Talk:YouTube headquarters shooting

Lead section

Californian resident, Iranian descent, lived in San Diego?

Presently the intro/lead reads that the suspect is a "Iranian-born woman". Such limited information could be misleading to some readers. Due to good faith omission of information. In other words, a risk of jumping to the a false conclusion that she was a resident of Iran. Also, as you know there is presently no evidence that ethnicity played a role in the shooting. I suggest to add to the introduction that Aghdam was a Californian resident of Iranian descent, who lived in San Diego. How about this draft sentence?

The suspect, later identified as a 38-year-old, Nasim Najafi Aghdam, was a Californian resident of Iranian descent, who lived in San Diego.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

She was born in Iran, see NY Times, and that makes her an Iranian woman. If she had a U.S. passport, it would have "Iran" as place of birth. Many Iranians live in California.Libracarol (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Does "Iranian-American woman" not work for some reason? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

I object to this edit. She was born in Iran. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "ethnicity", and descent makes it sound like her ancestors were from Iran but she wasn't. She was. Even if she was not a binational (we don't know if she was a legal resident or a naturalized US citizen at this point), she was still Iranian-born. That should not be redacted from the lede. User:WWGB: Could you please add it back?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether she was born in Iran or Iowa has no relevance to the crime. It has no place in the lead. We don't write that every school shooter was "American-born" so what is the difference here, other than planting the idea that her place of birth was somehow a factor in the crime? Her background belongs in her bio section, not in the lead. So, no, I will not add it back. WWGB (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Because this happened in the United States of America! Was she even a naturalized US citizen?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Her residence/citizenship status directly affects the legality of her possession and acquisition of a firearm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:58D9:B1D0:128B:4933 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point: was the gun hers and was she legally entitled to possess it? Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

She "might" not be a citizen! She "might" not be allowed to carry! None of this has been shown to be true, so they are just straw arguments. Gratuitous inclusion of her POB is sailing close to racial profiling. I repeat, her birthplace is NOT a defining factor in the crime. Get over it and move on. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what racial profiling means. Even allowing Iranian as a race, saying one committed a crime is basically the opposite of presuming one will commit another, in a future vs past sense. That's not even to weaken your argument, just letting you know. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the details about her in the Perpetrator section only. My point is that, when reliable sources give the relevant details, the article should say what her status in the US was, and whether or not she legally held her gun. Jim Michael (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'alls. Please read the short essay: WP:CREATELEAD to help us get this lead into better compliance with WP:MOS. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nasim Aghdam deserves her own article on wikipedia

She has become very popular on internet since the shooting incident. Social networks is full of her images and videos. People use her hashtag #NasimAghdam and memes. Not notable yet? She was a unique case. People want to know more about her. This article does not give enough details about her. --188.159.243.174 (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's possible she's independently notable, but not very likely because of WP:SINGLEEVENT. ^Falling_Gravity 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove link to Thoughts and prayers

This edit by myself was reverted by @JesseRafe: with this edit. I contend that the target page is about a US slacktivism controversy and the paragraph nor anything in this article mentions that specifically. JesseRafe mention in his edit summary "that article exactly encapsulates the usage here, as a bromide social media reaction by a public official."

A little background on this can be found on WP:NPOV/N here. Also I attempted a merge here that contains some points. I also this same day unlinked this phrase at [[ Aberdeen, Maryland shooting]], William Hughes (born 1998), Capital Gazette shooting‎, List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump during 2018‎, Thunder River Rapids Ride‎, Martha Roby‎ and Cory Gardner‎. JesseRafe reverted each.

MOS:LWQ makes it clear that we should link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. As made clear in the argument made against merging this article, the target article (Thoughts and prayers) is about controversy in American politics. Nothing in this article mentions this controversy specifically and certainly was not the intention of the quote. WP:EASTEREGG and WP:SURPRISE also apply.

It is my opinion that linking "thoughts and prayers" is done as a promotion of a POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

JesseRafe in this revert accuses me with it seems your contention is nothing should link to "thoughts and prayers"?. This is not true and show lack of WP:AGF. The list of article linked can be found here. I went through them with care and only unlinked the ones where the controversy was not mentioned or implied. For instance, currently Ben Cardin is on the top of the list and the article is linked in the section on gun control. I fink the link completely appropriate and did not unlink it.

I understand the issue is politically loaded and maybe JesseRafe is worried I am trying to slant things. I am not. I hate to see Wikipedia subverted to someones political agenda, that is why I removed these links. I ask that JesseRafe revert himself at this article and the consider each of the others reverts as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The first line of the target page is "The phrase "thoughts and prayers" is often used by public officials offering condolences after any publicly notable event such as a deadly natural disaster." It is thus obviously pertinent to use an internal wikilink when the encyclopedia is quoting public officials offering condolences after a publicly notable event. The idea of removing links to the page would, in effect, intentionally orphan it, and in my opinion is a non-neutral action. Above user should nominate the page for deletion if they wish to neuter it entirely, rather than use a back-channel method of simply de-linking its WLs. JesseRafe (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As I made clear I do not intend to orphan the article and it does not deserve to be deleted. However the target article is not about the phrase and you know it. I do not have an ax to grind about gun control or public official inaction. I do not want Wikipedia used to promote your pet peeve. If you want this linked write more in the reaction section quoting pundits saying politicians suck at getting anything done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As I made clear, "The first line of the target page is "The phrase "thoughts and prayers" is often used by public officials offering condolences after any publicly notable event such as a deadly natural disaster."" If you can actually address this simple fact instead of relying on OR or idiosyncratic interpretation we can get somewhere. As it stands, the phrase is wholly applicable to all the articles you've removed it from. JesseRafe (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your argument, it is just not valid. If the article was about the phrase, then it should be redirected to a central article about condolences. You yourself said the link was appropriate because the use of the phrase was a bromide social media reaction by a public official. This is an interpretation of the quote that violates MOS:LWQ and put a POV in Wikipedia's voice. You have failed to address the issues I have brought up. Clearly you just do not like the person who made the quote and want to add subtext to taint it. No doubt some pundit in a RS commented on how this incident was another example of political or bureaucratic failure that politicians have covered up with sympathy. Just add it to the article and you can put the link there and I will think it is great place for the link. Do not be lazy and put a blue link where it does not belong. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You simply do not make sense. The article describes this exact usage. I await consensus on the matter from other users, as I cannot deal with you if you cannot explain how The phrase "thoughts and prayers" is often used by public officials offering condolences after any publicly notable event is not apt. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As the entry makes clear, the phrase "thoughts and prayers" has been derided as an empty cliche. Blue-linking to that entry calls attention to Trump's use of a phrase that many people consider dumb, and it reads like a sarcastic editorial comment. It's not consistent with Trump's intent - I'm sure he didn't intend to make himself look like he was offering a shopworn platitude - and it's not neutral. Nblund ^talk 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)