Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Adding an addendum to my remarks: If we do end up keeping reactions from political figures, we must ensure that we rely on reliable secondary sources to summarize/contextualize/synthesize the figures' remarks, and not on videos of speeches directly (some users inexplicably keep adding text on Trump, citing only to a 30-minute long Trump speech - totally unacceptable under WP:PRIMARY). Moreover, if we cite the presidential candidates, we must ensure that content is of roughly corresponding length (i.e., if we include Trump, we must include Clinton). Neutrality^talk 03:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep Current format as of June 13. This version provides a good split between a summary of reactions in the main article, and a second article contain a more detailed list of reactions. This version keeps the main article short, while still covering the full range of reactions. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think we are being asked two distinct questions here, one is about the 'standard' messages of condolence, which should necessarily be very, very, heavily summarised here. The other is about the 'political fallout', which in an election year is inevitable. I don't see how that can be kept out, but coverage should be kept to a minimum. Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, its quite UNDUE, and there already is a separate article for reactions. Maybe if the reactions page gets deleted then it might be worth adding. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 05:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Only in summary form, and with CAUTION - These past few debates over including the whole of Donald Trump's reaction have left a sour taste in my mouth regarding the topic. We must be careful about what we include, how we go about deciding what to add, and the verification of the truth behind these reactions. Parsley Man (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Summary only, erring on side of excluding - A small paragraph summarizing them seems like a decent compromise (though I say we exclude the Trump/Clinton stuff for now). Err toward excluding things like the Alaskan governor's response (as an example from edits last night). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Summary Summary form seems good; There is little need for quotes, but I do feel we are making progress. I mean, at least we no longer have a paragraph per candidate. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• As usual, only responses from those directly involved. That's a matter of editorial judgment, which is typically not exercised until long after the event, but so be it. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• We need to include Trump's reaction (pro-LGBT, immigration ban) as well as Clinton's (anti-gun) as either one will be the next POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not meant to predict the future; Neither Clinton nor Trump is presently the president, and Wikipedia is not for campaigning. Respectfully, I believe we should recognize here that what someone may be in the future is not editorially relevant in the present. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if we knew for sure that Clinton is a lock, we also know that election promises may or may not indicate what a person eventually does or says as President. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:48, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

• No - Reactions should be limited to those directly involved: President, governor, possibly state senators, mayor, police chief, sheriff, doctors, noteworthy local LGBT and Muslin advocacy groups, Pulse club owner, the shooter's family, per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:QUOTEFARM. All other reactions can be summarized as in the fourth paragraph of the Reactions section in this version. Any exceptions should require prior discussion and firm consensus. Since the reactions article will likely be kept as "no consensus", that will make a great place for politicians to express their heartfelt condolences (with a flag icon, of course) and for political candidates to promote themselves as the better leader. - MrX 11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

How is an advocacy group any more involved than a multi-issue political group? Oh, local. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, as a summary with the full article about them at: Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting --SI 12:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: List of victims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yes, but there are easily ways to show that without listing the names of the victims. For example, the way we already do: "Most of the victims were men, with eighteen of the victims being 25 or younger. Over 90% of the victims were of Hispanic background, and half of the Hispanic victims were of Puerto Rican descent." ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with MandrussBrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow If he had not shot these people, the perpetrator would be wholly non-notable. I agree with the comments above that, because the fellow who shot them is, in fact, notable, the victims are worthy of a mention, as well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow but only for the dead not the injured and only basic data besides name like gender and age. It should be a list of fatalities not a list of victims. Living victims have more blp concern about their privacy and what happened to them is less notable. For all I know one of the 53 was shot in the pinky toe. Ranze (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral/Ambivalent leaning toward exclude - Part of me wants to allow focus and coverage of the victims to honor them, but at the same time Wikipedia is NOTMEMORIAL. We now has an external link to the list of names which is good, and should the list of names be excluded from the article I think that link is sufficient. At the same time, I don't see a whole lot of harm at the moment in keeping them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow if you read the WP:NOTMEMORIAL section it is referring to not creating memorial pages for non-notable people. We aren't creating individual pages or large sections to memorialize each person. It is simply a list of the deceased, which is an important part of the story and is notable. If we started adding non-relevant stuff about each person such as found on some new articles listing what the person did for a living, or that they were a gifted musician than that would be creating a memorial. Flipper9 (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow The invasion of privacy holds no merit as the names are publicly released, and can be seen online, and has been shown on TV. It also gives information, and many tradgedies has showed victims name. And why should we only include notable victims? Are some lives more important than others because they're more notable? No. Keep the list as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick2crosby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure from whence those arguing that wikipedia is "Not a Memorial" are getting their data. If one reads the policy, in the sections of what wikipedia is not, it primarily disallows the creation of pages for non-notable individuals, and seems to have absolutely nothing to do with lists of victims of a terror attack. If someone could elaborate on their interpretation, that would be appreciated. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, very briefly, it isn't what we do, or should be doing to memorialise the dead. Doing so may be an honourable thing to do, but it isn't what we do, it isn't encyclopaedically useful. Of course each of these individuals is probably 1000 times more 'worthy' than the shooter, but we aren't including info about him out of any sense of his merit.

Some people above have said that people may consult WP to find out whether someone they know is on our list. That's fine, but what happens when they find someone with the same or similar name IS on our list? Are we prepared to accept responsibility for that? No one would object (I think) to our linking to official lists and/or help services, but IMO we should not take on functions which others do better, regardless of our sympathies. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Arguably, it is what we do. As mentioned above, victims for many mass shootings are listed on the pages of the articles in question; It's a fairly standard practice, at this point, and I believe it is common practice on Wikipedia to match the style of other articles on similar topics. The purpose of the list is not to memorialize the dead; Simply to list them, which, arguably, helps provide context. (Some of the articles even include how the victims died, in detail, but I rather strongly believe we should not include that particular thing.) Further, speaking of things we do not do, I do not believe we are meant to make assumptions about the readership. Generally, I believe it is accepted best practice to not assume certain individuals may or may not read the articles on which we work, and to write as objectively on a matter as we are capable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can only say that I would oppose a list regardless of the event, particularly at the head of the article. It appears to be the case that they are more common on US events. How does it inform to say that each of these people had a name? Of course they did, and friends and families and all the other ordinary accroutements of being human. It is pure memorial and that IMO should be done elsewhere, not on WP. Careful, well researched, factual info is what we try to do. My remark about someone consulting our list was more of a response to earlier comments in the discussion, but some responsibility does attach to our publishing a list. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• No - not unless the victims were notable themselves, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The victims do not currently have encyclopedic value and we don't want to intrude on the family's privacy if it is not warranted. In my opinion it seems like a violation of privacy rights if we include it. Like I said before, if the victims are not notable, then we should not include a list. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think we might be able to compromise using something similar to the Sandy Hook discussion. I don't believe NOTMEMORIAL is a good argument (as we're not making individual pages for the list of victims as stated previously). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Since all the WP:NOTMEMORIAL "arguments" against exclusion are obviously based on a wrong interpretation of the policy (and I've said this before!), I agree with Penwhale that maybe we should compromise. Let's "downsize or revamp the list of victims to make it less of an eyecatcher" (like in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), maybe make it into a collapsible wikitable. Again, I repeat, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is supposed to be "This is not a place to add In Memoriam, RIP, and stuff like that", not "This is not a place to put victims' names at all and if you include it you're wrong." We can definitely include victims' names so long as they're sourced to a reliable source. Victims' names on mass shooting articles have precedents. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I think we normally let the closer decide who makes the strongest arguments as to how we should interpret policy Secondly, I think reformatting per Sandy Hook would be do much to lessen the 'memorial effect' of leading with that section and hopefully would satisfy the 'keeps'. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur that reformatting, as per Sandy Hook, would be a good compromise, and would lessen the eyecatching effect that others have mentioned. 24.35.112.83 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(Apologies, that previous IP was me; I had not realized that I was not logged in.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• No I am not seeing how not memorial applies only to individual pages of non-notable people. WP:GNG takes care of that by itself. AIRcorn (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - Despite what others are arguing, I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL still applies here. To compromise, should we include a concise paragraph with the names, rather than a laundry list? Just my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the best course is to delete the list but add a link to a memorial site that has the full list of all the victims in the External Links section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw an argument (by none other than Shearonink, in fact) in the Sandy Hook archives that might also be true here: It might be impossible to integrate the list of people killed in the text of the article as it may be impossible to establish a timeline (which was doable in the VTech shooting case). So I don't think that would work, Meatsgains. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of providing a link to a list, rather than included the actual list or attempt to establish a timeline. Either way, I still maintain keeping the list out. Meatsgains (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

VTech shooting was able to incorporate the names of those killed into the article because a timeline is able to be established (since the killer went through different buildings on campus); here it probably can't be done, so timeline cannot be established. I'm assuming you mean an external link to a list, because a standalone list on the wiki that isn't on this article page would straight up violate NOTMEMORIAL. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- Just a side comment here. I was trying to go through the !votes to see how they were leaning, and I found it much harder because there is no consistency in the use of the bolded word at the start of each !vote. We have Yes and Allow, and we have No and Remove, and so on. I could figure it out, and so can the closer, but why make things unnecessarily more difficult? The RfC question is: "Shall we allow the list or remove it?" A No !vote to that question, taken literally, means, "No, we should not allow it or remove it." Yes means, "Yes, we should allow it or remove it." The two answers to this question, unless your !vote fits neither, are Allow and Remove. I confess that I got it wrong myself, because I copied the example of a !vote I agreed with, instead of reading the question more carefully. So my bad, too. I have now fixed my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• remove, do not allow They had no choice about being killed, let their families have a choice about having them on Wikipedia. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• remove, do not allow except for victims who would be notable by themselves. The victims where "random" targets as far as we know, so we need a general description. Could be how many male/female, young/old, etc, whatever clarifies why this victims, but their names add nothing to the understanding of the events. - Nabla (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment A great deal of the above discussion is good faith disagreement about whether NOTMEMORIAL applies. Can I point out another, even more basic logic, that there needs to be relevance for the addition of any material, that adding such material adds something of value to the article. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  I think there's wide agreement on that. The problem is the disagreement as to whether this adds value, and that often gets us deep into philosophical debates about encyclopedias (encyclopædiae?) and stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow (for the dead) similar to other shootings, I think it's appropriate to list the dead, the example in the "Recrafted" subsection below seems most appropriate and encyclopedic. For the injured/survivors, I think privacy issues (including but not limited to BLP) dictate exclusion, particularly considering the controversial views many people have concerning the lifestyle choices that resulted in these folks being in said venue. (in response to RfC) --John, AF4JM (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - @AF4JM: and all: The most recent version of the box is at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft#Casualties. I think we can disregard everything in the "Recrafted" subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Collapsing/hatting the two subsections below, but keeping the section header out of collapse area. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia policies say not to name the victims if they or their relatives don't want it disclosed and if it might lead to victimisation and stigma. Although no one seems to have protested that doesn't mean they're ok with it. It can lead stigma to the victims for being homosexual or their family from homophobic/people who don't like homosexuality. Not just that the names are largely irrelevant to the article; and they serve no informational purpose. Potentially therfore, the names qualify as WP:UNDUE as well; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Based on the aforementioned policies about not including names of victims and UNDUE, I request the names of the victims to be removed. Thank you. 117.199.88.199 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Names and ages humanize people who would otherwise be statistics. A large part of this topic's notability comes from its vileness, and a large part of the vileness comes from understanding that each victim had their own identity and their own timespan. Fifty unique deaths, not just one bad night. Detailing their lives beyond that would tend toward sappiness, though. This is just far enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should "humanize" the statistics about wars? Lets add a short list of all the victims of the First World War, just for starters and to celebrate its ongoing 100th anniversary? I don't like to know of 50, or 5, or 5 million dead. Period. If they were someone I knew, that would make a difference, that their name is John, Artur, Pierre, Karim, Mary, Fatima, or whatever adds little to nothing. - Nabla (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is my impression that Wikipedia tries to be dispassionate rather than "a kinder, gentler" encyclopedia. This is clearly seen in WP:NOTMEMORIAL, whether its letter applies here or not. What tenuous policy connection do you have?
Further, the good point has been made that we can't know whether these people would want their names immortalized in this article (I certainly would not), so this "humanization" is also potential disrespect. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Appreciating humanity and how events like these affect it needn't come from or lead to kindness or gentleness. I just like it because it helps convey the nature of the topic. Disrespecting dead people by ignoring their (possible) wishes doesn't bother me because it doesn't bother them. Recalling what they liked while human (fly-fishing, helping the homeless, not being listed as murder victims) is what I'd consider memorializing.

