Talk:2019 El Paso shooting

Include or exclude victim names

Should the article include a list of dead victims' names? El_C 23:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include – This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. I believe that victim names should be included in this article. They are a pertinent part of the story / event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude with the same reasoning from multiple other articles where we had this debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include of course, the vast majority of articles on mass shootings include a listing of the dead. When we only sensationalize the perpetrator, we provide undue weight on them over the victims of their crime. Articles must have a neutral point of view, and that includes providing information about the victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The alternative solution to the conundrum you describe would of course be not to sensationalize perpetrators. You seem to be arguing for a "two wrongs make a right" kind of solution. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I guess Wikipedia believes two wrongs make a right in general... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't see how WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV support your position that balancing excessive information about perpetrators with excessive information about victims is an appropriate course of action. It's a very counterintuitive argument to make, really, that making an article worse in the opposite way to the way it is already bad would somehow improve it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
        • TompaDompa—the problem that those have that wish to see the victim names omitted is that no Wikipedia policy supports that. You are doing it on your own. Your impetus to omit victim names is a concoction that you are creating out of thin air. It has no basis in policy and it is at odds with standard practice. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I would refer you to WP:NOT: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I would even go so far as to say you're looking at the whole thing backwards. We don't need reasons to omit information; omitting information is the default. We need reasons to include information. See WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include dead Mentioned in almost every lead sentence and headline, including our own, silly not to elaborate later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk: Are you saying that the names of the victims are appearing in lead sentences and/or headlines? Can you offer an example? That is what we are discussing here, not numbers. General Ization ^Talk 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  No, their deaths lead. This begs the question of who they were. That is answered later/lower. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  And can be answered quite thoroughly by clicking a link in our article to review our sources; hardly a case of suppression. General Ization ^Talk 19:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  "And can be answered quite thoroughly by clicking a link in our article to review our sources; hardly a case of suppression." You are not answering the question—why should our article omit the names of the victims? You are suggesting that there are workarounds. A "workaround" would be that a reader could click on a link to a source. But why shouldn't the names of the victims be included in the article? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.
  Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.
  For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing, and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[1] It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  All dead have no human rights. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Then why are desecrating a corpse, theft from a body, and organ theft illegal? Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Offends the living. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Not quite what WP:BDP has to say about it, and the families of the dead certainly do. General Ization ^Talk 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, don't name relatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Non sequitur. I haven't voiced a human rights argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Said they hadn't waived privacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

• Include per User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include per Nice4What. The victim names are an important part of this event. Davey2116 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude as the OP of this Talk section; while probably clear from my comments, adding for convenient !vote assessment. General Ization ^Talk 19:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per Mandruss Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. The names of people none of us had heard of before the shooting do not add anything to the readers' understanding of the topic, which is the shooting itself. Lists of victims further impede the readability of the article and detract from the visual appeal by taking up a large amount of visual space. I do not find the arguments for inclusion particularly persuasive; they tend to boil down to either (1) we usually include the names or (2) the names are reported by WP:Reliable sources. The first I consider irrelevant, because I think this is an instance where quality is more important than consistency. The second seems to me to be rooted in a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work; the fact that some piece of information can be found in reliable sources does not in and of itself constitute a reason to add it to Wikipedia, let alone any specific article (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.), or to put it another way: verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being included. I think everyone understands this intuitively—the weather is mentioned in WP:Reliable sources every day, but I don't believe anybody thinks that that means that we should add each day's weather to Wikipedia—but some people fail to apply this in some instances.
  In the absence of good reasons to include the information, we should refrain from including it. The existence of reasons to exclude the information gives further weight to the case for not including the information.

  Describing the demographic characteristics of the victims as a group is of course a completely different story. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  The good reason is they are the "who". The story is about them. Same plain crucial goodness as when and where (about which we could also be purposely vague). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  That seems to me to be a reason to describe them as a group, not to list their names. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Groups are too nebulous. Who were they all? Non-Canadian North Americans of mixed gender, 2 to 82? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  You won't learn that ("who" they all were) from their names and ages, and this article will not contain biographies of each and every victim. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)w

  Better than nothing, or even less. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Also: this is not a "story" (in the sense of a news story or a magazine article), and this article is not "about them", but about an event (a horrific one, but an event just the same). This is an encyclopedic article. The distinction is crucial. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  What makes it horrific beside the characters, plot and setting? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  See above. Sorry if you don't think the article will fulfill your entertainment goals without names of the victims. General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Story doesn't mean fun, or fake or scripted. I am not amused. Just trying to inform. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Then give meaningful information. Names are data, and this is not an almanac. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  What is precise Mountain Daylight Time doing here, then? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  False equivalence and whataboutism. You know better than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bullshit. Stories have Five Ws. They all matter the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. We disagree on the definition of "who" as it pertains to Wikipedia content. And we always will. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We make a great team. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, August 4, 2019 (UTC) Yeah. Jane, you ignorant slut. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Classic Tony, ladies and gentlemen! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, August 4, 2019 (UTC) And now I finally have a code name for you, although you may not like its gender. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Get off the stage! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

• Include as victim names are on-topic for this article and no Wikipedia policy suggests that we should omit such information. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. The deceased were not notable in life. Their names will add nothing to readers' understanding of the event. Listing age/race/gender is sufficient to convey the impact of the crime. WWGB (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The deceased were not notable in life." Notability of decedents would be irrelevant to the question we are addressing. Names of decedents would be "content" in this article. WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude the names, but include information about the victims. The names of the victims do not add any useful information to the reader. Descriptions of the victims, however, would. How many children, how many old people, their races, occupations, these sorts of details tell the reader what was lost–the damage that was done–in El Paso, Texas on August 3, 2019. A list of names is empty trivia factoids; instead, tell the reader the important information. Per WP:SUMMARY. – Levivich 01:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know if you are aware of it, Levivich, but you haven't provided a reason that we should omit the victim names. You are saying that "[t]he names of the victims do not add any useful information to the reader". You certainly do not know that, as you are but one reader. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Let's engage in a hypothetical. What "useful information" do you, as another reader, expect to learn as a result of including the victims' names, other than their names, and how would the names be useful to you? General Ization ^Talk 01:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  You are engaging in fiction-writing. The deliberate omission of material that is squarely on the topic of the article results in fiction. We aim for the whole picture. We're not interested in creative writing. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bus stop, one reason to omit the victim names is so that this article doesn't become the top google result for their names. Another reason is that if I tell you "John Smith was a victim", that doesn't really tell you anything unless you know who John Smith is. If I tell you "a mom and dad died while shielding their child from gunfire", that tells you something about the victims, and it doesn't matter what their names are. If I tell you the names of that mom, dad, and child, it won't add anything to your understanding of the topic unless you know who they are. Meanwhile, the child will grow up with their top google hit being how their parents died, and that's sad. Let's not do that to this kid, for example. Don't martyr the victims, I say; let them have their privacy. Nobody wants to be known for having died in a mass shooting. Anyway, those are my reasons. – Levivich 19:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good point - including the names is violating the privacy of the victims' families. Media sources stating the names doesn't justify us doing so - we'd be pushing their names higher up searches on Google. Jim Michael (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - the who part of the five Ws in regard to the victims of this mass shooting is people in Walmart in El Paso. If there's proof that the shooter targeted a particular demographic there, we should add that as well. The names are meaningless to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  "The names are meaningless to over 99% of readers." You are only one reader. That's what I call extrapolation! Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  It's clear that the names are meaningless to over 99% of readers - they're people whom they've never previously heard of whose names are only in the media due to them having been unlucky enough to be victims of a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh God, it's those two guys from the Virginia Beach massacre marathon! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - per Mandruss, TompaDompa and Levivich. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Some articles include victim names, and some don't. Recent school shooting articles do include victim names, while aircraft accident articles typically only include people who have Wikipedia articles and flight crew. Will this have implications for the victim lists in say Columbine, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, etc? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  @WhisperToMe: The short answer is "no". As I stated above: This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. So, by consensus, each article is decided independently. That's the consensus at this point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include per Bus stop. Also, the dead are important subjects of this event, obviously, they were the most affected by the event. They should be given top billing along with the perpetrator. 20 is not a huge number of names. I'd like to see more detail (prose) beyond names, as long as the names, and the other details, are covered in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include Instead of doing a throughout description of the victims, consider adding the following image as a thumb to the article , its relevat to the readers and simple enough to not compromise privacies. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  File:El Paso shooting victims.png

