someone in a larger article. Also note that what makes the article encyclopedic is that it summarizes existing literature. We are not here to make value judgments about whether shooting people is more important than being shot, or whether a pro wrestling match is more important than an opera concert. The question is only: can we document it? And if people do, pets and all, then God bless 'em. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it can be removed. It is slightly unencyclopedic, but at the same time I don't see it being a big problem. Bod (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The home towns have been added back. Can someone explain to me why this one article should include a list of the home towns of the victims? Why is this article so special? Should all wikipedia articles on attacks and shootings include home towns? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure they should. Why does this encyclopedic information cause you such pain? Edison (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant and non-notable trivia. The attack is relevant. These people are not. Giving some indication of their ages at least gives some sense of better understanding the attack. Knowing their home town does not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I added these back a day or two ago (I haven't checked if others have also...). There's no reason to exclude them - the table as written literally takes up the exact same space whether that column is blank or filled. The main reason to include them is that they are leads for further research: someone looking up name and hometown in ten years will have an easier time finding information about individual victims. Also, the range of hometowns provides some context - how far did these people come for the event? What towns were affected politically, spiritually, financially by the murders? Wnt (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• How far they came for the event? You honestly think that 10 years from now, more than 2 people will be asking themselves "wonder how far people drove to get to the San Bernadino terrorist attacks"? And you're making a lot of presumptions. If one person's hometown was LA (and at least one was), do you really think that LA was financially affected by that death? Politically? Well, Trump shoots off his mouth and says to bar all Muslims so, in response, the mayor of St. Petersburg, FL bars Trump from town. Sounds like St. Pete is being politically affected too....so thinking that this list of a few towns is going to be that informative seems off. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Maybe I think differently than most people, but when the news coverage first mentioned it was a public health department, one of the first things in my mind was whether they were sabotaging the detection of some kind of biological attack. Fortunately that doesn't look like the case right off, unless it's a subtle one (though it could be ...) So it mattered to me to see the context of how wide a region these people were from, and more importantly what their actual occupations were (not that we even include that -- the obstructionist thinking makes it discouraging to deal with this article the way we should). Even ten years from now, people will still be looking at this -perhaps enlightened by future events???- and trying to decide if it was part of a broader plan or not, and all these details come up.

I should also say that I think that something akin to Zipf's law holds for article readership. I tend to believe that there is one particular person, at some point in the future, who will devour every detail of our article, whose actions will mediate a large share of the total impact that writing the article will ever have. And the next most important reader will have half that much effect, and the third will have a third as much effect, and so forth, until the total number of people who will ever see the article is exhausted. So I don't care much if "only two" people read a detail, if they turn out to be the ones most capable of doing something with it. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• We see it differently. I look at it similar to the guidelines for WP:OVERLINKing. There might be that one person who doesn't know what the word "house" means, but the vast majority of people will understand it, so we shouldn't wikilink it. If that one person is truly that interested, then they will likely read the sources, which contain all that information.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I agree with Wnt. This information has been widely reported, takes up space that otherwise would be blank, and is consistent with how we've treated other similar information in the past. For example, in Bath School disaster#Aftermath we list not just the names and ages of the victims, but also their grades (4th grade, 5th grade, etc.). The hometown adds context, particularly for readers not familiar with Southern California. Neutrality^talk 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The article about the Columbine shooting doesn't list hometowns. It lists name, age and (rather crassly) the location of wound. Same with the 2012 Aurora shooting. The Sandy Hook article doesn't list hometowns, just name and age. So there is apparently no standard practice. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims div col

I would rather have the list of victims as a horizontally divided list like Umpqua Community College shooting#Victims. This limits the vertical space taken up by the list. I'd argue for removal of gender and hometown - the age should suffice. -- Callinus (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This:

• Aurora Godoy, 26
• Bennetta Betbadal, 46
• Damian Meins, 58
• Harry Bowman, 46
• Juan Espinoza, 50
• Larry Daniel Kaufman, 42
• Michael Wetzel, 37
• Nicholas Thalasinos, 52
• Shannon Johnson, 45
• Sierra Clayborn, 27
• Tin Nguyen, 31
• Yvette Velasco, 27