This is just bare-bones, straight-laced "So-and-so was here for so many years" stuff, like they use on filing cabinet-style war graves. Technically remembering something, but every Wikipedia page does that. No cheesy epitaph, no deer for outdoorsmen, no flowers for Flores and no justice for Justice. I'd like the same for wars that kill under a hundred people, but any more than that and people start thinking they're reading a phone book instead. That's distracting, not illuminating. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

My tenuous connection is thus WP:TLDR. It's a guideline, not a policy, but this list is not too long, so readers will read it. Sound enough logic? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, we should remember. But I doubt this is the place. By the way, on one hand, it feels not normal that 50 deaths are "list-wise notable" but 5,000 are not. What makes people people worth remembering is the size of the paper sheet we have?... weird... On the other hand, if we got some killer which shot the first random guy that turned around that random corner, citing their name would probably be a no brainer. So in part I understand your TLDR argument. All in all, at least my red hat still says no to the list. - Nabla (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What makes people worth remembering is the identifiable victim effect. Lenin said it best, despite not saying it. That's not quite the misinformation effect, but it sounds close enough to fool some of the people all of the time. Anyway, my yellow hat thinks you've made a fine choice and hopes you have a nice day. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

"Recrafted" List of victims

Newer version available at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft#Casualties - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per some of the suggestions above, I got up a List of victims but put the names in a quote box, similar to the Sandy Hook names. Since this article moves so quickly and people have such strong opinions re:changes, I thought I would post it below. So here's a redrafted list. See what you think: People killed Stanley Almodovar III, 23 Amanda Alvear, 25 Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26 Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33 Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21 Martin Benitez Torres, 33 Antonio D. Brown, 29 Darryl R. Burt II, 29 Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24 Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28 Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez, 31 Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25 Luis D. Conde, 39 Cory J. Connell, 21 Tevin E. Crosby, 25 Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50 Deonka D. Drayton, 32 Mercedez M. Flores, 26 Juan R. Guerrero, 22 Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22 Paul T. Henry, 41 Frank Hernandez, 27 Miguel A. Honorato, 30 Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40 Jason B. Josaphat, 19 Eddie J. Justice, 30 Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25 Christopher A. Leinonen, 32 Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49 Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35 Akyra Monet Murray, 18 Kimberly Morris, 37 Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27 Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20 Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25 Eric I. Ortiz-Rivera, 36 Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32 Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25 Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37 Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24 Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24 Xavier E. Serrano Rosado, 35 Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25 Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34 Shane E. Tomlinson, 33 Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25 Luis S. Vielma, 22 Luis D. Wilson-Leon, 37 Jerald A. Wright, 31 Perpetrator Omar Mateen References I have signed my content here, below the References section, so hopefully it will all make sense visually. Now, on the article page, the bit of "References" listed above will be down at the bottom of the article with all the other article references. The Quote box would be to the right side of the article-page, near the Casualties section. Shearonink (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC) If you hate it, if you love it...comment below. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Hmm. (1) Like the Sandy Hook list, let's (begrudgingly) add Mateen to the list as this is a list of casualties and not just victims (alternatively rename the list as list of victims); (2) Feels like the font for the list is still a bit large - Since we have a longer list, we probably should keep the font size similar if possible as the list would span multiple main article sections, perhaps. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Casualty can means those injured as well. That's a list of the dead/killed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Which, considering the names weren't released, we would just lump them together in 1 line? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry for lack of clarity. My comment was mostly regarding the title of the list to the right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC) I've adjusted the font-size to "small", changed the list title to "List of people killed" (for now - not sure what the List should be called...) and included the perpetrator's name separately. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC) We generally avoid stating the obvious (List of). We don't begin the captions of photo images with "Photo of". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC) adjusted to "People killed". Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC) I think this one fits the article better than the latter; As it could go in an unobtrusive sidebar, I feel it would better placate any who might complain about the list being too attention-drawing. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Playing around with this list, making it collapsible and removing <small> to compensate for font size now that this is collapsible. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"Recrafted" List of victims too

Newer version available at User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft#Casualties - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Another alternative for your consideration. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Fatal victims Stanley Almodovar III, 23 Amanda Alvear, 25 Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26 Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33 Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21 Martin Benitez Torres, 33 Antonio D. Brown, 29 Darryl R. Burt II, 29 Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24 Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28 Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez, 31 Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25 Luis D. Conde, 39 Cory J. Connell, 21 Tevin E. Crosby, 25 Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50 Deonka D. Drayton, 32 Mercedez M. Flores, 26 Juan R. Guerrero, 22 Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22 Paul T. Henry, 41 Frank Hernandez, 27 Miguel A. Honorato, 30 Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40 Jason B. Josaphat, 19 Eddie J. Justice, 30 Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25 Christopher A. Leinonen, 32 Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49 Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35 Akyra Monet Murray, 18 Kimberly Morris, 37 Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27 Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20 Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25 Eric I. Ortiz-Rivera, 36 Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32 Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25 Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37 Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24 Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24 Xavier E. Serrano Rosado, 35 Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25 Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34 Shane E. Tomlinson, 33 Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25 Luis S. Vielma, 22 Luis D. Wilson-Leon, 37 Jerald A. Wright, 31 If we're using this version, I prefer plaintext with regards to names; also, probably should also add the perpetrator's name in the list (the Sandy Hook list did so) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC) I don't like "fatal victims" ... it seems like a misuse of the adjective, and an unnecessarily convoluted way of thinking about the situation. "List of casualties" is also wrong because wounded are casualties. Simply "Killed" would seem starkly appropriate to me. Also, by using that term, it is possible to accommodate Mateen in the list as Penwhale suggested - though it would seem appropriate to put the name at the end, italicized or something, just to be clearer ... there will probably be some kid solemnly reading off this list of names at some point as a gesture, and we don't want him to have a humiliating mishap. Wnt (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC) I changed the title of the List I put up to "List of people killed". It is possible that some of the nightclub guests were killed by friendly-fire. Also, changing it to "killed" allows the inclusion of Mateen's name if the consensus is for including his name. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Fatal victims sounds a bit strange, maybe just 'Deaths'? This would also allow for "Omar Mateen, 29 (perpetrator)" to be included and for there to be two symmetrical columns of 25. Zaostao (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Though "Deaths" is not incorrect - all these people did die - I think "Killed" might be more precise. So far as I know, no one succumbed to a health incident, like a heart attack. They all died because of another person's actions. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Another person's actions - yes, specifically the mass shooting which the article is about and which all other information is related to... Zaostao (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) These people died. They were killed. Whatever wording the community decides is appropriate for the List I have no problem with. We're all here just trying to build an encyclopedia and doing the best we can. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Looks fine to me! Kinda wondering why the table header font color is #252525, but that seems to be something on Wikipedia's end. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC) As opposed to #000000? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC) "Fatal victims" could be changed to "Fatalities" Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC) @Richard-of-Earth: See also #Any changes to the List of victims (Re: the subset of the List RfC above), apparently started separately because this was too high in the TOC to get much attention. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) As requested below, I have made changes to Mandruss's table (namely, collapsible and made the two columns different to compare which one we'd prefer). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove - Not to come across as cold hearted, but per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the individuals involved do not meet notability requirements. DrkBlueXG (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow At least for fatalities. It's not a question of memorialization, but of fully describing the impact of a crime. How many people does a murderer have to kill before we stop including their victims' names and replace them with just a body count? 5? 10? 25? 100?--agr (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A hundred. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

• Of course, Allow All personal feelings aside, please look at some of the articles in List of school shootings in the United States. Almost all events with multiple fatalities have lists of victims. This is not unprecedented, especially given the high profile nature of this event. Or perhaps some of you would like to remove the offensive lists from Virginia Tech shooting and less famous massacres like the SuccessTech Academy shooting or the Heath High School shooting? Ender and Peter 03:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  The main problem with looking at precedent is that it makes it difficult for community thinking to evolve with time. If the community felt that consistency was important in this area, we would have a guideline to that effect. This is why few of the arguments in this RfC are about precedent. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the mass shooting be called a "terrorist attack" in the first sentence?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has been a contentious label, so I'm trying to establish a firm consensus here.

