Talk:Omar Mateen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Homophobia vs Islamic extremism

I havent seen any claims that the attacker was motivated homophobia, but plenty stating Islamic reasons BrxBrx (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Same. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seddique's father cited homophobia, not alleged/possible links to islamists. -Mardus /talk 04:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As Mardus said: [1]. To the contrary, the "Islamic motive" (whatever that is) has not been established. --bender235 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• • [2] also claims Islamic reasons. homophobia has only been claimed by his dad.BrxBrx (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both CCTV and Xinhua are part of Chinese state media, which, FYI, are not editorially independent in their reporting of major news that have sensitive resonance in China.

It's currently possible to put the story roughly like this:

The FBI investigated and stated to have found nothing conclusive, the dad cited visible homophobia, the former coworker homophobia and racism, and the son (the perpetrator) made his last phone call pledging allegiance to ISIS. An ISIS organisation subsequently claimed the perpetrator as theirs.

Now that the perpetrator is dead, it's impossible to find out his motives from himself. (Of course, were he kept active for much longer, he would have killed more people.) -Mardus /talk 05:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the text must very clearly reflect, where Amaq (the ISIS-affiliated news agency) published its statement ('online' is not enough), which outlet first reported the statement from Amaq, and whether any other reputable sources confirm that story as such. -Mardus /talk 05:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the above should apply to all news sources in order to piece together which source claimed what. -Mardus /talk 05:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It was a mixture of both. ISIS forbid homosexual behavior also ISIS claimed responsibility so as I said it was both but obviously you need "sources" to prove that ActorBoss (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What is an "Islamic motive" in the first place? Did Mateen want to spread Islam, kill "infidel" Christians? Obviously not. The motive was killing LGBT people out of homophobia, plain and simple. --bender235 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and killing LGBT IS a part of Radical Islam.--84.100.78.188 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

and you know this, how? Epson Salts (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Again i think there is an intersection between radical islam and homophobia which is the picture reliable sources are painting rn. BrxBrx (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

CCTV Comment: this issue is hardly about china, and the article by cctv reflects what many other sources are saying. BrxBrx (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This is somewhat relevant: LGBT in Islam. In summary, Islamic extremists would consider a gay club a legitimite target just because it involves gays. Just like they'd consider most attacks on Western Societies legitimate because it involves "infidels" (kafir), whether these are Christians, Jews, or (in the mind of the extremists) people that believe in the wrong kind of Islam. There have also been numerous cases where ISIS killed people due to accusations of being gay (among others, see these articles by CBS and The Independant). Homophobia is a part of Islamic extremism. 80.62.116.174 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Why on EARTH does this man have his own wikipedia page. He does not merit this kind of recognition. Not only was what he did barbaric, he also has little historical significance. He is just a killer.

Please make him AT LEAST a subsection of the shooting's page. This upsets me a lot.

99.227.76.154 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: See discussion above, inclusion on Wikipedia is based on Notability not on morals however. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016 (2)

Please add

• Gawker, the company who outed Peter Thiel as gay, confirmed that Mateen use a gay dating app and frequented Pulse for at least three years.<ref name="Gawker">{{cite web|last1=Bluestone|first1=Gabrielle|title=Orlando Shooter Was Reportedly a Regular at Pulse and Had a Profile on Gay Dating App|url=http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316|website=Gawker|accessdate=13 June 2016|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20160613232419/http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316|archivedate=13 June 2016|language=English|date=13 June 2016}}</ref>
• or
• Gawker, the company who outed Peter Thiel as gay, confirmed that Mateen use a gay dating app and frequented Pulse for at least three years.
• 62.64.152.154 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Small comment: Overall this may be a valid addition to the article, but I really do not see why the info on Peter Thiel should be included (absolutely no direct connection to this matter). 80.62.116.174 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A superior source is the Orlando Sentinel: Witness: Omar Mateen drank alone at Pulse before attack and MSNBC promises more along the same lines tonight.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Was he a regular at the bar?