I prefer that. -- Callinus (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - For the same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - The difference in vertical space is minor and the table looks better. In fact, I am a bit insulted that the victims don't deserve half the vertical space of the perps. It is less flexible for editing and sorting. The ages don't line up... etc Bod (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of what any dead people "deserve", horizontal cuts down on empty space. This article could use a bit less pointless emptiness, especially when it comes to memorializing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no preference. That said, as I note above, I think we should be careful, as can happen—and has—that we do not build a shrine to the perps at the expense of their victims. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Either would work, but the vertical table has the column sort option that may be useful to readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Not really in favor of it being sortable. There simply aren't that many names to need it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A simple list in columns is sufficient. Having a table where one can sort by first name is just bizarre. WWGB (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the altogether removal of the victims' names. NOTAMEMORIAL #4 states, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Per numerous articles including this, I argue that they do meet those requirements for the same reason that the perps meet those requirements. This is not a NOTAMEMORIAL issue, IMO. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that rationale was completely off-base and the deletion counter to the practice of building consensus on the talk page... Bod (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Include significant biographical data on victims is my vote. This precludes a two-column format. I don't think that it was entirely random that the guy with the gay pride earring was shot, that the guy who argued with one of them about religion was shot. Their data is relevant, not merely because they are notable victims, but because it reflects on the nature of the massacre itself. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we add details like people's jewelry and religious ideologies to speculate as to why they were killed? Such data is completely irrelevant.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It would look dumb in a table, but I would love to see that table be replaced by out and out paragraphs, or at least a (sigh!) bulleted list that gives real English sentences about the victims that reproduce what the sources say about them, whatever it is. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it look strange to anyone else to sort by last name but list first name first? I don't see the harm of making it sortable, I was able to sort by age and easily see the distribution (before). Bod (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to "sort" the table? It has only 14 lines, just scan it to look for similarities in detail. Sorting benefits large tables with many entries. In this case, the entire detail lies within the reader;s field of vision. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Making it machine sortable allows it to be machine sortable, thereby making anyone who machine sorts it dumber. The brain needs exercise, and sorting small lists is nothing cruelly strenuous. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

Listen here for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

• Machines already do everything else for us. Don't hold back, let us know how you really feel, Hulkie, my boy. Bod (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm extremely neutral online. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

How did police locate their car?

This appears to be the biggest hole in the article's narrative. How did the police find their SUV after the initial shooting at the center? Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't their SUV, it was a rental. If I gave cars to strangers for that sort of money, I'd want some sort of magical device that ensures omniscient spaceships follow it everywhere (except outer space). That's this thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

KORE Wireless runs Position Logic for that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

I've added some detail per the sources already cited. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I too want to know exactly what happened. What is the timeline of when the police went to the townhouse? Did the pair stop back at the house? Were they at the house and got away? Bod (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's the LA Times and USA Today timelines. After the shooting they went back home. The police got a call from a neighbor, saw that they rented a similar SUV and found their address. Then they started surveillance of their town house. After a bit the shooters ran and the police chased. (This is all hours after the shooting.) Snd0 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's it. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent travel to the Middle East

The lede reads that "the couple's recent travel to the Middle East", but I can only find references to Farrok traveling to Saudi Arabia to get married. Did they travel to other countries as well? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any either. That language should come out. Good catch. Neutrality^talk 00:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon re-read of the cited sources, I'm in full agreement. It's gone. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast, somehow this cite was lost. It's later in the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html. It contains almost this exact phrase. All the best, Bod (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Still, given a vague one and a specific one, we'd go with the latter. Like how we don't say they lived in North America. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

This 3 December article contains early information that later was clarified. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then say he went to Saudi Arabia in 2014 somewhere in the lead? Bod (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that the travel was apparently for the hajj and to meet and marry Malik, it's in the body and not lead-worthy, in (admittedly) my own estimation. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

So would I, but Cwobeel is a killjoy ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, folks - Cwobeel (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have now is that the original sentence was a direct paraphrase of the NYT. Three reasons were given for the decision to investigate the shooting as an act of terrorism.

• extensive arsenal
• Middle East travel
• one in touch with people with "Islamic extremist views" Bod (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

yes, but that has evolved. Now we know that they only traveled to Saud Arabia. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

He to, she from, if I read the more recent sources correctly. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

She to, too, but back in the day. When does "recent" end? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

"The F.B.I. uncovered evidence that Mr. Farook communicated with extremists, domestically and abroad, a few years ago, but not recently, according to congressional officials who were briefed on the investigation." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth of Tashfeen Malik

I'm sure I saw a picture of a drivers license of Tashfeen Malik where her date of birth was given as the 13 July 1986, which would have made her 29 years old at the time of her death. The LA Times had to correct the age of Malik, which was in the beginning given with 27 years, according to this data to 29 years. In all new LA Times articles referring to Malik she is said to have been 29 years old at the time of the shooting events. Aarp65 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

JoeFranklinSBEHS (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Don't know how to do this but the site of the shooting map is incorrect. The shooting took place in the 1st floor conference room (labeled conference room on the map), not Building 2 of the complex as currently labeled. The actual conference room is most of the east side of the southern most building. There are two sets of doors on the east side, and Syed came in through the central most doors as he started shooting. The people in building 2 and building 1 (northern most location) were merely secondary victims. San Bernardino COunty Dept. of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health were the intended victims.

I'm not doubting your statements but do you have an sources confirming this information? Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Harizotoh9: removal of well-sourced material (NY Times)

Harizotoh9: I saw you made this edit removing the discussion of the New York Times front-page editorial. In your edit summary, you claimed: "wont' be notable in a short time." That is just flat wrong, and it's an unexplained ipse dixit to boot.

The last time a front-page editorial ran on the cover the Times was 95 years ago. (Specifically, June 13, 1920). It is obviously historically significant when the country's leading paper does something so rare. And this fact was recognized globally; the decision to publish on the front page generated extensive attention, by, to name just a few of literally hundreds: BBC News, the Washington Post, the NYT itself, The Daily Beast (interview with NYT executive editor Dean Baquet on the decision), and NPR, Reuters, The Independent, and on and on. It has been the subject of articles published by The Poynter Institute and the Cato Institute.