Should the mass shooting be called a terrorist attack in the first sentence of the lead? - MrX 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I clarified the question in the heading and the opening. I'm very confident about this change because of earlier interaction with MrX about this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, and the article should remain this way because both journalistic and government sources refer to it this way. However, it should be called a lone wolf terrorist attack, because that is specifically the type of attack it was. Government sources refer to it this way. See for example https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/12/florida-gunman-omar-mateen-fbi-lone-wolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avangion (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it should. Mateen pledged allegiance to the Islamic State prior to his attack, and as such the attack was most definitely terror-motivated. --PatientZero ^talk 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - per WP:NPOV reflection of reliable sources. Sources refer to it this way, and we should too. Unless the investigation concludes it was not one, I say we keep it in the lead. If such a conclusion is reached, we can describe the conflicting descriptions in the body of the article and remove the label from the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - per EvergreenFir. Parsley Man (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - per the pledge & the reliable sources. I'd also call it a hate crime per reliable sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Considering the above^ and the reliable sources this incident should be referred to as a terrorist attack. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - Certainly it needs to be called terrorism per sources, and probably in the first or second para. But putting the word in the first sentence without context presents the same problem as putting it in the infobox without context. It's without context. Sure, they can and should read on for the context, but that reasoning would also apply to the infobox. First sentence, as the most important defining thing in the article after its title, should be limited to that which does not need context. The nuance that needs explanation is the fact that ISIL is not at all like Al Qaeda in their methods, so we need to explain what we mean by terrorism in this case, which we cannot do in the first sentence. I have zero problem with calling it terrorism soon after the first sentence, with clarification, as I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The "officials" has declared it as a terrorist attack, and multiple other Wikipedia versions even call it "The terrorist attack in Orlando 2016". I do believe we call 9/11 a terrorist attack i the lead of the article - don't see why not here. It is, it is called, and it will stand. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  9/11 is hardly an apt comparison. Proven to be Al Qaeda financed and planned, beyond any doubt, no nuance like that presented by the ISIL situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  The fact that a group or a single individual did the attack does not matter. It is a terorist attack. That's aleady settled by reliable sources and official investigators. The question is "Should it be in the lead". And since most news sources refer this as a terrorist attack, I believe it goes to the heart of this subject, and should therefore stay. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question is "Should it be in the lead". - No, the question is should it be in "the lead topic sentence", meaning the first sentence. I got the impression from some of the !votes that others misread that, too. It's clear that at least one of us !voted without understanding what was being decided. The need for this RfC arose from this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per Mandruss, news sources are still full of speculation about how much homophobia and or 'Islamism' and or 'disturbed fantasist' are prime causes, and the term is inherently loaded. Until it is clearer what the motives and intentions were, and whether anyone else was involved, we should err on the side of caution, we know it was a mass murder, everything else at the moment is speculation. Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, but as long as people think terror is a synonym for terrorism, or pledging to ISIS makes you a terrorist, that's what it's going to say. Fun Fact: Almost every surviving civilian in ISIS territory has also pledged loyalty to ISIS, and virtually none are terrorists. Just terrified. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Hadn't noticed this FBI statement. The lead sentence should say terrorist attack and hate crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

And No again, per "doesn't suck" diplomacy below (further below than below). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

• Did you notice that that Faux News screaming headline was based on an apparently unofficial quote from FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Is there something shady about Ron Hopper? In the absence of a trial or inquest, he seems the next best thing to a judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

No, but he appeared to be speaking for Ron Hopper, not for the FBI. An official FBI position will come from someone like an FBI spokesperson, the FBI Director, maybe an FBI Deputy Director. Not some unknown Special Agent contacted by phone by Faux News for a comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When an agent speaks to the media and isn't called "law enforcement source" or "official", that indicates he's authorized to speak publicly on the case. And he's not unknown, he's been talking from the start. We already mention him here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

You might be right. In my experience U.S. government agencies do not release official positions on matters of such import in that manner. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

They very often don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Here's an unauthorized agent on Mateen's cellphone, and another (or the same) on his browsing habits, an hour ago. That is shady. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

• Notification - @Patient Zero, EvergreenFir, Parsley Man, Blaylockjam10, ACanadianToker, Josve05a, and Pincrete: The question has now been clarified in the heading and opening. This is about the first sentence of the lead, nothing more. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I still stand by my vote. There is a great amount of emphasis on the terror aspect of this shooting and I think it should therefore be addressed as such anywhere and everywhere in the article when necessary. Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd still call it a terrorist attack & a hate crime. There are reliable sources for both of those. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes – For the record, I also support this inclusion. It is clear this was a terrorist attack, just maybe not clear on what kind of terrorist attack. United States Man (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Tentative Yes – I think the Paris and Charlie Hebdo attacks might be useful as a guide - they were terrorist attacks which included the use of shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I Stand by my no in the opening sentence/para. That some sources are using this term, I don't object to saying next para. It is precisely because it invites immediate comparison with Paris, 9/11, etc that I think the term should not be used in Wiki-voice at the beginning. It is still very unclear whether proper comparison is with a school or similar shooting by a deranged individual with a grudge, or who had a sick wish for notoriety, who happened to put an Islamic 'spin' on his deed. The deed bears none of the hallmarks of the other clear, conscious, organised attacks by people who were part of networks, such as Paris. As regards 'hate crime', probably yes and probably the focus of that hate was gays, (rather than Americans in general, since the victims were substantially of Latino extraction), but the same caution should be used about use of that term. Pincrete (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No. – Terrorist attacks generally involve organizations directing from without. This was a single person – evidently a very conflicted person – essentially acting on his own, his last-minute allegiance to the so-called Islamic State notwithstanding. (Note second sentence of second paragraph.)

I suggest simply deleting the rather clunky phrase terrorist attack and hate crime from the lede, which already is overlong at almost 100 words. That still leaves us with a mass shooting, which it certainly was. Sca (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Still Yes I think that the word terrorist attack should remain in the lead sentence. This was most clearly a hate crime however, regardless of perp. motives, this incident was designed to cause terror and fear. Reliable sources and public officials have not hesitated to label this a terrorist attack. This may change but right now, given the immense trauma, terrorist attack is an apt description. I mean isn't june supposed to be all about LGBTQ pride? I understand the opposition to labelling it as a terrorist attack though. I do not think the organizational control of the incident matters, whether it was directed or just inspired by islamic terrorism is immaterial for me because of the impact of the incident. The cause matters little, what matters is the effect it has had, on Orlando, the LGBTQ community, and the US as a whole. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes as it was an attack by a terrorist. How he became a terrorist is irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• No. There's a different between terrorist-inspired and terrorist-committed; this is the former of these, a terrorist-organization-inspired mass shooting. It is not directly committed by the terrorist group. If so, we can call Adam Lanza a kid-hating terrorist who kills kids. Or we can call Aaron Alexis just a plain terrorist. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but the FBI didn't call it a terrorist attack because it was inspired by terrorists. Rather because “This was an act of violence born out of hate that inflicted terror on an entire community". Presuming Mateen's Facebook posts are legit, that inflicted terror seems fairly likely designed to pressure America into stopping the bombing policy. It won't, of course, but intentions matter more than results in defining terrorism. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism doesn't make any distinction between group or individual action. Terrorist acts are violent acts intended to intimidate the civilian population and/or influence government policy. Per the perpetrator's Facebook posts made during the attack, it clearly fits the definition. Dansan99 (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – I think it can be difficult to write well when you look only at individual words and phrases, because you can lose sight of how the whole paragraph fits together. Such is the case in this talk section regarding the first paragraph of the lead.

"On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime occurred inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. Fifty people died, including the gunman, who was killed by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff. An additional 53 people were injured. It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001."

Please consider the following replacement and note how it removes redundancies such as: "terrorist attack" redundancy in the first and last sentences; "hate crime" in the first sentence redundant with "violence against LGBT people" in the last sentence; "mass shooting" redundant with "Fifty people died including the gunman"/"additional 53 people were injured". Also note that the proposed version doesn't use the awkward phrasing "a mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime occurred". Another advantage is having the victim casualties of 49 dead and 53 injured together, instead of separate.

"On June 12, 2016, a gunman killed 49 people and injured 53 others inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. The gunman was killed by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff. It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001."

Please see the reverting diff [2] and consider whether restoring the edit would improve the lead. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying your arguments are without merit, but you are completely reframing the question of this RfC. Do we do that? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

While the words are redundant, the Wikilinks are not. One leads to terrorism, one to American domestic terrorism. One leads to hate crime, one to American gay hate crime. Perhaps that matters, perhaps it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

• No It is fair and true to say that some have described it as a terrorist incident. There is not enough evidence yet (and given that the only person who ever really knew is dead, may never be) to say that is certainly was such. Newspapers, politician and agencies have motivations for wanting to make hurried declarations, an encyclopaedia does not. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• No Use the WP:COMMON title. If you just follow the cites, what they put in their titles is "mass shooting". Even though this will get counted and associated to LGBT violence, Islamic, hate crimes, mass shootings, ISIS, etcetera -- terrorism is not the expected title and WP:SURPRISE leads me to say that's not the right title to have it under. In the titles of the cites, I see that only #82 and #98 use "terrorist", and loosely one has #66 where ISIS claims it (though they did not directly instigate or participate), or a few quote Obama "act of terror and hate". A quick check against Google and Bing also seems to back that up -- Orlando mass shooting is many times bigger than Orlando mass shooting +terrorism. Markbassett (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: Can't tell if you're !voting on the article's title or on the RfC's question. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss - It's 'No' to using that in the first line. The WP:LEAD guidance WP:BEGIN kind of points one to use the title for the firstline. "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Sorry I didn't make the connection more clear before. The first line's existing rephrasing and including of date seem in line with the guidance, putting the word terror into first line does not. Markbassett (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• No The atrocity seems to have more in common with a typical American mass shooting than an actual terrorist attack.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• No and it is a pity that there is RfC on this because it slows down the editing process to a crawl. The current wording of the opening sentence is poor and there is no need to say "terrorist attack" twice in the opening paragraph. It's looking less likely that this was a terrorist attack and more likely that it was a routine loner with a grudge. Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  You mean there are editors who don't sometimes despair of Wikipedia? Where? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• No because it does not read well. I recommend: mass shooting in first sentence. Then in second sentence: In what has been characterized as a terrorist attack and hate crime, the shooter... e.g. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes This is like San Bernardino, a "homegrown violent extremist" as said in that article which says "terrorist attack" in the first sentence.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment As I've said, the real problem is poor wording and no need to say "terrorist attack" twice. Also bear in mind that since the RfC started, investigators have moved away from the theory that this was a deliberate terrorist attack and is more likely to have been the work of a typical loner with a hotchpotch of crazy motives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• No. The phrase "terrorist attack" is vague. It could be used to mean: (1) "violence worthy of the highest condemnation". (2) "violence inflicted to create fear". (3) "violence inflicted by a civilian." I am not the first person to be concerned that the word tends to be used to mean (4) "violence inflicted by a foreigner/alien/other." If (1), then the claim that the attack was a terrorist one is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). If (2), then the claim needs support. (Does Mateen's declaration of membership in ISIS qualify him as a terrorist? I wouldn't assume so. Not all violence, even deeply reprehensible violence, is designed to create fear. Some of it is done out of retaliation, or a misplaced sense of right.) If (3) or (4), then the word "terrorism" is not encyclopedic. Why not report the facts: "Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS. The attack was widely denounced as an act of terrorism." Omphaloscope talk 08:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Omphaloscope, I endorse your main point, if "terrorist attack" is simply defined as 'that which causes terror', every serial murderer, serial rapist, school shooter etc becomes a 'terrorist', the term loses any meaning. It's probably a sensitive point, but if one's intention was to cause terror among the majority of Americans, a gay nightclub would not be an obvious target. Whatever sympathy and shock a broad swathe of middle-America might feel, it's hardly going to make them cancel their trips to places they would probably never choose to visit anyhow. Pincrete (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• No - Prominently calling this a terrorist attack implies an orchestrated effort to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. There has been no determination by investigators that this is the case in this shooting. The terms "act of terror" and "terror attack" are used far too loosely by the media, pundits, and politicians. As an encyclopedia, we should present the facts as dispassionately as possible, especially in the lead.- MrX 12:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – There was a recent edit of the article (diff), that seems to end this RFC. The reason I mention this is that I would like to edit the first paragraph along the lines of my previous comment of 03:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC). --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  [[ping|Bob K31416}} How does that edit end this RfC? Whether the content is in or out for the time being, the question is yet to be decided. That's what we're doing here. That said, there's been enough participation that I wonder whether we need the full 30 days, or anything close to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Bob K31416: retry. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. (diff) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Bob may have interpreted my comment as support for that edit (his edit, the one linked immediately preceding). It was not. Beyond that, I'll stay out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you can always clarify what you meant by "retry". [3]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thought it was obvious, but happy to do so. I botched the ping in the first comment, as you can see. A ping doesn't work unless it's added in the same edit as your signature, so I couldn't just do another edit and fix the ping. My choices were (1) self-revert and start over, or (2) add another comment with a good ping and another signature. I chose 2. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by linking to a video about "NOT jokes". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It reminded me of a not joke. So I agree it was obvious ....................................................................... not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - It meets most of the definitions of terrorism. While motives still aren't clear, it is pretty obvious that this was an act of terror of some kind. Whether it be Islamic extremism, or some other kind of extremism, it is still terrorism. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 04:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Purely from being called that consistently by reliable sources. I note that some of the objections above seem to be objecting to renaming the article to include the word terrorist/terrorism, which is not at issue. For the first sentence of the lead, saying terrorist is appropriate. Fieari (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Per MorbidEntree, it was an act of terror and he pledged allegiance to IS, which is supported in countless reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, an 'act of terror' isn't quite the same as 'a terrorist act'. Whatever the former is, the second is explicitly defined by clear political motive. Do we know that to be true? Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"The motive is very clear...". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