Is Gawker a reliable source? This claims that some people thought he was a regular at the bar for 3 years?

http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed in a previous thread. FallingGravity (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This wiki page will inspire copycats

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some suicidal people are just mental and they will crave this type of fame in media and getting their own Wiki page about their life and personality, and what led up to this mass shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.103.253 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) That's a policy change suggestion to make over at WT:MOS. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) See WP:CENSOREDuser:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 02:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016 (2)

In this facebook video : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/

Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Orlando gunman Omar Mateen,stated (0.40 min) in Farsi I suppose : "He (the son) was working in a company and the company gave him (the son) the gun."

This is UNtrue with the facts, the father also could have known out of the sunday newsreports: which reported his son has bought two items .

Later in the interview the father (0.54 min) "He went to a homosexual nightclub of boys and girls and shot 50 people with gun. I am very upset and I have announced it to the American people as well" ....

(1.10 min)

"Why he has done that in het holy month of Ramadan? The issue of homosexuel and its punishment - and all that they do - "

Remark : the father relates the act of the son, direct with homosexuality and Islam view on homosexuality (if thats true?) and the act of the son

stating : (1.23 min)  : " God will punish those involved in homosexuality, it's,not for people to decide."

... - expressed that he is very saddened - ...

(1.50 min) "and God may give proper health to obey the real path of the holy religion of Islam."  end of video.

It COULD be possible that the father ordered the son - knowing of his homosexuality - and his awareness of his position and knowing of I.S.I.-methods (shaping chaos an controll it) - to kill himself and others too (making an end of knowing by others) according to tribe-rules .

Or the son did this shooting out of same motives,or couldn't cope with his homosexuality . I write this, because also in very far right christian protestant milieus gay boys are by their family suggested to commit suicide.

I suggest to make a connection with this wiki article : https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality

"Treatment of Homosexuals The following are excerpts on homosexuality, taken from the Saudi Ministry of Education Textbooks for Islamic Studies:

"Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a legal marriage.... Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place." Saudi Ministry of Education Textbooks for Islamic Studies: 2007-2008 Academic Year Center for Religious Freedom of Hudson Institute

Or with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam the :

"Extreme prejudice remains, both socially and legally, in much of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts. In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

"Lesbian and Gay Rights in the World" (PDF). ILGA. May 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 August 2011.

Jump up ^ Abu Dawud 32:4087 Jump up ^ Sahih Bukhari 7:72:774 Jump up ^ Ibn Majah Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1903 Jump up ^ "UK party leaders back global gay rights campaign". BBC Online. 13 September 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2013. At present, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries, including 38 within the Commonwealth. At least five countries - the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania and Sudan - have used the death penalty against gay people. Jump up ^ "United Arab Emirates". Retrieved 27 October 2015. Facts as drug trafficking, homosexual behaviour, and apostasy are liable to capital punishment. ^ Jump up to: a b "Man Accused of "Gay Handshake" Stands Trial in Dubai". Retrieved 27 October 2015. Jump up ^ Anderson, Ben (2007). "The Politics of Homosexuality in Africa" (PDF). Africana 1 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 July 2011.

Jan Roseboom (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Muslim American?

There's been a recent edit war over the phrase "Muslim American" in the first sentence. Per MOS:OPENPARAGRAPH: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." I don't believe Omar is notable because of his religion (assuming he is notable), so I think the phrase should just be "American". FallingGravity (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the proximate cause of the massacre is Islamic terrorism, isn't the religion of the terrorist rather topically relevant? i.e., this is precisely the exact exception clause in the policy! Read it again: "unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." XavierItzm (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Islamic terrorism" label is nonsense. It was a single bipolar homophob carrying out this attack, not an Islamist terrorist group. Mateen's religion is as relevant as Adam Lanza's or Dylann Roof's. --bender235 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He pledged allegiance to ISIS. Seeing that Radical Islamists such as ISIS are homophobic, it can be both about homophobia and radical Islam.--84.100.78.188 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I can pledge allegiance to Adolf Hitler, that doesn't mean Adolf organised, supported or even knew about what I was doing. UK sources are seriously doubting any real involvement/ training/ support from any known organisation. There is a distinct possibility that the perp was a wack job with Islamic leanings, seeking to aggrandise himself by claiming an ISIS connection. Wait and see. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack. It is relevant. It's Wahhabi terrorism in the US perpetrated by a member of ISIL. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