Given all this, there is no justification for not covering it, as I think the vast majority of editors here would agree. At least four editors above (10stone5, Cwobeel, AntHerder, myself, and I'm sure others, have all indicated that the material on the NYT belongs here, in one section or another). Neutrality^talk 16:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The issue I have here is that using an editorial might be significant, but the way we're using it seems to make it about their political view on gun control, not about the significance of an editorial being used on the front page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Point taken, but I think the reader is entitled to know what point the NYT was making in its historically-significant article. It would be somewhat odd to say "The NYT published an editorial on the attacks for the first time in 95 years" without a few brief words on what the editorial actually said. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• But isn't the only thing notable and/or significant about this editorial is the fact that it appeared on the front page, it's not like they have changed their political view on gun control, have they? Why should we include their political view if it hasn't changed?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The actual content of the editorial is important too, since it touched off a wider debate. It's difficult to separate the placement on the front page (and the depth of strong feeling that signifies) with the actual point being made. That's why all of the sources who have written stories about the editorial mention the stance itself, in addition to the historic unusualness of the front-page placement—and the majority of them make the connection is often in the headline itself. E.g.: "New York Times publishes front-page editorial advocating gun control" (Poynter); "New York Times calls for gun control in front-page editorial" (Reuters), etc. Neutrality^talk 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's not like this is the first editorial they've ever written where they have opined about their political views on gun control, it's the first time it's been on the front page, which is the only thing notable about it, their views haven't changed. I'd also question whether this specific editorial "touched off a wider debate" too. We see more calls for gun control every time after one of these mass shootings, the NY Times just decided to go front page with their political view on gun control.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, you are showing your political bias. The editorial had such significant placement that it was remarked upon as of note in the history of journalism. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editor, this article is not about "the history of journalism", so it would probably be better to include it in an article about "the history of journalism", instead of this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed significant that the most influential newspaper in the US has done something it hasn't done since 1920 because of what transpired in San Bernardino. It's not out of line to include a significant quote from it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Putting an editorial on the front page may be new, but the NY Times has never seen a gun control law it didn't like. The "significant quote" will be a rehash of the same position they've had for decades, which is much less significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, with language like "rehash" and "never seen a gun control law it didn't like" you are simply displaying political bias. There is no place for that in a discussion of this type. The editorial and its placement are significant. Your attitude is too snarky to be taken as an assumption of good faith. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Rehash is the correct term. Read their editorials from the early 1990's and they will sound very similar to today. And I'm sorry (well, not really) that my "snarky" attitude offends your delicate senses, but why don't you try refuting me with facts. (You know, commenting on the issue and not the editor) Can you show me any gun control law that the NY times has opposed? In the absence of that, my statement that they never saw a gun control law they didn't like seems to be correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it also significant that in 1920 they ran their previous front page editorial denouncing candidate Warren G. Harding (who won the 1920 election anyway)? --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan, Jr. Yes. (Misread that as a parenthetical question.) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

I propose moving the "mass shooting comparisons" in the lede

This sentence:

The attack was the second-deadliest mass shooting in California after the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, and the deadliest in the U.S. since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[8][9]

Has reappeared in the lede. I was quite happy with it being a little factoid note and much preferred that to cluttering the lede with it because it has nowhere else to go. Start a new subsection otherwise where the methods and deadliness can be compared to other incidences... Bod (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't like these comparisons anywhere, but as long as they're everywhere, it'd be conspicuous to omit them somewhere. If you'd like to do the same for all the mass shooting articles, that's a wonderful idea, but otherwise, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

I removed them. Given this is a terrorist attack, comparing it to non-terrorist shooting body counts is misleading. I'm seeing stuff like "deadliest ISIL linked attack in the US" and "deadliest terror attack since 9/11" in the media. 19:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

I can't seem to move the page back to the original, I'm trying to create my own article in my own sandbox, I apologize for everything! Hope an admin can help! House1090 (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Should be move protected as a very high traffic article. Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Name Change

I think the name should officially be changed to 2015 San Bernardino attack since it was more than just a shooting. The word shooting is misleading at this point. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Support - per above (as if it was not already obvious :)) House1090 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as the current title is more precise and has been pretty stable. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support This would fall in line with similar terrorist attack articles on this site. It was more than a simple shooting.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - but I have had other ideas for the wording change. Days ago (if you scroll up) I suggested either "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" as in "2015 San Bernardino terrorist shooting" (or "2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack" since a bomb was attempted to be detonated too, etc, in general) as more apropos (to make it clear that this was not just another "mass shooting" per se), as the FBI and all federal, state, and city law enforcement are treating this differently...as well as the liberal media itself, has been calling it that, and treating it as that, given real solid indisputable facts that have come up in the past couple of days. Name change of this article is both warranted and due. And please don't use "well Fort Hood is still called" blah blah blah...as that was never treated and viewed by the FBI quite like this. And also, it's an appeal to "other stuff" too, but not even correctly anyway. Name change of article is warranted now. The wording is too vague and PC at this point, in my opinion. But the word "terrorist" as in "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" should be in the article name at this point. Redzemp (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• support per November 2015 Paris attacks. No bombs went off, but bombs were involved, and this should be distinguished from the "normal" mass shootings. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• support 2015 San Bernardino attack. Because it was a terrorist attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The end result was that it was a mass shooting before it was a terrorist attack and all the people killed or injured were as a result of gunfire. Bod (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I could go either way on this, but I essentially agree with Bod, immediately above: shooting is more specific than the generic "attack" and all the victims were killed or injured as a result of gunfire. Compare with 1993 World Trade Center bombing - we use "bombing" rather than "attack" because it is more specific and is the common name. Neutrality^talk 03:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Event was much more than a random shooting or an episode of workplace violence. Perps planned this one out well in advance with pipe bombs. I would rather see it called the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack since it was one. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Request Move Protection