  This is a clear COPYVIO. Each of the images is owned by a copyright holder. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude – As in many of these discussions, those in favor of inclusion lob comments that claim the names "are pertinent" and "important" but fail to adequately explain why. Some also like to refer to established precedence in other articles, but Mandruss' comment above exposes flaws in this assertion. Listing the names does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of what happened, and until a convincing argument demonstrates otherwise, these comments will do little to sway the opposition. Pointing out that the perpetrator's name is mentioned doesn't help that argument either. Comparing the perpetrator's role to the victims' as if both were of the same logical equivalence is a form of false equivalence. One is voluntary, while the other is involuntary. Too much detail involving random victims can easily cross into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. That's a path best avoided. Inclusionists should instead focus on why the names hold encyclopedic relevance, backing claims with secondary, academic sources as opposed to breaking news stories. It's the best chance to advance a rather flawed (if not weak) position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include - relative and sourceable information about the shooting, and does not go against any Wikipedia policy, which has been explained before. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude – random victims so particularly WHO is not relevant to the sequence of events. Also the coverage does not usually do this so a list is bad WEIGHT. If a person had no active role or unusual part in the sequence of events, there seems no narrative part to go with the name, it’s just a pointless list of words. I think numbers should be included, as both indicating the scope of it and as WEIGHT mention of number is common, but that’s all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include, obviously, same as for the Dayton shooting and for the same reasons. The names of the victims must always be included unless there are some sort of special and unusual circumstances that require exclusion. The victims names and their stories are extensively covered by multiple RS sources covering this event, and they represent a significant aspect of the story. Excluding the names would be a highly artificial and ideological decision defying both common decency and common sense and violating WP:WEIGHT. None of the sources are suppressing the names and neither should we. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude listing non-notable people, that is anybody that has not or would not qualify for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include the event is notable because of the basic fact that many people were murdered, and made more notable by there being a racist motive. The basic fact is that people were killed, and therefore it matters who it was that was killed. They were individual pepole, not an impersonal group of objects. Since we're not a memorial , we shouldn't go into the details of their life, but it is rational, and encyclopedic to include the basics about each individual to the extent there are reliable sources. That's what makes killing people encyclopedia - worthy , as distinct from killing unnamed animals. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• 

  Wikipedians !vote the finer points of policy

  Exclude I do not care to rehash all the policy mentioned above. If policy was clear cut then there would not be this wall of !votes every time this comes up. Ultimately it will always be a matter of judgement if the pros outweigh the cons. In this case I do not see inclusion as better. Per WP:ONUS not every detail gets included. The information will always be available elsewhere on the internet. These people will not be forgotten. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per the reasons Mandruss stated. ~mitch~ (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

adder ~ plus they are already mentioned in the source of User:Nsk92's edit here, with out searching the internet. ~mitch~ (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. Indiscriminately including victims does not improve the article and goes against the principle of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also note that contrary to the mistaken arguments above, WP:NOT, including WP:NOTMEMORIAL, do indeed apply to all article content, and not merely to whether we should or shouldn't have an entire article on the topic; I could understand being mistaken on that point once or twice due to the fact that WP:NOT is most commonly cited in deletion discussions, but somehow editors determined to memorialize the dead in shooting articles have convinced themselves that WP:NOT doesn't apply to article content, which is not the case. Trying to insert a list of victims into an article is trying to make them subjects of the article, which WP:NOTMEMORIAL clearly forbids. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Important (procedural) question about this discussion and !vote

Let's say that this discussion and !vote ends in "no consensus". (Which actually seems very likely.) What does that mean? That the names are included or excluded? If I recall correctly, a "no consensus" results means that the article stays as is, status quo, with no changes allowed. However, this discussion was brought before the list of names was ever released by reliable sources, etc. And before names were added to the article. In other words, it was "pre-emptive". (In other words, perhaps it was brought prematurely?) If that's the case, then victim names will never be allowed to be added, if a pre-emptive discussion is opened. (That is, if a discussion ensues before reliable sources publish victim lists and, therefore, before victim lists even get added to the article. Controversially or not.) If the end result of a "no consensus" discussion maintains the article at status quo, that seems like an unfair procedure. And a contravention to the "consensus" paradigm. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

See Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting. I think it pretty clearly explains what will happen if there is no consensus. General Ization ^Talk 17:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. And, in fact, avoids / side-steps the over-arching question. That page talks about what happens if you make changes (add a list) before consensus is reached. I am talking about after consensus is reached (i.e., after the discussion closes); where said consensus is "no consensus". In that case, you have altogether ignored the thrust of my question. Which is an unfair process if pre-emptive discussions are held. And lists will never be allowed, as a result. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. What happens to the DS currently applied to this article is generally up to the admin who imposed it, and/or others they may consult. As a courtesy to them, I will not attempt to answer for them. I will address, however, the question of whether the discussion was "pre-emptive". I posted the original comment in this section just after the list of victims was released in the Dayton event and just after I posted a very similar comment on that article's Talk page. The El Paso victims list was released and the first attempt to add it to this article occurred less than 90 minutes a little over two hours later. Both events were prior to the beginning of the structured RfC. So no, it wasn't pre-emptive; it was appropriate anticipation of a decision that would ultimately need to be made. Since you are the editor who began the structured RfC, you could have expressed any thought that it was pre-emptive when you did so. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, "no consensus" is not a consensus; it is the absence of consensus. General Ization ^Talk 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point, entirely. And I am not going to argue with you. Also, what difference does it make if I bring up the topic now, or when I first started the RfC? No difference. "Gaming the system" will not work, in the long run. If that's the case, then these pre-emptive discussions will become "policy" de facto. And that is not how policy is created. Nor how consensus is reached. Particularly this one ("policy"), that has consistently held that there is no policy; and each article is determined, case-by-case. And, if my memory serves correctly, these discussions (this and the Dayton one) were certainly held before reliable sources started to post victim names. We can argue about what exact reliable sources released names at what exact date and time. But, when these discussions started -- I believe, by you -- those lists had not really been published yet (where I come from). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As I already explained (and as you can see for yourself if you care to), I posted my comment at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting (and here) after the first attempt was made to add a list of victims to the Dayton article. You're entitled to your opinions about discretionary sanctions otherwise, but those who must enforce them (or not) will need to comment on whether they are appropriate (or not), or whether my having raised the question was somehow inappropriate as a matter of policy (I don't think so). General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You posted in the section above entitled "Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#List of victim names". You stated: "'When the victim names are released ...", we will need to respect privacy, etc. You posted that before any victim names were published by any reliable sources. Your exact quote: When the names are released, and even though they will have been, we must respect the WP:BLPPRIVACY of the victims and their families.. You used the "future" word "when names are released". And you even used "future perfect" tense (even though they will have been released). You posted all of that before -- and in anticipation of -- names being released. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're under a mistaken impression, that the list would become status quo ante immediately upon being added. It is universally accepted that content must be in the article for some amount of time to acquire status quo ante status. Editors' opinions vary, but all will agree that it's a lot more than "immediately". The one time I've seen an admin get specific, it was NeilN who said about six weeks. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying. That is why I asked my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on WP:ONUS, which reads: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Not to be tautological, but if the result is no consensus to include a list of victim names, then a list of victim names will not be included. My suggestions, again, would be to turn to WP:VL and mold it into policy, one way or the other. It seems counterproductive to do this over and over again, from one mass shooting article to the next. El_C 18:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe you'll be around the next time this comes up at Village Pump, where the chorus of "needs to be evaluated case-by-case" has been deafening. Maybe your persuasive commentary will make a difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. So, why can't we frame the question as "no consensus to exclude the list"? It's all semantics. It can work both ways. My point is that if a pre-emptive argument is posted, it offers no chance of a list being added. Controversially or otherwise. In that case, why have any policies at all? The pre-emptive poster then decides for all. Actually, in spite of policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The principle is that controversial content should not be included without consensus. Not that controversial content should not be excluded without consensus. No, it's not "all semantics". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I really don't get all this about "pre-emptive". There are two ways this can go down.

1. The names are published and somebody adds a list. The list is immediately challenged by reversion, and a consensus to include is required to re-add it. Or,
2. We have the discussion in anticipation of the publishing of the names, which we know will happen, and a consensus to include is required to add the list once they are published.

Exactly the same result, except that #2 may get the list into the article earlier in the case of a consensus to include, since we didn't wait to start the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And when you get "split votes", you never get consensus. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to learn about consensus, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i found this list of the victims on the el paso times [2] see if you can do something with that YatesTucker00090 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think this RfC should be taking place at all for the simple reason that no one has added the victim names to this article. I don't think we should be having an RfC "on principle" and yet at a specific article. It is logical that someone will eventually add the victim names but I don't think we should be having an RfC prematurely because the facts are not even in—how well-supported is this in sources? What is the quality of those sources? Is it presented merely in a "sensationalistic" sort of way and only in tabloid publications? Or can we deduce from the manner of presentation and the quality of sources that the names of the victims are regarded as standard components of this subject? I would abort this RfC until such time that it has applicability specific to this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Be aware that, as has already been explained above, if there is no RfC, there is no consensus; if there is no consensus, a list of names of victims may not be added, and discretionary sanctions may be leveled at anyone who does. Please see (most likely again) Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

From where do you derive that "if there is no consensus, a list of names of victims may not be added"? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, try clicking that blue link, just above ... no, a little to the right ... yeah, that one. General Ization ^Talk 23:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am seeing this for the first time. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. What is the logic behind it? Why would consensus be needed before adding victim names to this article? Has this been discussed elsewhere? Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is discussed (and linked) extensively, including by the uninvolved admin who imposed the DS on this page, in the discussion above. Could I ask you to take a little time out from writing to read it? General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Although I support exclusion of the list, starting a pre-emptive !vote on the issue in order to establish exclusion as the status quo in the event of no consensus seems like a pretty silly example of WP:wikilawyering. 114.124.243.121 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to reread WP:WIKILAWYERING. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. General Ization ^Talk 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• the event is notable because of the basic fact that many people were murdered, and made more notable by there being a racist motive. The basic fact is that people were killed, and therefore it matters who it was that was killed. They were individual pepole, not an impersonal group of objects. Since we're not a memorial , we shouldn't go into the details of their life, but it is rational, and encyclopedic to include the basics about each individual to the extent there are reliable sources. That's what makes killing people encyclopedia - worthy , as distinct from killing unnamed animals. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• DGG—do you care to weigh in to the above RfC with an "Include" or "Exclude" vote? Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thought I was clearly saying 'Include' . It seems it should go above., so I will put it there DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change target from "Latino and Hispanic Americans" to "Latino and Hispanic people"

Mexican victims are not Americans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