A quote from one of the hostages. Great work, Hulk. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

She said everyone in the bathroom heard it. It was later corroborated by the FBI. She was only wrong in thinking a 911 operator was on the other end. Anybody out there with firsthand knowledge saying anything contrary? If not, that's exactly what a terrorist does. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

It still doesn't warrant first-sentence-without-context, which is the question of this RfC. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't use the word terrorism. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It makes the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting a terrorist attack. So that makes the lead sentence a fairly reasonable place to define it as such. Context comes later. The "denounced as" line seems a bit too unsure of itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

We treat infoboxes as if some readers arrive, read them, and leave (and that's very likely true). My contention is that we should treat the first sentence the same. In this case, "terrorism" without explanation would be extremely misleading and would not serve to inform our readers. It would serve only the compulsion to label and categorize things in nice, neat little packages that people can understand without spending too much brain power. It facilitates and perpetuates simple-minded worldviews, which should not be a goal here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Something tells me immediately calling it a terrorist attack rooted in America's foreign policy is not an ideal solution. People who can't be bothered to read an entire lead section deserve to stay uninformed. Presuming those who only read the first sentence also read the infobox, any thoughts on adding the motive there? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, June 26, 2016

No one deserves to stay uninformed, and that logic is completely inconsistent with the mission of an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can think of a way to impart the same information to first-sentence readers and whole-lead readers alike, you'll be bigger than Gutenberg. In the meantime, virtually every page of everything will continue to favour the latter. Maybe unfair, but it's the way words work. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that ommitting terrorism in the lead feeds "uninformed." The FBI doesn't investigate routine murders or even mass shootings unless there is a terrorism nexus. There are many sources recognizing self-radicalization at a minimum as the basis for this terrorist attack. Other motives are much more anecdotal than terrorism. --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

As I and others have repeatedly said, please do address the terrorism aspect in the lead, with explanation of what it means in this case. Do not place that simplistic, broad-brush characterization in the first sentence without that explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And as others have said, that's not what the lead is for. WP:LEAD is that it summarizes the article with details fleshed out in the article. We don't go into detail about any other angles, either (i.e. why it is a hate crime, the state of mind required and how an allegedly gay person could commit that crime against other gay people - those details are for the article and "hate crime" is a summary). "terror attack" is a summary of a significant viewpoint that is covered in the article. Omitting it is adding to ignorance of a significant aspect of the article. It's broadly a terror attack (and hate crime) with subtleties left for the article. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This treatment, current as of this post, is a fair balance. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. It gives the significance you asked for and fits with the other angles of motive. There is a CNN and Atlantic source for it as well. --DHeyward (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't suck to me, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward and InedibleHulk: Cool. Now should you change your !votes, or do we depend on the closer to put that together? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody could possibly read all this. Changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

• Yes; I believe that most sources indicate this to be the case. Unless the FBI radically changes it investigative stance the act remains a terrorist one. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, bc ignoring all the WP:RS is tantamount to WP:OR by making this attack be about something other than what it was. Look at the perpetrator’s own words, aka the 9-1-1 call as WP:PRIMARY. maslowsneeds🌈 00:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting ignoring 'terrorist attack' as covered in RS, nor removing the phrase from the lead. What the RfC is about is lead sentence only. Are we clear that RS are saying clearly that the primary motive was 'terrorist/political' or are those RS still uncertain how much this was terrorism and how much other motives? Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I edited the article so that, at the end of the first paragraph, it states: "The attack was widely denounced as a hate crime and an act of terrorism." (Since then someone has changed 'attack' to 'massacre'.) That is, I turned the claim that this was a terrorist attack into an ascription of a belief. Let me say a bit here about the pros and cons of this choice, as I see them. I made this edit because "X is an act of terrorism" is not a politically neutral statement, and so it is not an encyclopedic claim. It is not neutral because it implicitly includes the claim that the act was wrong. Now, the attack should be condemned in the severest terms, but not in an encyclopedia. That being said, Wikipedia can't totally avoid making implicit claims about what is right and what is wrong. A public, open encyclopedia like this one, by its very existence, carries a very loud implicit claim about what is right. But to get back to the main point: I've said that "X is terrorism" is not neutral. A carnivore will not say, "A cow had to be murdered for this hamburger to exist." That is because "X is murder" carries the implication that "X is wrong." Murder is a morally loaded, thick concept. Terrorism is probably a thick concept too. (See footnote below.) But what about my edit? Is "X was widely denounced as an act of terrorism" neutral? It is not perfectly neutral. It carries the implication that the denouncement was sensible, and the article does not distance itself from this implication. I suspect that is why no one has changed it. It weakens, but does not remove, the condemnatory feel of the opening paragraph. I don't mind that this sentence is not perfectly neutral. Neutrality is an ideal that we can approach, and not something we can achieve perfectly. After all, there is no "neutral" way of deciding which point of view is the neutral one. Long story short: in my humble opinion, you should treat the expression "X is an act of terrorism" as you would "X is an act of violence intended to produce fear for political ends, and may the perpetrators burn in hell." Entirely appropriate in real life, but not in an encyclopedia. (Footnote: See Shanahan, Philosophy 9/11: Thinking about the War on Terrorism, p. 55.[4]. The Wikipedia article on Terrorism stipulates a definition for the term, and this definition is purely descriptive and not evaluative. Does it follow that terrorism is not a thick term? No. The definition there does not perfectly track how the term is used. That article is trying to "show the way": it is trying to encourage people to use the term "act of terrorism" as a social-scientific, morally neutral description. Uses of the word "terrorism" on Wikipedia, outside that article, invoke the widespread, implicitly evaluative version of the concept. That said, I am relying here on nothing more than an informed guess about how "terrorism" tends to be interpreted by the primary audience of this article. Like "murder", the word can cease to "look" evaluative if you focus on the descriptive component of the word for long enough.) Omphaloscope talk 15:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to "widely called". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, InedibleHulk. I can see why you did that. At the moment---and maybe it's just the caffeine speaking---I slightly prefer 'denounced as'. I'm not sure why. Maybe because it indicates the emotion that I think is involved in the claim that it is terrorism. Just thinking out loud here... "Described as an act of terrorism", "classified as an act of terrorism", "labeled as terrorism"---these phrases seem inapt, somehow. And I suppose it might have to do with the point I was banging on about above. (Though, I would say that, wouldn't I?) To put that point in a different way: as I see it, we don't tend to use the word "act of terrorism" just to put something into a mental bucket (as we would use "cup of coffee"). We often use it to get our moral opinions and emotions out into the open. I admit that there is perhaps something naive or even cold about trying to expunge such language as "unencyclopedic". As a little thought experiment, imagine that this article consisted of a down-to-the-millisecond, dispassionate description of the attack. It would be a paragon of objectivity. It would also be inhuman. Your edit is very similar to mine. To use a metaphor, these two edits seem to be separated by a few inches. If you draw a line between them, and extend it in both directions, then you get a spectrum of language, ranging from non-neutral to excessively neutral. Omphaloscope talk 16:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You might be right (and I might be misunderstanding you). I prefer a "cold" encyclopedia. As to your removal, I think it should have stayed. Not to demonize or glorify or anything like that, just because Mateen clearly stated his political aims before and during the terrifying action against civilians he flatly associated with them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Here is another way to see the point. Some people on this talk page have come forward to explain what they mean when they claim that the attack is an act of terrorism. Sometimes, when the claim is interpreted according to these directives, it comes out as neutral and encyclopedic. However, these intentions are not clear from the article itself. I think it is likely that the word sometimes operates as implicitly evaluative. The evaluative and descriptive uses of the term are not often enough clearly distinguished. ("Fascist" seems to be a term whose neutral/historian use and evaluative/schoolyard use are well known to be distinct. Not so with "terrorist"---I don't think people realize that it is often implicitly evaluative.) So I agree with the Wikipedia policy (WP:TERRORIST) of not using this word except when describing what people think or say. Omphaloscope talk 18:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: "Terrorist" is listed among the "words to watch" at this Wikipedia policy page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels: "Value-laden labels---such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion--may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution [i.e. putting the word in the mouth of a reliable source]." Omphaloscope talk 16:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• include terrorist attack but also should include hate crime Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• No The formal and informal, FBI and News investigations regarding the mass murder are not over and there is at least a hint of manipulation to call it terrorism. If, indeed, the murderer did pledge allegiance to anyone it could have been a mask based on the data so far discovered. Evidence suggests he could have been a homophobic gay male whose real or primary motive was to kill gays. Hiding his motive in order to hide his sexuality could have been his underlying real motive. Siding with anyone at this time could diminish the integrity of Wikipedia. Possible motives should be terrorism and/or homophobiaDaviddaniel37 (talk) 09:09, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I find the current "widely considered" language satisfactory, but I don't see why a mass killing by "a homophobic gay male whose real or primary motive was to kill gays" would not be considered an act of terrorism.--agr (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Every murderer's prime motive is killing, usually based in and causing fear. They're just plain murderers. If a murderous homophobe demanded the government expel all gays, repeal a rights bill or some such nonsense, lest the killing continue, that'd make him an anti-gay terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Early close??