There have been a few unnecessary and unilateral moves. The title has always returned to 2015 San Bernardino shooting and should not be moved without a well considered discussion. Legacypac (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Those requests are handled at WP:RFPP. You can post a request there. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the request was accepted.Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Weapons section

The weapons section needs to be based on what sources say, and not in our interpretations of facts as we may know them. Please respect WP:V and avoid WP:SYNTH. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a need to make changes to the text, then use the sources included to improve the content, or provide alternative sources with other viewpoints. But changing the text without backing it up with sources is not the way to go about it, as the text will no longer be verifiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's entirely too detailed. The whole explanation about "bullet button" and naming the gun store where a legal firearm transaction happened are examples of just putting in stuff because we know it. Neither item truly helps anyone understand the event, who did it or why they did it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I found the information to be very useful, in particular as the weapons were purchased legally in California. Readers would benefit from such context. But if you think it is too detailed, I have no problem with a good edit to make it shorter and simpler. But that is different from changing the text in a manner that is not verifiable with the sources provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: AFAIK the whole point of any Wikipedia article is to put in stuff because you know it. Do you imagine there is some other? Wnt (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• But it's not to put in everything we know. Khloe Kardashian called Saint West "so cute and perfect" today. Reliable sources reported it.[41] Do you honestly assert that we should put it in her bio? Blake Shelton bit Gwen Stefani's shoulder during a photo shoot [42]. should we put that in his bio or hers? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• You lost me there. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I said that we don't put in things simply because we know them. Wnt took issue with that and said "the whole point of any Wikipedia article is to put in stuff because you know it". I gave 2 examples of things that we know (and have RS's), but that don't belong on Wikipedia. That disproves the notion that we just put in stuff because we know it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that the weapons were legally purchased is very important. Modifications which made them not legal are important, but I have not as of yet seen RS that specifically discuss the modifications and what legal impact they had (plenty of speculative sources, but I don't think they meet RS). Where we can't source legality changes, I think the modifications don't provide a lot of value, but one or two sentences listing the modifications could be appropriate. I don't think the store is important. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the name of the store is trivial. Given that you seem to have expertise in this area, Gaijin42, what about making an attempt to improve the text? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are some sources: [43], [44], [45], [46] - Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Saying they were legally purchased is fine. Talking about which store and speculating on the purchaser is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The name of the store and the other details are backed by high-quality sources (full articles in the NY Times, LA Times). It seems similar to other specific names we give in the article (a Ford Expedition, rather than just "an SUV"; MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, rather than "various news outlets"; WebBank.com, rather than "an online bank account"; iMilap.com rather than "an online dating site"; Islamic Center of Riverside, rathern than "a mosque in Riverside," etc., etc.). Neutrality^talk 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• again, just because we know it doesn't add to the article. Adding the name of the gun shop (which happens to be a non-notable business) doesn't help us understand anything and honestly casts them in a negative light. I really don't think adding Expedition helps or the name of the bank unless there is some specific reason for it. If the bank was breaking laws that helped them accomplish this, perhaps. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Notability" is the standard for whether something has its own article. The notability standard does not apply to content within an article. There are millions of articles out there which quite properly refer to people, places, things, events, and topics which do not merit their own article, but are a part of the story of some other person, place, thing, event, topic, etc.

The reason we include specifics is: to reflect the published sources; to create a complete narrative; and to avoid needless ambiguity.

As for lawbreaking/negative light - I don't see the relevance. The article does not assert (either explicitly or implicitly) that Ford Motor Company or the online bank or the gun shop broke any laws. A reader would have to read into it with their own opinions to generate that idea. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the unnecessary explanation of what the notability standard, indicating that you missed the point entirely. The fact that a non-notable gun shop performed a legal transaction is not relevant here. If the duo stopped for coffee at Starbucks on the way, I'd also call that irrelevant trivia. So far, we don't see anyone blaming Ford or calling for an end to online banking. Including the name of the store isn't helpful at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be rude, please. As for "So far, we don't see anyone blaming Ford or calling for an end to online banking"—what does that have to do with anything? Neutrality^talk 20:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't rude. Giving an experienced a long explanation of the notability policy when it wasn't needed can also be viewed as condescending (ie rude) (and no, it wasn't needed because you failed to understand the difference between using the word notable and invoking the notability policy) Instead of explaining it to you, why don't you explain to me why it belongs. Just saying that someone might want to know it some day isn't really a reason. How does it enhance the understanding of the incident? Unlike Ford Expedition (which I don't think is relevant) where you can click the link and read about the SUV, there is nothing to learn about the gun shop beyond the name. No deeper study, just trivia. And, BTW, if you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who doesn't think it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