At this time there is no reason to conclude that the shooter was targeting people of Mexican nationality, as opposed to people of Hispanic and Latino heritage generally, or that he believed he would find many non-US citizens at a Walmart in El Paso. According to the information published in reliable sources about his "manifesto", his primary motive involved concerns about Hispanic and Latino voters and their effect on the US vote, which implies that he was primarily targeting Hispanic and Latino Americans, not non-citizens. As our knowledge of the shooter's motives may change, so may the content of the target field in the infobox. General Ization ^Talk 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we should have anything in the "target" box. (I didn't even know we had such a box; what a horrible thing!) But if we put anything there it would not be Latino and Hispanic anything; it would be "Mexicans". That's not supposition; that's a literal quote, exactly what he told the police he was doing: trying to kill as many Mexicans as possible. And clearly that's why he drove to El Paso, hundreds of miles from his home: he knew that a Walmart in El Paso would be patronized by many Mexican citizens, as it was. Anyone from a border state like Texas would know that. In fact I am inclined to put "Mexicans" there right now, sourced, unless we decide not to have anything. It isn't often that a gunman tells us exactly who he was targeting. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think he meant people with Mexican nationality and/or citizens of Mexico, or was he using "Mexicans" as a pejorative term for Hispanic and Latino people who may now, or perhaps in the future, vote (which implies they are or would be US citizens)? (It may be a rhetorical question, as I'm not sure we can really know.) I'll take another look at his manifesto. General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that he deliberately drove to a border Walmart, hundreds of miles from his home, proves that he was looking for Mexican citizens. Look, I live in a border town myself - San Diego. If someone was looking to kill Mexican citizens specifically, I can tell you exactly which Walmart they would target. If they were after Mexican-Americans, particularly Mexican-American citizens able to vote (and yes, they might well refer to them as "Mexicans" too), they wouldn't go to the border. They would go to a part of town where Hispanic-Americans live - and I can pretty much tell you where that would be too. This guy chose a border Walmart because he knew there would be many Mexican citizens there. It's not our place to try to pretty up his language or interpret it. He said what he said and his actions show what he meant. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All this being said, the |target= parameter is not really the place to write the why; we have the |motive= parameter for that. I changed it to be more in line with articles such as 7 July 2005 London bombings ("Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London"), Manchester Arena bombing ("Concert-goers"), and Orlando nightclub shooting ("Patrons of Pulse nightclub"). TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, so now it says "Walmart shoppers". That's accurate and uncontroversial so I'm OK with it. It adds nothing of value to the article, but neither do the other examples cited. I'm not sure what the parameter is even there for, but at least this is a good solution for what to put there. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point of the parameter is to distinguish civilian targets from military ones, but I honestly don't know. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "Walmart shoppers" isn't what's meant to be in the infobox. The victims weren't targeting for the reason that they were shopping at Walmart. I suggest we maybe blank that parameter until a consensus is reached? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:51, 5 August 2019 (para)

And now |target= contains yet another variation on the theme. General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with blanking it while we discuss. I will do that and then comment here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What do the sources say were his target? It's not up to us to speculate or analyze, but merely to summarize what the sources say.Nowa (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The gunman himself said his goal was to shoot as many Mexicans as possible. I haven't seen any source say, in its own voice, what the target was. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: what's there do discuss? "Hispanic and Latino Walmart customers" were the target per all the sources and the shooter himself. There's other things that may warrant a discussion, this is not one of them. QuestFour (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Quest, would you mind moving your comment to the discussion poll immediately below? I disagree but I'll do it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, see below. QuestFour (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What to put in the "Target" box

There has been controversy and edit warring about what to put in the “target” line of the infobox. I have blanked it pending agreement here. Suggestions that have been made include:

1. Mexicans - This is what the gunman himself said he was targeting.
2. Hispanic and Latino Americans
3. Latino and Hispanic people
4. Walmart shoppers customers - This is in line with what is done at other such articles where the “target” is listed as “Concert-goers”, “Patrons of Pulse nightclub’’, etc.
5. Leave it blank

Discussion? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• My own preference: #5, leave it blank. I don't think this box adds anything to the article, regardless of whether it is used to mean the gunman's motive (that's already in the infobox) or the people being shot at ("Walmart customers" adds nothing to our understanding of the incident). In fact I would support a move to remove this line from the infobox entirely, but that's a subject for another place. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say option 4. However, is "shoppers" or "customers" the correct term here? QuestFour (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right, "customers" is better. "Shoppers" is PA announcement talk: "attention, Walmart shoppers!" 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is how various news outlets have described the target:--Nowa (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• “Chris Grant, who was wounded in the attack, said the shooter targeted people who appeared to be Hispanic, but let white and black shoppers out of the building. “

  “In Connecticut, Karla Cornejo Villavicencio, 30, said she felt physically sick when she learned that the gunman in El Paso had seemed to have targeted Latinos.”

  “Police believe the El Paso shooter targeted Latinos.”

  “gunman allegedly targeted Hispanics and opened fire in a Walmart”

  “the shooter may have targeted Mexican nationals”

  “the attack Saturday that appeared to target Hispanics”

Sources

• I'm the one who added "Walmart customers", so obviously I support that option. I don't think it would be a big loss to leave it blank, however. The problem with the other ones is that the |target= parameter is not for why they were targeted (we have the |motive= for that), but how they were targeted, going by the use in other articles. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Anything but option 4. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Mexicans He said so, with no apparent reason to lie about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Here are references that he specifically targeted Mexicans.--Nowa (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If he walked in and started shooting at whatever was in front of him, it would have been hard to guarantee that all of the victims were Hispanic (they weren't as we know). So some caution is needed here. The motive may have been some wacky racial theory about Hispanics, but the target was the Walmart shoppers in the Supercenter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ianmacm, I will go ahead and change back the target per the majority vote. QuestFour (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the discussion above is largely based on speculation, and we now have solid RS of the shooter's confessed intention to shoot "Mexicans", we should follow what RS say, not the speculations above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source? Can you please post links to one or more reliable sources here? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My edit, which was reverted even though properly sourced (a real No No), included two good refs, and there are others already used in the article which specifically mention that the shooter confessed that he intended to shoot "Mexicans". He also shot some others, but they were his main target. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, editing the article to your own version while discussion is underway (and is not going your way) is the real No No. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a bold edit and, because I got reverteed, later discovered this thread. We are supposed to seek to improve content, and that's what I did. It's not cool to make fun of good faith efforts. In fact it's pretty disgusting. Note I have not edit warred over this matter, unlike some here who have indeed edit warred to keep their "own version". Now let's just move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree w/ BullRangifer, RS (very good ones I might add) have written the motive motives as "racially-driven" and "targeting Mexicans" as the main subject targets and it should have stayed edited as "Mexicans" ~mitch~ (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are three more from the article: -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he did say that - reported as that he wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible. The number of sources is not important and is not a factor in what we put there. We already describe his motive in the infobox so that's kind of duplicative. Most shooting articles list the group being fired at - concertgoers, bar patrons, etc. - in the target box. My own feeling is that the target box is worse than worthless, adds nothing to the article and is itself a "target" for edit warring, and I would prefer to leave it blank. Failing that, I prefer "Walmart customers".-- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So we just ignore the sources for "target"? We're using the location as the "target". It could have happened at any other venue and the target would still be the same according to the shooter and RS. The "target" was "Mexicans". Refusing to follow RS isn't cool. This is OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Should other incidents at other Walmarts in the days after the incident be included in the Aftermath section?

In the current aftermath of the El Paso shooting the response of Walmart corporate and incidents that have occurred at surrounding stores are still being reported on. While the Aftermath includes the response of corporate and the attempt by a employee to create company change, should there be inclusion of the general amount of potential similar incidents or those attempting to copy/were inspired by the El Paso shooter. These incidents include

1. August 8 - In Springfield, Missouri a 20-year-old man was arrested after wearing body armor and carrying a loaded rifle into a Walmart and recorded himself in the store. He was arrested and charged with making a terrorist threat.

2. August 7 - In Federal Way, Washington a man made threats in a Walmart which caused an evacuation and lock down. It was later discovered that the man was carrying a BB gun and looking for BB gun ammunition, but allegedly made comments about "shooting up the store" while those around him did not know the weapon to be fake.