The point of an RfC is to gather a wide range of arguments for the closer to consider. We've had a lot of experienced comments, and I can't imagine there is much left to say that's worth waiting for. There is nothing gained by collecting more "me too" !votes. How about calling for an early close? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Support close, good idea, all the pertinent discussions should probably be closed earlier than 30 days, otherwise events may well make the discussions irrelevant anyway. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually most of the !voting occurred before the significant turn in reporting on the terrorism question. See Ianmacm's comment 06:18, 19 June 2016. In my opinion, that largely invalidates those !votes and we should abort, not close. If someone still felt we needed terrorism in the first sentence, we could start a new RfC based on what we know now. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think those that support inclusion (not my position btw), would object to the idea that any new coverage invalidates their vote. The central question since day one has been to what extent this was terrorism, hate crime, or simply a disturbed person. Media coverage may have calmed down a little, but that question has not been answered, and it may be the case that no clear answer will ever emerge. I don't know what best to do procedurally, but would not oppose an abort. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tentative Yes per precedent: we seem to use the label in similar articles. However, I'm not opposed to this treatment either; the first sentence is a bald statement of facts, which is a good way to handle it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Read the entry on lone wolf terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism). The attack is the very definition of a lone wolf terror attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avangion (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Many people are making the assumption that Mateen was of sound mind when he carried out the attack. He may or may not have been legally insane, but there are numerous reports that he was mentally unstable and had expressed hatred of gays etc. This makes the motive less clear cut than a straightforward terrorist attack. The problem with categories and lists is that they do not allow for any nuances and end up with a false dichotomy (black/white, yes/no) when things are more complicated than this simplistic version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Latin Night in the lead again

I removed the content "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night..." from the lead because it seemed to me that the previous discussion showed no consensus for including such irrelevant detail. Antinoos69 reverted my edit with an edit summary "There was clearly a majority for inclusion." Can someone please point to the discussion where there was a clear majority for inclusion, or better yet a consensus for inclusion? It seems to be that mentioning that Pulse was hosting Lating night is as noteworthy as saying they were having a dollar drink special. I have no objection to saying that most of the victims were Hispanic, provided that it's done in the second paragraph.- MrX 14:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, my recollection was that identifying victim's ethnicity was chosen in preference to the roundabout 'Latino night', rather than as well as it. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One must note that the entire sentence regarding the matter was deleted, not just a portion regarding one aspect. The now archived discussion had three in favor of inclusion, two against, and one "ambivalent" but against mention in the first sentence. As we're not discussing the first sentence, that makes for a clear majority for inclusion. Not only did the "Latin night" vs. "ethnicity" idea have no consensus, but it makes no sense. It would make it sound like the shooter was going around making sure to kill only the Hispanics/Latinos/-as, sorting them out from the crowd. The context of Latino Night is needed. Also, one might point out that failing to mention this matter regarding an oppressed and frequently "erased" group only serves to perpetuate that erasure. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Latino Night" (ethnicity) and "Latin Night" (music), the club was not hosting a Latin persons only night but its music was Latin, thus "Latin Night" is more appropriate; which is the reason why I changed it a few days ago. – jona ✉ 15:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor detail, since I don't think it is lead-worthy, but I believe they called it 'latino night', yes they just meant by that 'latino' entertainment. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we all agree that there is currently no reason to think that he targetted 'latinos', either in choosing the night or while choosing who to kill, and we should avoid implying that he did. … … My logic is simple, the kind of entertainment offered is incidental, the result of that, (many Hispanic killed) is not. Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that the shooter targeted Hispanic people, or that he went to Pulse because it was Latin night, then it is merely an aside that isn't worthy of the lead. I disagree that "Latin night" adds necessary context. - MrX 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First, there is certainly evidence that Puerto Ricans /Latinos were targeted—flimsy and dubious evidence, but evidence nonetheless (i.e., the Puerto Rican, HIV business). Second, there can be no doubt that "Latin Night" adds necessary context. It goes to why there were so many Latino/-a/Hispanic deaths and survivors. In fact, the media has pretty consistently made reference to the fact for the same purpose. Without such context, the reader would be left to conclude that there were so many Latino/-a/Hispanic deaths and survivors because the shooter was specifically looking for Latinos/-as/Hispanics in the crowd, a sort of speculation you and others seem to wish to avoid. Third, you miss the most important point, minority erasure. It is well established that when minorities' minority status isn't explicitly mentioned it is effectively erased. This erasure is particularly galling, insensitive, and downright offensive in light of the heinous subject of this article. Just yesterday I came across an account of the atrocity by a gay Puerto Rican man, for whom and for whose community both the LGBT and ethnic statuses of the victims and survivors were very acutely and uniquely felt, with serious ramifications and implications specific to his community. It does him and others similarly situated a great disservice to whitewash (pun definitely intended) this event and pretend that his experience is somehow not "worthy of the lead." Antinoos69 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

flimsy and dubious evidence = no evidence. It may later come to light that latinos were targetted, at present there is no reason to think that 'latino-phobia' was an issue. We are not here to right-great-wrongs as regards homo/latino-phobia, nor to decide which is worse, nor which this was. No one here opposes including early on the fact that the majority of victims were Hispanic. That is a significant feature of this event, but I cannot see how the kind of music offered is anything other than incidental and distracting. Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Flimsy and dubious evidence = flimsy and dubious evidence. No evidence = no evidence. The simple fact is that flimsy and dubious evidence =/= no evidence. Flimsy and dubious evidence has been cited in support of many a once-widely-accepted "fact," including in science. And your "right-great-wrongs" isn't merely grammatically off the mark. We certainly are here, as we are everywhere, to avoid committing "great wrongs" ourselves. Minority erasure is certainly a great wrong. Your "which is worse" nonsense has nothing to do with my comment. Finally, I cannot begin to fathom your bizarre fixation on "music." The point of including "Latin Night" regards the demographics of the patrons and victims, a point I explained twice previously. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: I'm sure you know that Wikipedia is not a place to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You may consider it an injustice not to prominently highlight that the nightclub was hosting a Latin night, but it's simply not noteworthy.  The fact that most of the slain were Hispanic is somewhat noteworthy, but I question whether is needs to be mentioned in the lead. I'm not aware that any reliable sources have concluded that Mateen specifically targeted Hispanic people. Although, I can somewhat accept that adding "Latin night" does keep the reader from jumping to the conclusion that the shooting targeted Hispanics, it also supports not including such information in the lead, exactly because it doesn't answer the question of motive. In fact, it would mislead our readers by highlighting something that is merely background information.- MrX 22:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You're exhibiting an extraordinary and baffling inability to understand me. Wikipedia certainly is a place, like every other place, to avoid committing wrongs ourselves. The injustice I refer to, as I strongly suspect your less rhetorical self fully realizes, is minority erasure, not omitting reference to Latin Night. The reference to Latin Night goes to the otherwise puzzling demographics of the victims, as I'm confident you also know. It would certainly do readers a disservice not to provide important and widely reported background on those demographics, as it would to facilitate their participation in minority erasure, a subject starting to crop up in some media. To repeat, you miss the most important point, minority erasure. It is well established that when minorities' minority status isn't explicitly mentioned it is effectively erased. This erasure is particularly galling, insensitive, and downright offensive in light of the heinous subject of this article. Just yesterday I came across an account of the atrocity by a gay Puerto Rican man, for whom and for whose community both the LGBT and ethnic statuses of the victims and survivors were very acutely and uniquely felt, with serious ramifications and implications specific to his community. It does him and others similarly situated a great disservice to whitewash (pun definitely intended) this event and pretend that his experience is somehow not "worthy of the lead." Antinoos69 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I understood you the first time you wrote all that. Why repeat it? Wikipedia does not have any policies or guidelines for "minority erasure". It's offensive to me to see this article used as a platform for promoting social/political change or fixing various injustices. We are supposed to distill an informative article from the many available source and present it dispassionately, without burdening the lead with intricate details. 28.4% of Orlando residents are Hispanic. There's nothing unusual or noteworthy about people who share a culture congregating at a place of entertainment. From Orlando, Florida: "Orlando has the largest population of Puerto Ricans in Florida and their cultural impact on Central Florida is similar to that of the large Cuban population in South Florida." - MrX 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've become well aware of your problems with minorities, I assure you. This is certainly no place for your fringe hangups, so drop it. According to you, "28.4% of Orlando residents are Hispanic," whereas, according to this article, "[o]ver 90% of victims were of Hispanic background." I'm sure even you will realize this is a huge discrepancy that must be addressed, including in the lead. Really, do you even bother reading what you write and write about? The media has frequently mentioned Latin Night in the context of the demographic makeup of the victims. So should we. Get over it. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict. Antinoos69, there is no extraordinary and baffling inability to understand you, it's just that you are wrong. If the victims were principally Welsh sheep farmers, French teenagers, Lithuanian rugby players or Kansas basketball supporters, regardless of whether any of these groups were or were not 'erased' or otherwise marginalised groups, then identifying who they were would be lead worthy. Otherwise we wait for significant secondary sources to draw attention to any marginalisation and write it up in proportion to the coverage, not decide for ourselves what ought to be highlighted. WP:NPOV always cuts two ways. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You're babbling, not to mention incorrect. The media has frequently mentioned Latin Night in the context of the demographic makeup of the victims. So should we. The media has frequently mentioned the Hispanic and Puerto Rican background of the victims. So should we. (How else would we even know this stuff?) Failing to do so is an egregious case of minority erasure. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead says at this moment "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night and most of the victims were of Hispanic descent." Can we phrase it so mentioning it was Latin night is an afterthought? Like "Most of the victims were of Hispanic descent due to it being Latin night at the club." Would that work better for people? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Richard-of-Earth's reordering would be preferable to present text, I still don't see the need to mention 'latin night', but agree that it marginally diminishes the risk of 'jumping to the wrong conclusion' about motive. That the vast majority of victims were from a specific group, is very noteworthy, even if it is incidental to motive and should be kept in the lead IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "...due to it being Latin night at the club" is not good writing. Readers who desire to know why so many Hispanic people were killed can simply continue reading the body of the article.- MrX 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not good obfuscation, either. People tend to to better remember the first and last things they read. If you want to make something an afterthought, bury it about 70% deep (roughly where the whole sentence is now, paragraph-wise). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Antinoos69: to the extent that context matters and we want to avoid minority erasure, but I believe that the evidence is not necessarily flimsy, because of the outcome. The current wording, "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night and most of the victims were of Hispanic descent," is factually accurate, and I think that the type of event and the demographic of the victims are material to describing these important aspects of the attack in the lead. maslowsneeds🌈 14:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is questioning the factual accuracy of the sentence. I don't think it is one of our goals to "avoid minority erasure", per WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there is a policy-based reason for mentioning Latin night in the lead, I have yet to see it.- MrX 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to look at how Wikipedia treated the German bakery bombing as a guidepost for perhaps how this article should be written. Although the circumstances are different, it is compelling that in describing the 2010 bombing in Pune, India, the backdrop of the attack was described in the lead. Although that attack nominally took place at a bakery, the demographic of those, who frequented the bakery, was sufficiently described, including the kinds of patrons for whom the establishment was popular at the time of the attack, as well as the demographic surrounding the bakery. (We don't even describe the demographic surounding the Pulse night club in the lead of the subject article.) The description of the demographic goes to important aspects of the attack : Who died, a., and who died as a consequence of the timing of the attack, b. For the bakery bombing article, this information appears in the lead, either offering a precedent or at least a strong suggestion about perhaps how similar information regarding the Pulse night club shooting should/could be treated. maslowsneeds🌈 16:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly is one of our goals here, as it is everywhere, to avoid minority erasure, just as avoiding lies, bias, bigotry, bad logic, and a very long list of other things are all among our goals both here and everywhere. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. There's a difference between not doing it and actively going out of one's way to spotlight it everywhere, as a countermeasure. First thing's fine (even good), second thing is what led Mateen to choose gay Latino victims over the undefined majority, I figure. Played the political insecurity of the climate right along with the physical insecurity of the club, and now he's forever linked to Stonewall (and not forgotten in Hispanic American history, either). Perhaps everyone should avoid training angry people to observe patterns, even without the guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