re the bullet button, the legal answer is not straight forward. The mag button may or may not make the gun illegal, depending on other criteria. on a "featureless" gun, the magnet is legal. On an "evil-features" gun, the magnet is illegal. I believe the guns in questions are "evil features" guns (pistol grip, adjustable stock), but I don't think we have sourcing, and we Im quite sure we don't have sourcing doing the appropriate level of analysis to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is anyone aware of any sources authoritatively saying that these particular guns, as configured, were illegal and why so? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I listed some sources above. Not sure if that is enough, but that is what sources are reporting so far. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They are in the ballpark, but not quite imo. For example, the closest one (WSJ) quotes the ATF commenting about California legality. IMO, that is insufficient. Normally, we would be stuck in permanent limbo (since the perps are dead), but since they have the purchaser as a separate guy who could be charged with something, I bet some of this comes out eventually in a more formal setting. I'd probalby be ok putting in some of the sourced speculation, but we should WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it, not WP:WikiVoice, and make sure we indicate that these are merely opinions (although perhaps informed opinions) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Would you make the edit? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole "bullet button" thing was ridiculously over-detailed. The core points in the sources is that in California, a tool is required to remove the magazine. A "bullet button" serves that purpose as a "bullet" is considered a tool and is written into the law. They removed the bullet button and replaced it with something that doesn't require a tool (i.e. not a "bullet button" or affixed a tool to the button that defeated the need for the tool). That's an illegal modification (or if not illegal, shows how silly the requirement is - but the article isn't the place to explore it). I don't believe any modification is needed to use magazines with more than 10 rounds so I am not sure why we say only the DPMS used them. Both were capable. It's a felony to possess them in California but they work just fine and it would be odd to only have one magazine. The gun has no idea how many rounds are in the magazine. We need to drop the "bullet button" discussion because it's really unclear and there's been so much nonsense about it and what it does that it should be pared back to a "tool was required to remove the magazine and they defeated that device." How they defeated it is not really important just as how they tried to make it full-auto is not important, just that it's illegal to modify the receiver for an auto-sear (and it failed). The other thing that is unknown is how the weapons were transferred from the original purchaser to the terrorists. Please note that for very little money, they could have machined their own AR15 and not bought it. Another shooter did just that a few years ago. The lower receiver, which the ATF considers the "firearm" has the least wear and is therefore the part what gets a serial number since it never needs to be replaced (unlike the bolt, barrel, upper receiver, etc, that wear out). It's the easiest major part to fabricate and is made out of a number of materials including plastic or in this case, aluminum. We need not overcomplicate its function. The engineering and science for these firearms is over 100 years old. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that you know about the subject. But our readers may not be that lucky. I see no issue in describing the modifications as amply covered in reliable sources. This is a pedia, after all. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If they accurately covered them and we accurately covered the coverering press, it would be fine. But we don't. Pare it back to taht which is correct and sourced. Sourced and incorrect is not okay. Competence is required and when journalists and politicians use terms like "multi-automatics" and say the "bullet button makes it fully automatic", those sources are no longer reliable and we need to cut it back to bare facts which is those "rifles had a feature that prevented the magazine from being removed without a tool. The terrorists physically disabled those features." I have yet to read an accurate account of the "bullet button" and its defeat in the press. --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Check our sources - some blame the "bullet button" itself. Others note that the "bullet button" was defeated in some fashion. The "bullet button" is not illegal and was present on both firearms when they were sold. There's a mishmash of special interests blaming various features related to detachable/non-detachable magazines. The WSJ source, for example, talks about a modification to the DPMS that allows "high-capacity magazines" and it's an obvious misquote where they meant to say "detachable high-capacity magazines" (i.e. the removal of the bullet button or it's defeat). The Huffington Post misses the entire point by omitting all the tampering and blames teh bullet button directly. Again, they are wrong. We don't have to publish incorrect material simply because a source makes a mistake. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have to believe you? Who are you? What are your credentials? Are you a published expert? Now, seriously: That is what we have WP:V to guide us. What you know or don't know, true, or false, is inconsequential for the purpose of Wikipedia. Go write a blog or something, but not here. Sorry. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying is that The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times are wrong, and you are right. Gimme a flipping break. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