3. August 7 - An unidentified man walked into a Florida Walmart and asked a clerk "for anything that would kill 200 people", although the man left with those evacuating after the intercom was used to announce for all employees and customers to evacuate the store

These are just a few incidents that I was able to find, and do not include the other incidents of individuals being murdered in the parking lots of the stores or guns being drawn during check out line arguments (which have happened in the same time span). Should they be included in the Aftermath section as it shows either the hypervigiliance that many go into after a shooting (such as the mass evacuation of Times Square on August 7, 2019) or potential copycats/similarities? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I've reverted two of these because there seemed to be problems with WP:NOTNEWS. There need to be direct links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Some kind of causation seems likely. But I would omit unless RS discuss possible causation – with a certain weight, more than one sentence in one source – and I don't see that in the cited sources. Simply mentioning El Paso is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I lean towards Include this type of information. We don't have to give specifics, but it makes sense to indicate that this incident, like many high-profile acts of violence, have spawned copycats in the days after it. Gwenhope (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism

@MelanieN: does not including "he" in the quote of the last sentence in the aftermath section qualifies as WP:PLAG or WP:CV? QuestFour (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not include anything in quotes, because that makes it look like we are quoting him - which we are not; nobody has attributed those specific words to him, only that he was trying to shoot "Mexicans". I have rephrased it and gotten rid of the quotes. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

QuestFour, your edit changed the meaning completely, by making it seem the police were saying it, when it was his own confession. MelanieN's solution is satisfactory.

Your "plagiarism" objection doesn't hold water. When you put it in quotes, you are signaling that it is not your own words, ergo, you are not plagiarizing. (You are not pretending that someone else's work is your own.) There was even a RS showing it was the shooter who said it. There are also other factors involved, such as fair use and copyright.

Fair use allows attributed quoting and publication of copyrighted works, without permission, within certain size limitations. The amount that is covered varies enormously, from a phrase, a sentence, or even a whole article or complete document. Courts determine the quantity which violates fair use, depending on the need for the public to know. I suspect that "fair use" would cause Christopher Steele to lose any copyright violation case he were to file against BuzzFeed, if he were inclined to file such a suit. They published the complete(*) Trump–Russia dossier without his permission, a clear copyright violation. He was upset about that, but has not filed suit. A patriot like him is more interested in the public good than personal profit. In a separate defamation suit, the court sided with BuzzFeed on the grounds that their publication of the dossier was in the public interest.

(*) I say "complete," but there was much more which was part of Steele's research which is not part of the published dossier. Just check the page numbering; there is a whole lot "missing." I strongly suspect that the FBI has that research, and many people are probably nervous about that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I "removed" the "quotes" around "Mexicans". No need to attribute regular single words. Just seems "sarcastic" or like we're arbitrarily "highlighting" something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

I put the quotes ( edited(back in), it reads as an inline refrence now I hope. Suspect's words should be attributed so it does not sound like WP:VOICETeeVeeed (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've clarified how suspects don't lodge complaints against themselves. Pretty sure all parties involved know what a Mexican is, hence the reporter just writing it. Not jailhouse lingo or journalese. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with it now, but we still don't want to call targets/victims "Mexicans" in the voice of WP is my point. Whoever said it, we are not saying it-thanks.TeeVeeed (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Is it insulting to refer to Mexicans that way? Cops and press do it, as does this article elsewhere already. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Well for one thing it is kind of ambiguious and not setting it off as a quote will have editors going back and forth between "people with Mexican heritage", or "Mexican-Americans", or people from Mexico...". And we do not know what was meant there, so leaving it as a quote is clear. I just noticed that in the suspect's manifesto, the term "Hispanic" was used. That seems odd to me if he is going to use the random word "Mexicans" in a confession? But just leavimg it in a quote is safer all around here so that editors do not have to keep trying to change prferred or specific terms. TeeVeeed (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think people who will wonder what he means by "Mexican" will also wonder what anyone means by it, and don't see how quotation marks make anything clearer. Either way, he says the word we say Garcia said he said. I think he would've said he was after Hispanics if he meant to (could've saved himself a long trip to the Mexican border, too). There's nothing "random" about a dude who just shot both sorts of Mexicans calling his targets Mexicans after calling himself the shooter. If someone fiddles with his words out of personal intuition, just revert them like you would any bit of original research messing with the verifiable cited truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

I removed "primarily" from "trying", hope whoever imagined that adverb doesn't mind. Just begs the question of secondary targets. Democrats? Republicans? "Others"? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about the quotemarks in the Miranda sentence – I'm a bit confused – they are not present in the cited source, so we're quoting the source, not the perp. For all we know the word "Mexicans" could be a paraphrase by the reporters who wrote that piece. Since it's impossible to clarify who we're quoting in an acceptable way – I don't think we're going to insert "(the word used in the source)" – the quotemarks should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The arrest warrant is clear, though not in that source (WaPo hosts a copy): "The defendant stated his target were 'Mexicans'." That's the detective quoting the defendant, Crusius. Some news reports swap the "were" for "(was)", but the grammar is still off. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll get to work finding that and adding it as a second citation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – [3] – I also substituted the WaPo piece for the AP piece, since it does use quotemarks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Crusius confessed on the 3rd and the affidavit is from the 4th. The 9th is only when the news stories broke. Three times now, somebody's conflated it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

And QuestFour reverts for four. Says it's sourced. WaPo clearly says filed "Sunday, the day after", and the affidavit doesn't stutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Especially if you read it from your hips ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

With your hips, no lie. No Shakiring necessary for the Sunday bit, though, just make like a Guano Ape and open your eyes. QuestFour has apparently seen the light regarding that time of the month (or just doesn't want war), but is still insistent upon reiterating the targeting occured "during the attack". I can't dispute the truth of this matter, but it seems a little too obvious. Anybody care to clarify why extra bonus clarity matters? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Time for a common name yet?

As some of you may be aware, article titles are typically based on a common name. Roughly zero reliable sources currently call it by our current title. Time (the popular magazine, not the bedrock of history) calls it the El Paso Walmart shooting and I agree, that's absolutely perfect in description, distinction and triangularity ("El Paso" counts as one point).