It's precisely the "[f]irst thing" that I'm trying to make sure gets done here, obviously. As for your too predictably reactionary babble, I'm not the least bit interested. I would suggest, though, that you drop it. This certainly isn't the place for it, if any exists at all, and your sources only support my position here. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

General Observation: There is clearly only less support for removing the disputed material now than there was before in the archived discussion. I would suggest it is time for people to move on to other things. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there is clearly no consensus either way with comments roughly evenly split. What we need are more outside participants to comment. I think an RfC with a two part question would help clarify consensus.- MrX 11:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest notion how you can make such an obviously erroneous assertion with a straight face, so to speak. In any case, I believe the RfC should be providing you with much needed clarification on the matter. Clearly, as matters now stand, the material would be staying. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Latin night should certainly be in the lead and coupled with that %90 of the victims were of Hispanic descent. If there is anyone who doubts these are salient points needs only to read accounts of the vigils and memorials that touch on both the LGBT and Hispanic aspects and trying to incorporate both into being sensitive to the situation. We wouldn't know any of this if the sources didn't report it. Computationsaysno (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no major objection to mentioning Latin night, though I think it largely incidental. I strongly support including that victims were predominantly Hispanic, we might add the male predominance also if known. Present wording though is not great. Hope we can settle this based on sensible/sensitive implementation of policies as other arguments are both invalid and counter-productive. Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

→ RfC started here.- MrX 14:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a two part question resulting from two previous deadlocked discussions here and here.

1. Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic?
2. Should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?

Please selection from one of the following options, or write in your own:

A: Include both in the lead. Example: "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night and most of the victims were of Hispanic descent."

B: Only include that most of the victims were Hispanic in the lead. Example: "Most of the victims were of Hispanic descent."

C: Omit any mention of Latin night and Hispanic victims in the lead

D: Mention that it was Latin Night. Omit the race of the victims from the lead. Mention details in the body of the article.

MrX (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Survey

For the sanity of the closer, please put threaded discussions and responses to votes below in the Threaded discussion section below.

•  
• Keep both. Latin night should certainly be in the lead and coupled with that %90 of the victims were of Hispanic descent. If there is anyone who doubts these are salient points needs only to read accounts of the vigils and memorials that touch on both the LGBT and Hispanic aspects and trying to incorporate both into being sensitive to the situation. We wouldn't know any of this if the sources didn't report it. Computationsaysno (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option B or modification/extension of B. This is the lead and the note-worthy fact is that over 90% (rather than 'most' I believe) of the victims were of Hispanic descent. When and if known, the fuller 'nationality' figures should also be added to the article body. I have no objection to adding 'Latin night' after the 'victims' sentence, if others feel it adds necessary context, which I personally don't and feel it just distracts from the main point. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• C. Based on the lack of evidence, it seems coincidental. He was not specifically targeting Hispanics. Ionize Me (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Tending towards Option C As I've said before, this isn't WP:LEAD material unless it becomes clear that Hispanic men were being deliberately targeted in the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both. As stated above : I have tried to look at how Wikipedia treated the German bakery bombing as a guidepost for perhaps how this article should be written. Although the circumstances are different, it is compelling that in describing the 2010 bombing in Pune, India, the backdrop of the attack was described in the lead. Although that attack nominally took place at a bakery, the demographic of those, who frequented the bakery, was sufficiently described, including the kinds of patrons for whom the establishment was popular at the time of the attack, as well as the demographic surrounding the bakery. (We don't even describe the demographic surounding the Pulse night club in the lead of the subject article.) The description of the demographic goes to important aspects of the attack : Who died, a., and who died as a consequence of the timing of the attack, b. For the bakery bombing article, this information appears in the lead, either offering a precedent or at least a strong suggestion about perhaps how similar information regarding the Pulse night club shooting should/could be treated. maslowsneeds🌈 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both in the lede. The FBI will give its view of relationship of motives with the results of the crime. 178.232.26.137 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both I'm 99% sure this wasn't due to hate against them as a minority group, but Latinos unquestionably were the majority here, which made this a distinctly different and more widely-covered story from those where they weren't. Many reliable opinion pieces make this outcome a defining element, so we should reflect that, as we do with the gay angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, June 25, 2016 (UTC)  7
• C. How much deeper is this to go, what eye colour the victims had? Add if authorities list race and ethnicity as a motivating factor. Zaostao (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• B or A - I don't feel that mere mention in the lead necessarily implies motive. If it does, we should also remove mention of LGBT from the lead (and that actually precedes Hispanic by one sentence). To me, this is merely a brief and concise statement of the demographics of the dead, nothing more.
  For comparison, Shooting of Michael Brown states in the second sentence that Brown was black and Wilson is white, but that does not imply that Wilson shot Brown because he was black (and there has been no evidence of racism in Wilson). Likewise Shooting of Samuel DuBose, except that it's the first sentence. They are not exactly the same situation as this, being included in the larger debate about cops killing blacks, but they are close enough for this comparison. Inclusion in the lead does not necessarily imply motive.
  I wouldn't have a problem with moving "Hispanic" to the second paragraph to de-emphasize it, but the threshold for inclusion in the third sentence is lower than that of the first.
  Latin Night is an explanation for why most of the dead were Hispanic, and seems too incidental for the lead. But it doesn't seem to do any harm, so I could also support A if it improves flow—"Most of the victims were Hispanic" seems a bit terse. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Both. According to the article Orlando, Florida, 28.4% of Orlando residents are Hispanic, whereas, according to this article, "[o]ver 90% of victims were of Hispanic background." This is a huge discrepancy that must be addressed, including in the lead. The media has frequently mentioned the Hispanic/Latino/-a and Puerto Rican background of the victims. So should we. Failing to do so is an egregious case of minority erasure. Many Wiki readers share this background and would very much be interested in this information. The media has consistently mentioned Latin Night in the context of the Hispanic/Latino/-a background of the victims. So should we. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• I definitely think option B should be picked, as it seems to be a highly important aspect of the event. It's not like the lead section is currently overly long. Option A may also be picked if it improves on the wording. Actually, listing both may be the easiest way to communicate the context of the event. The article is about the entire event, after all. ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option A - This was a crime against the LGBT community rather than Hispanics. So although the information is not relevant, it is factual and informative for the article. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option A (use both) - Both are pertinent and importand to the understanding of the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option A I don't see a problem with this being included in the lead, or being "lead material," as it seems this is plainly true and correct information and is a big part of the story. United States Man (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Option D – Looking again, I seem to fall in favor of just mentioning that it was Latin Night. Even before seeing this option, I found myself second-guessing my first choice. United States Man (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• C, or possibly B. It is noteworthy that most of the people killed were Hispanic and it should be mentioned in the article, however there is no indication that that had anything to do with the motivation for the shooting so it should not be mentioned in the lead as it would tend to mislead readers into thinking that it is tied to motivation. The applicable policy section is WP:UNDUE. If the weight of consensus is that it should be included, then there is still no reason to mention that the club was hosting Latin night. It's fairly trivial. Nightclubs frequently have themed event like ladies' night, college night, and so on. It should simply be mentioned as a detail in the body of the article. - MrX 14:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option D – Keep it succinct in the lead and with no race baiting. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In effect, you are defining any acknowledgment of race or ethnicity as "race baiting." One might call that a microaggression, at the very least. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Option D It keeps things simple. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both (A) Well sourced and relevant.--agr (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• A - An explanation of the facts without any "strings". It explains the dominance of Latin victims. Buster Seven Talk 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

"of Hispanic descent" should just be "Hispanic", though. What the victims' parents and grandparents were doesn't matter as much as what the victims were. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Some victims were US of Hispanic background, some were actual citizens of Hispanic countries, a few I think were even 'illegals'. I think that was the original logic of the 'Hispanic descent'. I don't know what term covers everyone and is apt in a US context. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no Hispanic countries, just Spanish-speaking countries that make you Hispanic if you or your ancestors come to the US. At least as far as Hispanic and Latino Americans (the current pipelink) goes. If some weren't American, it might be best to lead to plain Hispanic. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, one can speak of "Hispanic countries." See, e.g., Google Scholar and Hispanic. There is extraordinary variety among those with a Hispanic/Latino/-a/Spanish background with regard both to degree of identification with these (and many more such) terms and to degree of identification with and participation in the corresponding cultures. And even that is a stunning oversimplification. "Of Hispanic descent" is a not too unreasonable compromise that makes for halfway-decent prose.  Antinoos69 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mainly agree with Antinoos69, but the point is that the victims had a variety of 'Hispanic' ancestries or citizenships. In Europe it is sometimes necessary to clarify whether one means actual citizenship (eg Irish) or 'ancestry'. Whatever term includes all victims most accurately and efficiently should be used. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Latinos call themselves Latino or Hispanic. See how Wikipedia handled describing members of League of United Latin American Citizens. If we just looked to precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia for guidance, maybe these discussions wouldn't be so torturous. maslowsneeds🌈 13:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As you begin your first sentence with "Latinos," you set up something of a tautology. If, instead, we begin with something like "those with a Hispanic/Latino/-a/Spanish background," a very different picture emerges. In the U.S., for example, some such people call themselves simply Americans, rejecting these other labels. And, though I tried very obliquely to suggest it, my previous comments didn't explicitly mention the many ways of identifying with the various indigenous peoples of the Americas, let alone discuss the possible relationship(s) between the two sets of identities. Things are far more complex than your comments indicate. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discretionary Sanctions