From my reading, he is, though I agree we probably don't have sourcing for it, and its probalby not important enough to have that level of detail anyway. But yes, the bullet button is not illegal. It is in fact what makes the gun legal to begin with in california. Circumventing the bullet button makes the gun illegal (assuming evil features like a pistol grip) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with the current version as edited by DHeyward. I just added "bullet button" as a wiki-link, because for the neophyte a "tool" is something completely different than what this is. You can even use a pen to release the magazine. I also added a short sentence to explain what is the purpose of the device. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the previous text did not say that the bullet button was illegal, but that the circumvention of the bullet button is what made it illegal. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Whatever happened to WP:1RR? We have an article on "bullet button", so why not to link it with a reference to it? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Require a tool to remove it". Think of the reader! What tool? A screwdriver? pliers? a special tool? This is a disservice to the pedia and to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Did I violate it? I don't see diffs of a second revert. The use of "bullet button" in the article is misleading as the sources conflate "bullet button" loop-hole with bullet button defeat devices. Competence is required to know what each is talking about. Bullet buttons are used for compliance but it is one of many compliant solutions. It's easier to describe what law the terrorists broke rather than conflate multiple issus. The huffington post article is an awful source. The law allows any tool, that isn't the hand, including bullets or a pen. HuffPo considers that a "loophole" but that's not the loophole the terrorists are accused of exploiting. Rather they are accused of removing all tools. --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did violate it, but I don't care. Can you at least add that the issue is related to the slowing the speed of reloading? Both riffles had the bullet button installed (and disabled), so why not to mention it? A "tool" is too generic for the neophyte, and it is misleading. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Added. FYI, you can go to amazon and search for "magnet bullet button." That device is placed over the bullet button and because part of the magazine release is steel, it adheres to the bullet button. The bullet button is like the recessed reset button on a phone. The defeat device, which is separate, brings the reset out to the finger. It's like a pen or paper clip or whatever else allows you to reset your phone. It's much quicker to reset but it's the the defeat device, not the shrouded reset pin, that makes it fast. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

yes, I am aware of the device, there are some videos online that demonstrate it. I still think that referring in the article as a "tool" would be misleading to our readers unless we explain what that is. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

is this page under a 1rr restriction? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. See the talk header. The GS is WP:GS/ISIL - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the source and type of weapons used in the 2015 Paris attacks is sorely missing. They have much stricter gun control laws yet full-auto AK-47's, grenades and suicide vests were used. No concern trolling about the state of France's gun control, though. The Charlie Hebdo attacks highlighted unarmed, and the dead, policeman charged with "protection." --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarify two issues involving "third shooter" or "third suspect" or "third perpetrator"

As I described in my comment in this above section:

It seems there are two issues, which may have been confused with each other:

1. At least two alleged witnesses interviewed by network TV news have claimed there were three shooters who were white, including one employee of the Inland Regional Center (Sally Abdelmageed):
   • Sally Abdelmageed via CBS News - http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/witness-describes-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
   • Juan Hernandez via NBC News- http://www.nbcnews.com/video/it-sounded-like-a-gun-range-578218563875
2. There have also been reports from the police, news, etc of a "third suspect" who was apprehended at some point, and as User:Neutrality mentions above, is no longer a suspect in this shooting. There may have been one or more of these "third suspects", it's not clear to me and I haven't sifted through all the sources of this aspect.

First of all, this subtlety seems relevant to the article, especially since the story has shifted away from "three white shooters" such as by the police's narrative, Obama's address, etc. I would like to consider how and whether this can be elucidated in the article, but unsure about the best path to proceed. Any thoughts? -- Mattsenate (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm thinking it might be appropriate to create at least two sections:

1. Witness Accounts of Alleged Perpetrators
   • Two Shooters Narrative - Include witness accounts of only two shooters, namely for example Farook and Malik. Cite police report, obama address, and news stories.
   • Three White Shooters Narrative - Both videos of Sally and Juan can be included here, among other witness accounts of "three white shooters".
   • A section describing how news stories (with sources cited) were updated from the original "three white shooters" narrative, to later the "two shooters" namely Farook and Malik narrative.
2. Third Suspect Apprehended at Scene
   • Include sources for the aspect of the events that include the news media reporting and the police searching for, apprehending, releasing, or otherwise making statements about a "third suspect", one of whom was determined by police to be unrelated (not sure why yet).

Further, this could mean updating throughout the article to reflect the ambiguity about who perpetrated the mass shooting, without unduly indicting Farook and Malik as the definitive and sole perpetrators.

Need feedback, thanks! -- Mattsenate (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is now clear that there is no "third shooter". We could mention that in the initial reports there was a mention of a third shooter, but not sure it is needed. As for the perpetrators, I don't think there is any ambiguity. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What is meant by "third shooter" is unclear, which is why I wrote the first comment above. I saw this story unfold and change without being able to determine how/why, so I sought clarification from the Wikipedia article and did not find it, so it seems reasonable to at least disambiguate that: (a) there were claims of three shooters by witnesses and reported by news and (b) there was also at least one "third" suspect apprehended near the scene, but who was determined to not be related to the shooting.