Aye? Nay? Too soon? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, August 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current title.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

When an event acquires an iconic name like Oklahoma City bombing, Boston Marathon bombing, or September 11 attacks, our article should use that name. Otherwise I'm not a fan of spending time trying to determine what string of words has a plurality in Google searches, even Google News searches. Readers searching for your suggested title will find it with its current title, as seen here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad people can find it on Google. I was more concerned with the highly unusual title they see when they arrive, but not extremely worried. It's just a questionable choice and headlines made me question it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, August 12, 2019 (UTC)

That's already a redirect so a search will bring them here. They may not even notice that the article here has a different title than the one they searched for. This title is in line with many other such articles here, but it could be reconsidered after a year or two if the common name has proven to be something else. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How about if a second candidate hasn't emerged by January 1, 2020? El Paso shooting is disqualified despite its recent popularity, for clear vagueness. Other than that, it seems the race has boiled down to one between hungry young Walmart (RS) and tired old 2019 (OR). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Secondary source on correspondence between manifesto and talking points

I am returning this section, formerly titled, "El Paso manifesto correspondence with Trump and alt-right talking points," from the archives because of the publication of this secondary source from the New York Times discussed below. EllenCT (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we should do something with the diagram in this tweet. Any objections to using it alone to say something like, e.g., "The manifesto includes passages corresponding directly to at least ten rhetorical talking points employed by Trump and the alt-right media," or should we wait for someone to write them all up? Or just source the ten sub-sources directly? EllenCT (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting diagram, but original research. We need to wait until a reliable secondary source picks it up.--Nowa (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like total nonsense. Was the president the first person to use the word "invasion" to refer to illegal immigration? Did no one else use it besides him? Dream Focus 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not, but most certainly repeatedly, recently, emphatically, and in nationally televised stump speeches, right? It's the quality, quantity, reach, and context of the correspondences which make this shocking. I'm sure we will see them in a nice secondary source soon enough. And I'd be surprised if they don't end up in the shooter's criminal case, too, although I'd say the prosecution is just as likely to bring them up as the defense, even in preliminaries, unless insanity is pleaded. EllenCT (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Peters, Jeremy W.; Grynbaum, Michael M.; Collins, Keith; Harris, Rich; Taylor, Rumsey (12 August 2019). "How the El Paso Killer Echoed the Incendiary Words of Conservative Media Stars". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 August 2019.</ref>

“ The portrayal of immigration as a menace has returned with force, a shift brought on not just by radio and TV hosts, but by Republican leaders in Congress and the president himself. This year Mr. Trump has used the terms “invasion” or “invaded” seven times on Twitter to describe the situation at the border, at one point referring to the approach of the migrants as “the attempted Invasion of Illegals.” At rallies, he has injected terms like “predator,” “killer,” and “animal” in his descriptions of immigrants.

The Trump-friendly media world — from outlets like Sinclair Broadcast Group and The Drudge Report to platforms like Breitbart News and Gateway Pundit — has used similar incendiary rhetoric. “The fact of the matter is that this is an attempted invasion of our country — period,” Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump campaign adviser, said last year in a commentary on migrants that aired on nearly 200 Sinclair television stations.

At the start of the El Paso suspect’s screed, he refers to the “great replacement,” a white supremacist conspiracy theory based on a French book that claims the migration of minority groups can lead to a “genocide” of white culture.

The El Paso suspect, who confessed to the mass shooting last week, claimed in the document he posted to be defending against a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” The words “invasion” and “invaders” appear six times in the text, a stark parallel to the language heard on conservative television and talk radio today....

”

The story goes on at great length on dozens of other correspondences among the El Paso, Christchurch, Pittsburgh synagogue, and Charlottesville demonstration screeds, surveying several diverse right-wing media outlets. EllenCT (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see anything unusual or noteworthy. Mass media has always popularized words and phrases, and Trump is the biggest celebrity the world has ever known (in terms of sheer coverage). He sure didn't invent the term "invader", but many hours and pages have been devoted to his usage of it, vastly multiplying the prevalence till it's quickly accepted as an all-around common term, like "pussy", "shithole", "huge", "covfefe" or "you're fired" (or "smackdown", "jabroni", "people's champion", "candy-ass" and "just bring it"). Even I, who generally like Mexicans and variety in writing, can't think of a better word to describe a foreigner who enters a state and changes the local environment, so don't blame this author or the press for being repetitive. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

Also, the NYT didn't survey several diverse right-wing media outlets, it combed five years of transcripts from Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, all 24-hour TV channels in the exact same ratings battle, and all heavily reliant on echoing Trumpisms for the latter half. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with the NYT's reporting and interpretations doesn't really matter; it's still WP:DUE and worth mentioning, though possibly with an inline citation to make it clear who is making this analysis. If you think it's not unusual or noteworthy, and want that dismissal to be noted, you'd have to find a source actually criticizing the NYT's coverage - arguing against it here on talk is delving into WP:FORUM stuff. We don't decide what we think sources should or shouldn't say and exclude sources based on that, we cover what they do say. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing with the proposed reflection of the source, due to what it says. It's not a right-wing, alt-right or Trump buzzword, it's on all three major American news channels, spiking last year. Source also says it's unclear whether the author even watched that stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

On a personal level, all I'm really saying is the mainstream idea of controversial Mexican immigrants as "invaders" is not new or worse than ever lately. My original research found many CNN stories running with it between 2006 and 2015, just online, that don't mention Trump, only the other presidents. If there was a better short word for "illegal/undocumented immigrant/immigration", we'd all have heard about it by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

The term "invasion" is not synonymous with "illegal". The first has to do with mass and creates images of floods of people pouring over the border. "Illegal/undocumented immigrant/immigration" doesn't have to carry such connotations. Stephen Miller/Trump have chosen the word "invasion" to alarm Trump's base and demonize immigrants, including legal immigrants, unless they are Europeans of the "right color" and wealth. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course "invader" has an antagonistic tone. That's why anti-immigrant types prefer it and pro-immigrant types don't. But each type is for or against for an assortment of reasons, not just a swarm of Democrat bees versus a carpet of Republican ants, led by respective queens and signals.

I've not heard Trump or Miller warn about Mexicans forming voting blocs in Texas, nor advocate shooting a few to scare the rest away. And I've not heard Crusius call them rapists and murderers, nor express a preference for rich white Nordic invaders. Both working their crowds against a common enemy, but two clearly different crowds, agendas, platforms and paths to fame (not to mention one becoming old enough to kill and vote for his government while a black president was old news, and the other blooming in the sepia Cornwall summer of '64, a full year before Barry Mcguire even raised the age of majority issue, way before Alice Cooper and Skid Row "returned with a force").

In a perfect world without a dearth of viable synonyms, every subfaction of jealous paranoid patriot could use its own word, but in actual America, the scarcity is real and sharing is inevitable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not the diagram, which is original research by a nobody - and would be too much for the article in any case. The NYT article is suggestive, but it writes with such a broad brush - and mentions multiple other shootings in addition to this one - that I don't think it belongs here. Perhaps a summary sentence or two could be used at Racial views of Donald Trump. (What would be more instructive, but would probably be done only by an academic rather than a newspaper, would be a comparison of the use of words like "invasion" before and after 2015. In other words, is this new language in the era of Trump, or was it already an established theme of discourse on the subject?) -- MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There's also Immigration policy of Donald Trump, in case it turns out to be a matter of national security, finance or law that just naturally left an opening to call Orange Joe a racist (or man whose remarks on a non-border town "carry inherent racism", in this case) for the billionth time since The American Dream died (seriously, Trump announced his intent to nationalize the country again when Dusty Rhodes died on John Wayne's ghost's birthday, five days before explicitly declaring his primary problems with invading Mexicans to be crime, drugs and rape). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Newsweek reported on one of the authors singled out in the NYT piece, Todd Starnes, as having used the word "invasion" to describe Hispanic immigration in, "the Fox News corner of the world."