• I've removed the discretionary sanctions notice from the top of the talk page. A recent discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard found that this article does not fall under the scope of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Mike V • Talk 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike V Almost assuredly this article would still be subject to discretionary sanctions via WP:ARBAPDS and/or WP:ARBGC, though perhaps not subject to the 1RR restriction for the middle eastern topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is (supposed to be) about a mass shooting, not gun control or politics. Besides, most everyone is editing in good faith, so there should be no need for any such measures. - MrX 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, as the article subject is not about gun control or political parties/people. We don't have discretionary topics on similar topics such as the Columbine High School Shooting. Mike V • Talk 20:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a note to add: neither of those cases use the "broadly construed" language for the discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mike V. This article clearly falls under BLP discretionary sanctions because so many living and recently dead people are involved in the article (including family and friends of the living and recently deceased). {{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp}} would be the appropriate template for this type of article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

While discretionary sanctions might be permitted under that rationale, I don't think it's necessary to apply them to this article right now. Overall, recent editing has been quite cordial and there have been very little disputes over content. Discretionary sanctions should be used to curtail active disruption and not as a preemptive measure. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mike V. I do not follow your logic. The DSs are already in place for BLPs. The thin banner is merely a subtle reminder for those editors that are unaware of it. These banners are to avoid problems, not create them. I feel it is best to avoid problems by following procedures that are in place rather than putting out fires after the fact. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the logic is really simple: Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not look for ways to punish people. In my opinion, best practice is to model the behavior you wish others to emulate. The editing and discussion on this article have been remarkably positive, considering the nature of the subject.- MrX 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are authorized by the arbitration committee for specific topics. However, that does not mean that sanctions are in effect for all articles under that topic. That would require an uninvolved admin to place specific restrictions on this article. (e.g. limit of 1 revert per 24 hours per editor) The banner merely serves as a warning to editors that sanctions can be applied to the article or the editors if needed. Currently, there is minimal disruption so I don't think the situation warrants a warning to users about the possibility of sanctions. It's typically only placed on articles that are experiencing active disruption and where a warning is necessary. Mike V • Talk 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've removed the DS notice before, I agree with Mike's removal now. It helps to prevent silly "gotcha!" games. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the editing of this article has been sensible so discretionary sanctions are not needed anyway. The link to ISIL is at best tenuous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

49 or 50

The intro says 49 people were killed. But the Casualties section, says 50. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

50 includes the shooter, I've made this clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing a catagory

Someone has put in the catagorys "Citation overkill from June 2016". It looks like vandalism and I can't seem to remove it myself. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, a puzzle, as it isn't in the categories of the HTML. Can anyone fix and explain this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it either. It isn't anywhere in the article that I can see. United States Man (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Somebody put a template:citekill next to some cites. It links to an essay that does not represent broad consensus so I removed it.- MrX 18:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is rather bloated, but we don't need a tag to tell us that. That's just more stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Are we consensual enough on the motive yet?

There's a note in the motive field of the infobox pointing to a discussion way back in Archive 2. Things are much clearer now, per the 911 transcripts. Time to add? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Given the ongoing RfCs and mudslinging over them, I would say not. The infobox permits only simple statements about the motive and there may have been a range of motives for the Orlando shooting. Also, Florida police may take months to conclude an official investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What "range of motives" are you talking about? He declared his allegiance to ISIS and expressed his hatred of homosexuals. What other motives can there be? Avangion (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Those two are in the range. He also allegedly expressed hatred of Hispanics, Jews, blacks and women. Also in the range (but the last three don't fit the plot, so mostly ignored). The anti-bombing is still the only one he explicitly explained to police, hostages and his Facebook friends. I guess that makes it in the range to people who'd rather not trust a terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

He may have other motives, but what he know now for sure is what he said at the scene: the attack was in the name of ISIL, and as you said in retaliation for the bombing. Wikipedia could be always be modified in the future if a thorough investigation produces some hard evidence that his attack was for another reason. Avangion (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're waiting for Florida to finish, should the note say that, rather than point to an old semi-hidden discussion that says we're waiting for clarity, reliable reports and the FBI? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

And if we're not waiting for Florida, this would be a good place to reestablish what we are waiting for, and point the updated note. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, and I think Ianmacm's points are spot on.- MrX 19:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gone with this, then. Fair enough? Also, does a Wikilink in a hidden note make sense to the right software? It doesn't to mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing works inside a hidden comment. Come to think of it, no links work in the editor, which is the only place you can see hidden comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but technology surprises me sometimes. Unlinked, if only to save four bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Recent change to the lead

I am opening this section so that Avangion can discuss their proposed change to the lead. The lead has been pretty stable for a while. I don't think the changes improve the lead or accurately summarize the rest of the article.- MrX 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am no longer supporting my change in the lead sentence. However I am for including the lone wolf reference in the introduction, which I have done in a recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avangion (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the CIA talking about wolves, it was Spencer Ackerman, a writer for The Guardian. Brennan just described what Ackerman (and others) would call a lone wolf. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: This was my own damn fault. Those "finger quotes" misled me. Sorry to pass the confusion on. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

If it actually is well-attributed instead of something I fucked up, let's see an actual quoted sentence, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Given the sensitivity of this issue, a phrase like "lone wolf terrorist attack" needs solid sourcing. Mateen acted on his own, nobody is really denying this now, but there is still the problem of describing the actions of a mentally unstable person as a terrorist attack, hence the ongoing RfC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you calling him mentally unstable? That is a quote from a family member and not from a doctor. If you want a very high standard for describing something as a lone wolf terrorist attack, you should also have that same standard for calling someone mentally unstable. Avangion (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Hillary and Trump campaigns have called it an act of terror, and Obama described as an act of terror and hate. I think it's uncontroversial to call it a terrorist attack. Avangion (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Also, it's distracting to have it in the first sentence, and really doesn't tell readers anything that the lead already does by referring to the (singular) shooter.- MrX 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lone wolf terror attack refers to the fact that it was done completely separate from ISIS (no logistical support, no notification, etc.) but in the name of ISIS. ISIS took credit for the attack. Naming it a lone wolf says all of these things in just two words. Avangion (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It was seven words. And nobody important said them. Claiming Jeh Johnson did took thirteen words. The CIA bit is eighteen words, saving us a whopping two. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

If my suggested phrasing were used in the lead sentence, readers would have all that information in the first sentence. That was my point. My including it elsewhere in the article was my attempt at a good faith compromise. Avangion (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It was definitely worth a shot. The few who only read the first sentence would have learned more. The many who can handle a whole lead wouldn't know the CIA vouched for this fact, or even investigated it, though (redundant). I'm all for reducing wordiness, but not if it costs information. The phrase itself carries extra weight in connotation, and whether it invokes contempt or admiration depends on the reader's tendency to boo Gmork or cheer Stark. Aside from guns and men, perhaps nothing is more polarizing than wolves. We can't avoid plain talk of the first two, but we should avoid clichés and idioms (and maybe minimize links to substandard articles). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Aye. There's a Jeh Johnson attribution now, gleaned from the wholly hypothetical "When you're dealing with home-grown, bound extremism, the so-called lone wolf, lone actor, it is the case that almost always somebody close to that person saw the signs, somebody close to that person was aware of the gun purchase, saw suspicious behavior which is why our efforts to build bridges to various communities around this country are so important." It's closer, but still not close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Having waded through an enormous amount of RSS on Mateen, I'm persuaded that his attack had nothing to do with Ramadan, but a lot to do with his conflicts over his own bisexuality. This sort of self-hatred isn't unusual. He was also clearly mentally unstable, violent from a very young age, a wife beater, his behavior absent from any neurlogical mediation. I would hope the Wikipedia article could define this aspect of his behavior. Activist (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If and when reliable sources are able to confirm his alleged bi- or homo-sexuality then we can cover that aspect more than is already indulged. Computationsaysno (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

On the removal of link to 2016 Ramadan attacks

Link to 2016 Ramadan attacks is sourced to this [5] article in today's New York Times. This [6] article in today's Daily Beast. I assume that editors removing the link have been celebrating the Fourth of July (instead of, you know, crouching over an iPad reading the paper). To be clear: the assertion is not that ISIS ordered the Orlando attack, it is simply an assertion that as with the 2015 Ramadan attacks, jihadist propaganda media urge attacks during Ramadan, and the assertion by reliable journalists that the Orlando attack fits the pattern of an uptick in Islamist-inspired attacks during Ramadan. Please do not remove this link again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That it occurred during Ramadan does not mean it occurred because it was Ramadan. There needs to be an explicit link between the holiday and the motivation/reason for the attack. Otherwise it becomes an indiscriminate list of all attacks during Ramadan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I provided 2 RS making the link explicit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast is QUESTIONABLE afaik. The NYTimes pieces doesn't say it happened because of Ramadan, just that it happened during Ramadan. It implies a link, but nothing more. "Some drew links between those forces and Omar Mateen, the Orlando gunman." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: There are sources, such as this one on CNN, but it dates from the day after the shooting and things have moved on since then. Authorities no longer believe that this attack had anything to do with ISIL, and if you look closely at the CNN source it does not claim that Mateen was motivated by Ramadan. The CNN source is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where if event B followed event A, there was a link between the two. This is another red herring. An attack during Ramadan is not necessarily a Ramadan attack. This is an example of Correlation does not imply causation or cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All that the two sources mentioned say is that the attacks occurred during Ramadan. Neither say that Mateen was directly motivated by Ramadan and since he is dead we are never going to know anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• The fact remains that multiple major media sources are describing the Orlando attack as one of a number of jihadist attacks that appear to be or may have been inspired by Ramadan-related jihad propaganda. We need to include this in the article. We do not need to judge whether it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or a legitimate connection. We need to link to 2016 Ramadan attacks, either in the see also section or with a statement in the body of the article to the effect that many analysts regard it as possibly inspired by jihad propaganda urging attacks during Ramadan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks did not occur during Ramadan, or the 7 July 2005 London bombing, or the Charlie Hebdo or Paris or Brussels attacks. The media hasn't said that Omar Mateen's actions were linked to Ramadan. This is a cherry picking fallacy. Time for some basic training in cause and effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I await a policy-based justification for your repeated removal of the link to 2016 Ramadan attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You created 2016 Ramadan attacks earlier today, and as I said at Talk:2016 Ramadan attacks, "This entire article is based on a misunderstanding of Correlation does not imply causation. No serious academic journal would publish this article because it is an indiscriminate list of events that occurred during Ramadan."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm neutral (and open to being convinced one way or the other) on whether this should be included as a see also link on this article, but the Orlando shooting does not belong on 2016 Ramadan attacks for reasons already explained above.- MrX 20:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If this isn't worthy of that, that isn't worthy of this. Relevance is a two-way street. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.- MrX 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just my judgment, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