Why is there not ambiguity about the shooters? I have not seen any news reports that cite eye-witness accounts, or even confidential sources, that identify either "exactly two shooters" or specifically Farook and Malik. I have only seen references to police reports, police accounts, and other official narratives from non-witnesses. Please link me if you know of any sources that clarify why the identities of the alleged shooters are unambiguous, thanks! Mattsenate (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, the third suspect in the shootout with police, is already covered in the "Shootout" section (last paragraph). - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool, that touches on case (b), but it also does not disambiguate (a) above. Mattsenate (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Matt - this is much, much less complex than all that. There were initial, erroneous reports during the chaos about a third shooter, and those turned out to be incorrect. That's all there is to it, and nothing more needs to be said. (note that it is common for there to be mistaken, early reports of more shooters than there actually were). As Cwobeel says, we've already addressed this in 2-3 sentences in the "Shootout" section (last paragraph). Neutrality^talk 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear where you're coming from, and I'm totally willing to accept that perhaps the early reports were erroneous. However, I have not found any sources that explain how and why the early reports may have been erroneous, and further I have not found any sources that definitively identify the shooters, or even name "two shooters"--specifically Farook and Malik. Do you have any links to sources that can clarify this? Thanks! -- Mattsenate (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Early, inaccurate reports are always superseded by later, more accurate reports. In some incidents, early but accurate reports might be discarded in favor of later reports, but you would need a source that discusses it. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, but I don't see why it's inappropriate if the authors commenting on this talk page were to update the article to ensure it is clear that there seems to have been early inaccurate reports, that have been replaced by current seemingly accurate reports, making citations for both. I think this is a pretty reasonable measure that would help clarify the ambiguity I faced for new readers. Wouldn't you say so?

As for the kinds of citations I'm requested and searching for, this is the first article I've found in which a journalist cites a source who is willing to claim that witnesses identified Farook (and not necessarily Malik, fwiw): http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/02/458196942/active-shooter-situation-reported-in-san-bernardino-calif Otherwise, this reporter cites details from Police Chief Jarrod Burguan, and other police sources.

NPR at least notes: "This is a developing story. Some things that get reported by the media will later turn out to be wrong. We will focus on reports from police officials and other authorities, credible news outlets and reporters who are at the scene. We will update as the situation develops." ;)

- Mattsenate (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass shooting or terrorist attack?

On December 2, 2015, fourteen people were killed and 21 injured in a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino...

Why is this described as a mass shooting and not a terrorist attack? Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Omaba has called it an act of terrorism, which is stated in the lede. It is both a mass shooting and a very possible act of terrorism, as it is being investigated by the FBI as a terrorist attack. I would not oppose changing the opening sentence to reflect these facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I would like to hear from someone other than you, so please stop replying to my comments. Whenever I discuss an issue, you only respond with government stenography, and I'm tired of it. We write Wikipedia articles based on what reliable sources say, not on political positions. The NYT describes the incident as a massacre and a terrorist attack.[47] the only reason this article is titled "shooting" and portrayed as a "mass shooting" is because it still reflects the older, outdated framing of the topic when little information was available a week ago, and because some political sources are attempting to deliberately skew this as a gun control issue for political reasons. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WTF? You are not to tell me what to respond to or not respond to. And your continuous ad hominems are getting tiring. I am editing this article and contributing substantially, so please stop with your accusations which have no merit. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And if you can read, see my previous comment: I am not opposed to change the lead sentence to reflect what sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, what you have been doing is removing content and whitewashing. "Substantially", true, just not contributing. You have been asked continuously by pretty much every other editor here to leave, there are official complaints filed against you, and your sidekicks won't even bother come to your defence anymore. Readers do not donate so that they can't actually read what the likes of you decide to leave out. People donate because they want all facts in one place. Facts like religion of shooters, level of devotedness... I hope you think about it, and not turn it into another "See WP:RandomAbbreviation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.181 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "A terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting and unsuccessful bombings" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42. That works. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it took place in multiple locations and was more than a mass shooting which should be only a part of the attack. The Islamic terrorists attacked the Christmas party with guns and explosives and then they attacked police in a running gunbattle that culminated in the terrorists being killed. See the lead for Boston Marathon bombing. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It was a terror attack, with mass shooting, attempted bombing, and' a shutout with police. The Boston article says followed by subsequent related shootings. We can use the same device here. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The shootout is already covered in the second paragraph of the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a little late to the conversation but San Bernardino shooting drums up ~10.8 million results while San Bernardino terrorist results in ~624k hits. Big difference. Is there an alternative term for "San Bernardino terrorist" we should search for to make a more accurate comparison? Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to do or prove with your search engine test, but that's not how it's done. Please have someone else explain the problem to you if you need help. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We are to describe the event how it is most commonly used in reliable sources. What do you mean that's not how its done?? Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow I get the feeling that a Google search isn't something that can be described as "reliable sources". In conversations I don't remember anyone referring to this as a mass shooting, but as a terrorist attack. Most of the news article I have read are also calling it a terrorist attack. And you know the old saying, "If it lays eggs like a duck it gets a reprieve from being eaten as long as we are getting omelets." grifterlake (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC Victim names

Should the article include the names and other biographical information of the victims (killed, or wounded)