“ Starnes explained that The Times stated that the El Paso mass shooter echoed some of the words that Fox News personalities have used, and owned up to it.

"Specifically it's a word that I've been using for years now about what's happening at our border and I do believe that we have been invaded," Starnes said, "That we have been invaded by a horde, a rampaging horde, of illegal aliens...."

The radio host then said American families have been victims of crimes by illegal aliens, who are not all violent but "a good many are...."

Starnes went on to explain what his definition of an invasion is: "Well when you have one group of people, it doesn't matter if its 25 or if it's 25,000, but when you have one group of people crossing the border of another country without that country's permission, in my estimation that is in fact what we would call an invasion."

”

Other right-wing media figures who have responded to the Times piece include Rush Limbaugh, Ben Shapiro (on behalf of Tucker Carlson, apparently), Alex Marlow, Erick Erickson, Mark Simone, and Dom Giordano. I expect this to be something of an ongoing conversation, and reiterate my opinion that it would serve the reader to summarize it. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a serviceable summary. But these new sources only reinforce my view that this is more about dueling political news entities responding to each other's reactions to the shooting, shooter and document, less about those catalysts themselves. Would you mind summarizing in the Reaction section? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

House Republican Conference reaction: blame the left

The Tampa Bay Times reported that they obtained a constituent newsletter email from Congressman Gus Bilirakis including a section his spokesman attributes to the House Republican Conference, instructing Republicans to, "steer the conversation away from white nationalism to an argument that implies both sides are to blame," and states that they, "can’t excuse violence from the left such as the El Paso shooter, the recent Colorado shooters, the Congressional baseball shooter, Congresswoman Giffords' shooter and Antifa." It's appropriate to include this as a reaction, is it not? EllenCT (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems this is overall advice on the general media strategy for Republicans on any shooting that might make voting for the party seem like a bad idea. Had they not considered blaming their only competitors for society's problems before? If this letter is truly a reaction to this shooting, I think it belongs (should certainly be in its author's article ASAP). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

On second look, his spokeswoman says whoever wrote this meant to type "Dayton shooter". If she's telling the truth, it's not a reaction to this one. If she's lying to win over a reporter who believes the El Paso bit is false (and he does), we'd still need another source calling her on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Reckard's funeral

Margie Reckard’s funeral has drawn international attention after her husband invited anyone to attend because he had no other family. As a result, her funeral drew over 700 people and 900 flowers. It deserves inclusion in the article. starship.paint (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

1. NYT (US)
2. BBC (UK)
3. Guardian (UK)
4. NZZ (Swiss)
5. Speigel (German)
6. Vatican News (Vatican City)

After Margie Reckard, 63, was killed in the shooting, her husband, Antonio Basco, invited anyone in the community to attend the funeral, because he had no other family himself. To his surprise, around 700 people attended Rickard's funeral, including many who had traveled across the United States, and around 900 flower arrangements were sent, including from overseas. The funeral's cost was covered by the funeral home itself as a service to the community.

Are we going to report on the other 21 funerals? Fleeting mentions in the media does not equate with notability. WWGB (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

WWGB, bringing up the other 21 funerals is irrelevant. Have they received the same coverage in reliable sources? If yes, include. If no, don’t include. You took all of 3 minutes to reply my comment, so it’s doubtful you read all 6 articles above. Perhaps that’s why you think her funeral was covered in fleeting mentions when it was actually the main topic of all 6 articles I provided above. starship.paint (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I support Starship.paint. 700 people attended, from all across the USA. People noticed from all around the world. The funeral was covered by multiple, reliable sources as mentioned above and in detail with not just a passing mention. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S I also attempted to add information about the funeral, but was reverted by WWGB, just as Starship.paint was. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting repercussion, at least next to "Politician calls for change" or "Family and friends attend funeral". Definitely related to the shooting. Sourcing looks fine (but one or two citations only, please). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the above mentioned sources, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, SF Chronicle, Houston Chronicle and Time all have articles on this story. The 'Aftermath' section which has material on aide for funerals would be a good place to include it. IP75 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

CNN's piece (by Kaur and Vera) notes a packed house of 400, while about 700 waited outside. By my math, that's 7,400 people. Someone might want to doublecheck those numbers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, If you think 400 plus 700 gives 7,400, someone indeed might want to check your math. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

By WP:10YT, I don't think it warrants inclusion in this article. Even if we do include it, we really shouldn't write more than one or at the most two sentences about it. This article is deep enough in WP:COATRACK territory as it is. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the shooting; it's not a biography of the victims. There's no justification for including info about only one of the victims' funerals. No-one's suggesting that we should include details about the funerals of all the victims. Including this would not be justified even in the highly unlikely scenario that neither the victim nor her widower have any living relatives (the truth is much more likely to be that they were estranged from their families) & neither had any friends either. A funeral without family isn't rare, and publicity based on this one due to her having been one of the people killed at random by a stranger in a mass shooting doesn't make it encyclopedic. It adds no info that is useful to our readers who want to find out about this mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If the article is just ‘about the shooting’ and ‘It adds no info that is useful to our readers who want to find out about this mass shooting’, then why do we have an aftermath and reactions sections? The article is not just about the shooting, its about the events proceeding and succeeding the shooting. This funeral is a reaction to the shooting, just as Donald Trump’s speech was a reaction to the shooting. It is more than just a funeral of someone who was ‘killed at random by a stranger’, its an international reaction to the shooting, and thats why it should be included in the article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Aye. The real mystery is why we include biographical information about where a random stranger went to high school over two years before getting international coverage for a completely unrelated event. Or why we include yet another rando's description of that uninvolved high school student's Twitter account over two years before posting on a whole other website. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

why do we have an aftermath and reactions sections? Because there is a systemic problem with Wikipedia editors adding way too much information simply because it is vaguely relevant and reliably sourced and a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the article. Let's not compound that problem. The real mystery is why we include biographical information about where a random stranger went to high school over two years before getting international coverage for a completely unrelated event. That's because there is a systemic problem with Wikipedia editors adding way too much information simply because it is vaguely relevant and reliably sourced and a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the article. Let's not compound that problem. Or why we include yet another rando's description of that uninvolved high school student's Twitter account over two years before posting on a whole other website. That's because there is a systemic problem with Wikipedia editors adding way too much information simply because it is vaguely relevant and reliably sourced and a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the article. Let's not compound that problem. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And let's not compound the systemic problem of editors wanting different improvements. If I say high school Twitter sourced to some dude on a website none of us probably read is excessive, agreeing with me will make everything easy. If Starship says relaying relevant information from a multitude of sources we do mostly read is an improvement, agreeing with him will make everything easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