• 2016 Ramadan attacks is a heap of WP:OR that could easily create a misleading impression. When you look at the small print, the sourcing is saying only that the attacks occurred during Ramadan, not that they were caused by Ramadan. By this logic, we could add the 9/11 attacks to the article List of attacks that did not occur during Ramadan.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• More support for considering this a Ramadan attack, and including in article here: [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Says it's the second attack during Ramadan tied to ISIS, not the second anything tied to Ramadan. And then it talks about Ramadan and Adnani's call (which also has next to nothing to do with Ramadan) but doesn't tie this to that, either, except by paragraph proximity. That doesn't count for much. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Agree. So far this is OR to the best if my understanding. Tempted to AFD the Ramadan list article to be honest. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd get my vote. Shit happens every month, every year, every century. This particular shit is already covered in List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Sad to say, but barely a week goes by nowadays without violence by people who have been taught that killing civilians will make Allah so proud of them. Since this has been become a 52 week a year sport with no break, listing attacks that occurred during Ramadan is fallacious unless strong RS is available that the attackers were actually motivated by the fact that the calendar on the wall said "Ramadan". The article in question has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Ramadan attacks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Barely a day for American men committing mass shootings too. Sad. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And American mothers with their unlicensed butcher knives. Still in second (Google still asks did I mean "woman murdered"), but fairly common. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

One of the attackers in the 2016 Gulshan attack said "See you all in heaven".[8] They really do believe that they are going to heaven after doing things like this. It cannot be stressed often enough that ordinary Muslims are just as sick and tired of this type of behavior as everyone else. The problem for Wikipedia is how to get across the message that this type of act is inspired by misuse of Islam for political ends, and to avoid falling into the "all Muslims are terrorists" trap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep saying stuff like that, I guess? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Same could be said of all religious-based killing and hate. Computationsaysno (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Would the editors here care to comment on the part of the NY Times article from E.M.Gregory's link [9] that said,

"Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims dedicated to fasting and prayer, has historically been a time when both Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State have escalated attacks."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob K31416, for that ray of evidence-based, policy-based, sourced argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said in the deletion discussion: "Then that should be something that can be noted in the Ramadan article, not demonstrated with this article. There is a "crime rates" section. We could merge all the necessary information there. Or we could probably start a brand-new section describing an apparent link to Ramadan and Islamic terrorism. My point is, we don't need a redundant article(s) like this one whose purpose is already technically fulfilled by the List of Islamist terrorist attacks article and sub-articles." Parsley Man (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't stand out as a particularly busy month in List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Not to me, anyway. I might be missing something, or that list might. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

• Except, Hulk, your mere, unsupported, non-policy-based opinion has no weight. Opinions like that of Fawaz Gerges published in the International Business Times are what counts in deciding what goes on the page. He says: "Al-Qaida, its various affiliates and now ISIS use Ramadan as a... marker to inspire and motivate their followers and supporters worldwide." [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about historic escalation. The list supported that not apparently existing. Motivation and inspiration are another ball of wax. Gerges' opinion on that is probably sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, July 5, 2016 (UTC)

Some people are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode. ISIL and similar groups are always calling for violence during Ramadan, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Orlando shooting or any other attack was linked to the call. There is an attempt to use the sourcing to imply that there is a link, but that isn't what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

From a NY Times article,[11]

"As the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan approached, jihadist propagandists told their followers that it was a good time to kill people.

The spokesman for the Islamic State said in late May that jihadists should “make it, with God’s permission, a month of pain for infidels everywhere.” Another extremist distributed a manual for using poisons, adding, in poor English: “Dont forget Ramadan is close, the month of victories.”

A bloody month it has been, with terrorist attacks killing and wounding hundreds of people in Orlando, Fla.; Istanbul; Dhaka, Bangladesh; and now Baghdad,..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but since the CIA ruled out a link between Mateen and ISIL, and ISIL boasts about attacks that it had nothing to do with, there is a need to be cautious here. One of the things that the article does not need is a vague and speculative link to ISIL based on cherry picking which proves nothing. Even the New York Times does not seem to be immune from Correlation does not imply causation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• The New York Times article isn't much different from this Daily Mail article, which comes with a handy map implying that all of the attacks were linked, which is far from clear. It's unlikely that the Orlando shooting is part of ISIL's "four weeks of pain for infidels", but this hasn't stopped the media from saying it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Shiraz Maher of King's College London describes Mateen as a "lone wolf" who was "roused" by al-Adnani's "clarion call" to attack non-believer's during Ramadan.[12]. In an essay published by the BBC. There is ample sourcing to justify a carefully-worded linkage to 2016 Ramadan attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There simply isn't enough evidence from the investigation itself to say what caused the shooting for the time being, other than that Omar Mateen fancied himself as a Jihadi warrior after reading a few radical Islamic websites. I tend to ignore what media talking heads say about mass shootings in the immediate aftermath, because they are often space fillers for newspaper columns and 24 hour television channels. They are often not very informative or accurate and it is best to wait for the official investigation to conclude. The BBC article is a classic piece of media speculation. After Sandy Hook, the media talking heads had a field day speculating about the motive, but when the official report was published, it could not pin down a clear reason why Adam Lanza did it. Sometimes real life is less satisfying than an episode of Columbo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ian, we are not required to sit in judgment of the deepest motive of a culprit's heart; God has an exclusive on that. Here we not not aspire to absolute knowing, nor do we weigh an individual editor's judgement of which "talking heads" are worthy of our trust. What we do - and it is difficult but not impossible - is to summarize in an evenhanded way the best judgment of Reliable Sources. We all know that motives are often complex and multiple. We can state that simply and fairly by describing the several ideas about motivations in a case. But when, as here, a critical mass of sources agree on a motive - and especially when the direct testimony of the perp is among those sources - it belongs in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no rush and an official report is going to take months. This article will still be here in a year or two's time, by which time a lot of this month's media speculation may look dated. At best, the media has speculated a link to Ramadan without any firm evidence that there was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim that an ongoing FBI investigation has reached a conclusion

The sentence that states, "Initial reports said he may have been a patron of the nightclub and used gay dating websites and apps, but a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation found no credible evidence to substantiate these claims." wrongly indicates that the FBI investigation has reached a conclusion. Furthermore, the sentence is unsourced. Pooua (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is cited later on in the article per WP:LEADCITE. The FBI has moved away from the theory that Mateen was homosexual, but it is still early days and a full report may take months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Quit glorifying the shooter!

My God Why do you have paragraph after paragraph about the shooter and only list names and ages of victims. That's fucked up! Why don't we get as much information about the beautiful lives lost and honor THEM? For the Perpetrator, it should just read something like: " a 27 year-old individual who was Enamored with a terrorist group. Period. Don't even list his name. Kirstalie2 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerned about this "glorification" of the shooter? Take the issue to WP:VPP. Parsley Man (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Kirstalie2 the short answer is simply that is how the event is being reported, with lots and lots of details all about the perpetrator and very little about the victims except as a group. If the majority of sources reported on each of the victims in detail instead the article would reflect that. Computationsaysno (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And it's being reported like that because the shooter is always the one who causes the shooting, making him far more central to the event. Hypothetically replace a group of people in the wrong place at the wrong time with another random bunch, and the story will stay more or less the same. Replace the shooter with a random guy, and the shooting won't happen at all, or at least differently. It's just about who did the thing, not who's fucked up and who's beautiful (everyone's a bit of both, I think). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that the shooter is not particularly protected by any expectation of privacy, while the victims and especially their families do retain the right to that expectation. We do not generally report details concerning victims of crime (even if they appear in reliable sources) unless they are notable for some other reason and are thus high-profile. General Ization ^Talk 04:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty standard objection which gets raised at some point. There is clear evidence that some mass shooters do it for the fame and notoriety that it will bring, and sadly their actions will always be notable. However, when it comes to damnatio memoriae, Wikipedia is bound by WP:NOTCENSORED, which says "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content." Long obituaries of the victims are not within the scope of the article, and there would be some privacy concerns for the relatives of the victims if the article did this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a sad, sad world we live in... Parsley Man (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

On the bright side, the dead don't live here, so don't know we think they're notorious. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

Get as Much Information about each victim

For each victim there needs to be a paragraph about who they were, what they did in life, what their dreams were, etc. Honor THRM not the perpetrator of this crime.  Kirstalie2 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you can take those concerns to WP:VPP. Parsley Man (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The media tends not to dig too deeply into random victims' pasts. The government and police might, but don't tell the media. The public typically just hears kind words from their friends and family, if anything. If we even could scrounge enough together for a paragraph each, those paragraphs would lean toward flattery.

You'll virtually never read about their drug use, browsing habits, criminal records, fondness of slurs, rocky relationships or other such "honourable" or "glorious" dirty laundry, so we can never write a fair summary of who they actually were. And if we somehow did, you know enough people would want the shameful bits deleted. Not worth the digging. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to "scrounge." Even the most cursory browser search will yield multiple websites providing a name, picture, and brief paragraph's worth of information on each of the 49 victims, like this one. The slightest effort suffices. Just saying. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You've made a slight effort, now people who want to read kind words from friends and family can check the talk page and click the link. That does suffice.

Oddly enough, the article currently has 49 paragraphs, or 50 if you count the list. Seems undue weight, doubling up with how the sweet guy had three chihuahuas, the one who always smiled was learning English and the good person and good brother worked at a marketing firm. Might be better to keep these in a "Friends and family" subsection of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

And those desperate to sate their unquenchable thirst for the tabloid dirt on minority victims of a mass shooting can … well, do whatever it is that you spend your time doing. In any case, having to hunt through mounds of soon-to-be-archived talk pages hardly seems to suffice. Just saying. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The "check the talk page and click the link" thing did strike me as a little odd, especially coming from an astute editor like the Hulk. My take is that "people who want to read kind words from friends and family" can use Google search. Wikipedia is not the go-to for any kind of information one might want. We also don't test consumer products or compete with the Yellow Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not thirsty for dirt or pleasantries. Their names and ages quench me just fine. Just saying only talking about how wonderful they all were for 49 paragraphs wouldn't present a neutral point of view.

If the talk page seems too tucked away and you don't want to add these to the reactions, maybe put that list in "External links"? Or use it to summarize in "List of (the) dead" that all have been described as kind, loving and full of joy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

You mischaracterize the list, which includes the all-so-important photos, as well as the occupations, significant others, educational pursuits, and other info on various victims. Perhaps you couldn't care less about any of it, but I can personally assure you that others care a great deal. Such lists put out by respected media follow standard conventions for reporting on victims. Your biases, purely ideological or otherwise, is blinding you to such realities, as it is to the fact that I had already added a link to the "External links" section long before you posted your comment. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The last three are arguably useful, but copyrighted photos are out the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Victims list format

The RfC is closed to include the list of victims. However, no resolution on format, and I for one prefer the box format. As this is purely cosmetic/layout, I don't see a need for another RfC. Therefore, straw poll.

1 - Status quo plain text
2 - Collapsed box format - Layout would be slightly different from that example, as the Perpetrator section has been moved below the Aftermath section. If anyone objects to the box title as shown, I guess we could try to resolve that here, too.
[other] - Roll your own.

• 2 - Improved appearance. Little space used unless the reader wishes to see the list. I'm fine with the box title (I wrote it). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Plain text Consistent with the rest of the article, and fairly tidy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, July 7, 2016 (UTC)