Survey

• do not include per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. All of these individuals are low profile, and likely to remain so. For those that remain alive, we are potentially exposing them to future risks, or at least unwanted attention. If some of them become higher profile as a result of this incident (multiple media interviews, becoming a spokesperson, etc) they can become an exception.This is almost to the point that it should be preemptively removed under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE based on BLP policy and the numerous precedents, until there is a clear and substantial majority consensus here. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include the names, ages, and city of residence of the deceased victims, but exclude the list of the injured and other biographical details. This seems to be a rational middle ground, in my mind. Neutrality^talk 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include all of it, as it's proven already that both those killed and those seriously injured and shot are in all news reports, and emerging as notable, and definitely sourced. They were not just "injured" but were shot. And operated on in hospitals. Badly traumatized, both physically and psychologically. And these people are important, to the whole event. I was not the one who first put any victims' names section. But since it was there, let's make it thorough and right. Include the 14 dead, and the 21 seriously injured,...as they always are mentioned all the time in news sources..."21 injured", and the names themselves as they emerge in reliable sources. Redzemp (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude all wounded, they are not notable and will recover in time. Wounded are generally not listed in other terrorism attack articles. Include only name and age of the deceased. WWGB (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

response comment: these people are important, to the whole event. I was not the one who first put any victims' names section. But since it was there, let's make it thorough and right. Also, as to your remark that they "will recover in time". A) even physically that's not necessarily always totally true, and B) psychologically NONE of them will completely recover, as they are PTSD traumatized here, forever. I know the subject on that. And as they were not just injured but were SHOT! Include the 14 dead, and the 21 seriously injured, as they always are mentioned all the time in news sources..."21 injured", and the names themselves as they emerge in reliable sources. Redzemp (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Include - Just the names and ages of those killed only. Should be simple enough for a list. Besides, I doubt we'll be able to learn the names of all the wounded. Parsley Man (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude wounded, per Gaijin42. Also agree that it needs to be removed per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include only biographical information on those who were killed. Unless there has been significant coverage in reliable sources on the individuals who were injured (outside just a passing mention) I do not agree with adding their names to avoid WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Meatsgains (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include all of it.  I basically agree with Redzemp that information on both killed and injured should be included.  But only on the condition that every bit of it is very reliably sourced.
  Richard27182 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include - Granted this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I don't think we usually include list of victims on other similar massacre pages. Additionally, Gaijin42 is probably citing the most relevant policy here, which is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a mirror of breaking news stories. The dead and wounded were in the news because of one event, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Only if they were independently notable, or if they somehow caused, mitigated or influenced the event should they be named in the event. Then an article might say "Jones taunted the couple about their religion leading them to abandon their plans to attack the military base, and instead to attack the luncheon. Smith then pulled his concealed revolver and wounded one of the shooters, causing them to leave the building. Brown followed the shooters and phoned in their license plate information, leading to their apprehension." We usually do not list memorial facts about each person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and became a victim of a shooting, a plane crash, a flood, a bombing, or an earthquake. Edison (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include biographical information about those killed. We ought to realize they are the most important aspect of the shooting! Reject all the patriarchical notions floating around this encyclopedia that murderers are active and exciting and victims are meaningless and boring. The killers were the interchangeable mounts of demons, but the people killed define the character of the massacre, and create the pattern of expectations that those who survive them will carry out. From this sad beginning will emerge top cops and Medal of Honor soldiers, priests and mystics, town ordinances for gun control and armed community watch groups, peace movements and calls for chivalrous military intervention. These events are related to the dead as the size and shape of a nuclear crater is related to the position and construction of the bomb. The killers contributed only the decision to set it off; they could not control what it was that they have set into motion. We cannot go out ahead of the sources we use in projecting this awareness, but we should definitely not lag behind them. (note: I'm reserving judgment about the wounded - I'm not sure how serious any threat to them might be, while the merit to including them is weaker. UNLESS they figure directly in future news coverage, not just as names in a table, in which case we should cover them in prose specific to those events) Wnt (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include the names and ages of those killed per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, include the number of victims but with no names or ages. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable to the listing of the killed/injured as they are not the Subjects of encyclopedia articles.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include all or most - Support inclusion of basic biographical information on those shot. Support summary information on the wounded in the attack, but would not oppose a listing of the wounded. Do oppose biographical info on wounded. Bod (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude wounded names per WP:BLPNAME, which counsels caution when identifying individuals discussed primarily as part of a single event. There are privacy concerns, and as a high-profile site, Wikipedia may bring them additional unwanted attention. A count or other summary of the injured would be appropriate for inclusion though, and BLP policy does not address those killed. —Laoris (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL inspired?

Recent disclosures by FBI investigation, shows that the terrorists were radicalized several years ago, even before ISIL was formed (April 2013). So, best it to stick with the sources and describe the attack as terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Gun seller, Farook, Farook's brother—tied together by marriage to Russian sisters

This source (SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Gun buyer, shooter's brother married to Russian sisters, San Bernardino Press Enterprise, 8 December 2015.) seems both interesting and relevant to an encyclopedic article about the origin of many things (e.g., the guns used in the shooting) and the authorities search for factors that might affect motive. It does not seem to currently be summarized in the article. Discuss. N2e (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The information might be usable in the article, but needs much better sourcing. This site is not sufficient for controversial BLP info like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)