What do you define as ‘way too much information’ and ‘vaguely relevant’? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If you mean me by "you", things like where the shooter bought his gun or published his rationale are vaguely relevant, as are immediate consequences like dead people, trials and political reaction. Where anybody went to high school, and how classmates remember what they did there is way too much (except when what they did is shoot up the school). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: - Reckard's funeral was directly caused by the shooting, that's the relevance. The justification for including her funeral is reliable source coverage above and beyond the other victim's funerals. It adds useful information to our readers who want to find out how people directly reacted to the shooting. Shall we remove information about the shooter's past or and his current prosecution as well? This isn't a biography of the shooter either, and apparently people just want to read about the mass shooting? starship.paint (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The funeral of one of the randomly killed victims in a mass shooting is not normally included in our articles about mass death events. Very few readers want to know the details of one victim's funeral - and the few who do can read about it on one of the media sites which are reporting on it. If it's directly related, then so are the funerals of all the other people who were killed in this mass shooting. This one gained more media coverage simply because the media love to sensationalise things, and decided to gain more readers by unquestioningly promoting the 'the victim & her widower have no living relatives so there'll be no-one at her funeral, how tragic' angle. If coverage of that one funeral of an ordinary person was reported by mainstream media sources outside the US as well as within it, that merely shows that multiple countries' media love to sensationalise things to gain readers. The media report many things about the personal lives of the victims, yet no-one here has argued for those details to be included. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You're hung up on the sensationalism. When removed, as it was in both attempts to include it here, the fact remains that this relevant and featured funeral objectively drew the largest crowd and widest assortment of flowers. If reading the facts make you ponder the intended emotional purpose, that's entirely on you. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Well of course funerals of one particular person are not normally included, Jim Michael, because there usually isn't anything special. In this case, something was special (many strangers attending and sending flowers), thus it was reported. You're really taking an all-or-nothing approach here, arguing that since 21 other funerals are not covered, or all the personal lives are not covered, then one funeral can't be covered. That is a failure to evaluate the significance of Reckard's funeral on its own. Frankly, mass shootings themselves are sensationalized. I find it hard to believe you can speak for all of our readers on Wikipedia as to what they want. Shall I try that too? Very few readers care about what rifle was used. Very few readers care about whether people thought gunshots were fireworks. Very few readers care about whether the Border Patrol’s BORTAC unit responded. Very few readers care about the alleged manifesto's thoughts on environmental degradation. Very few readers care about the reactions of the owner of 8chan, Walmart, Veronica Escobar, Andrew Yang, Cloudflare, and Marcelo Ebrard regarding this incident. Very few readers care about how Uruguay and Japan reacted. See how this works? starship.paint (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else, but I think all those details you listed could be trimmed as well. TompaDompa (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If some people at/near the scene initially dismissed the gunfire as something else, that could be relevant if it delayed the response. Stating the type of gun used is directly relevant to the shooting.

The only reason that many strangers attended this one funeral is because of a publicity stunt to encourage that, by saying (probably incorrectly as it's much more likely than not that at least one of the couple has at least one living relative whom they aren't in contact with) that neither the victim nor her widower have any living relatives. we have a higher standard than the media. Including the funeral of one victim isn't relevant or encyclopedic. It's like including details of one victim to sensationalise, such as saying that (s)he recently bought a house/married/became engaged/gave birth/recovered from a serious illness/started a new job/graduated etc. Or that (s)he was the sole carer of a seriously ill/disabled family member. Those sort of things (along with 'had the most attendees, flowers at their funeral' etc.) are things which the media love to sensationalise, but they're nowhere near important or relevant enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: - the media didn't say that both the victim and the husband had no relatives. [4] It was reported that the victim had sons from a previous marriage and from them, grandchildren. It was the husband who had no other relatives. In any case, our article does not discuss that. Our article also does not claim that her funeral had the most attendees, flowers at their funeral. It seems that your claim of sensationalism lacks merit. starship.paint (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Antonio Basco declared his wife's funeral on August 16, 2019 to be open to anyone who wished to attend. Hundreds of people from El Paso and other parts of the country attended, and flowers were sent from around the world.

The fact that the victim has children & grandchildren makes it even more ridiculous that this publicity stunt was created. At least some of them would have attended, so there would have been attendees even if the media hadn't sensationalised the funeral to gain more readers/viewers.

The number of attendees at the funeral, or how far away some of them live, was not part of the events of the shooting - nor could it have contributed to it or be relevant to proceedings against the suspect. It's mere publicity-seeking by the media - we shouldn't follow them and don't have to. Try imagining this scenario for the funeral of one of many victims of a bombing in Lebanon or Syria. Jim Michael (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If this funeral was conducted in Syria, had the same number of attendees, many from strangers, and received the same reliable source coverage, I would argue to include it. Simply WP:DUE. I can't see how simply reporting a fact that 700 people attended her funeral is a publicity stunt. Perhaps reporting 22 killed and 24 injured is also a publicity stunt? starship.paint (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Posing for photographs at a hospital, releasing those photographs through your office and holding a press conference afterward to get over how much the people you thumbs-upped with love and respect your office could only be more of a publicity stunt if you entered on a jetpack and your limousine exploded at the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

I think the two-sentence version suggested above should be included in the article, with one or two citations. Not because we "should" include information on victims' funerals, not because of recentism or sensationalism, nothing at all to do with our opinions. It should be included because of the massive nationwide coverage it received from independent reliable sources. Reliable Sources determine our coverage, not what we think "ought" to be included. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Preferring anonymous sources and speaking for police

QuestFour recently reverted my allegedly nonconsensual and unnecessary improvements. Specifically, he replaced a bit in Suspect attributing the targeting of Mexicans to a known detective in an official affidavit with the same basic story sourced to two anons from a tweet six days earlier. He also "quoted" the tweeter, making it appear as if two law enforcement officials, ABC News or Crusius had said that phrase verbatim, rather than Joshua Hoyos. Two of three inline citations cover the later authorized claim, so sticking with a shady old tweet that was only the best we had while the story was still breaking is a dumb idea today.

In Manifesto, he describes what police are "reasonably confident" Crusius wrote as an anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant manifesto, meaning the police characterize it that way, despite neither source saying they do. Rather than lie like this, we should attribute the opinion to a reporter who actually presents it or remove it altogether. The next chunk of the section already heavily promotes the same idea, while ignoring all the "left wing" aspects (anti-corporatism, anti-imperialism, anti-pollution), so it's not like the message is lost by truthfully citing police in the opening.

That said, can we get consensus that updated, authoritative info is better than early whispers from shadowy figures and agree to not attribute ideas from writers to people merely included in the same writer's story? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:09, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

On closer look, nobody in either cited story described the manifesto like this. Pure original research, so I removed it without waiting for consensus. Making shit up has always been frowned upon here, but whether to use obsoleted news is still technically debatable. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, August 21, 2019 (UTC)