Given that he went to school in the US, there is a good chance that he pledged allegiance to the US several thousand times. Does that make it US terrorism perpetrated by a US citizen? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from the discussion so far is a bunch of speculation and WP:Original research about Omar Mateen's motivations. Keep in mind that even in cases where we know for certain that people had religious motivations to carry out terrorist attacks their religion isn't usually appended before their nationality. Of course, we could make an exception here, but I think we need better evidence. FallingGravity (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016 (1)

I missed in the sentence : "In 2011 and 2012, Mateen made two trips to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. "

the words : "and the United Arab Emirates. " source: http://uk.businessinsider.com/omar-mateen-saudi-uae-umrah-2016-6?r=US&IR=T Jan Roseboom (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see what you're suggesting, however, I'm not sure whether inclusion of the UAE portion is necessary for that aspect. Anyone else has an opinion? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Penwhale: Mateen specifically did it as part of Umrah, so maybe it may be beneficial to add this to the article. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Phone calls to 9-1-1 by Mateen

I read that he made three separate calls to 9-1-1. And I think that one -- perhaps two -- were hang up calls. This should be included in the article. I do not see any mention of it there. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016 (3)

In the father's facebook video : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/

Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Orlando gunman Omar Mateen,stated (0.40 min) in Darsi  : "He was working in a company and the company gave him (the son) the gun."

This is UNtrue with the facts, the father also could have known out of the sunday newsreports: which reported his son has bought two items .

My request is: to signal this contradiction

Jan Roseboom (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done, unless independent WP:RS point out the contradiction, it would be WP:OR to include it. Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Major motive edit

Motivation needs to be edited to internalized Homophobia. Aka Self Hating Gay. See: All indications point to this being a daddy acceptance issue. NOT TERRORIST INSPIRED. But a backlash against his father and should be considered a Murder/Suicide by Cop incident. Jpoland29 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, based on numerous witness accounts, media are speculating that Mateen's motive was probably internalized homophobia and/or romantic rejection. Similar situation to that of Salah Abdeslam, who had also been making advances to toward men in gay bars and on gay dating apps.

Difference between the two though is that while Salah Abdeslam was apart of a network, Mateen was not, nor acted for any group until after the act started. It looks like his 911 call was more to hurt his father rather than claim responsibility. Besides hurting his father's reputation its also indicative of looking for acceptance due to his fathers beliefs, but considering what his father said on national television it is more likely to intentionally hurt him with the authorities. Jpoland29 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So, is the wife homophobic too, seeing as it is she drove the terrorist to Pulse? NBC News reported that Mateen's wife "drove him once to the Pulse nightclub" to case it. . Maybe there is a new external-driven (by the wife) internalised homophobia syndrome! XavierItzm (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016 (4)

In the father's facebook video : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/

Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Orlando gunman Omar Mateen,stated (0.40 min) in Darsi  : "He was working in a company and the company gave him (the son) the gun."

This is UNtrue with the facts, the father also could have known out of the sunday newsreports: which reported his son has bought two items .

My request is: to signal this contradiction and change the follow in Wiki-article:

" Mateen legally purchased a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm Glock 17 handgun,[48][49][50][51] the two firearms later used in the shooting, from a gun shop in Port St. Lucie two weeks before the shooting.[52] " a

and ad to it :

" Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Omar Mateen stated however, in his facebook Darsi statement (source : facebook video : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/ )

"He was working in a Company and the Company gave him the gun."

I will work on the whole text of the facebook statement of the father. In my opinion It will be essential, if one knows something on tribal- and Islam tradion.

I have asked an advise of Carlotta Gall,North Africa Correspondent, New York Times. Reported from AfPak for over 12 years from 2001. Author of The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014. I will communicate the result.

Thanks for your initiative to write this article, It is important , Jan

Jan Roseboom (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: IMHO, unless more reliable secondary sources start reporting on this, we shouldn't include it. The vast majority of sources are saying he purchased them. The claims of his father cannot be taken as fact. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't heterosexual?

http://gawker.com/multiple-people-say-the-orlando-shooter-was-gay-1781932976

I'm confused and this isn't going to get better.

should he categorized as LBGT?

--MXfurry (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MXfurry: LATimes is reporting it too (which is more reputable than Gawker), but at this point it's still developing and unclear if he was actually gay. Personally I think waiting to mention it is prudent (there's no deadline afterall) and errs on the side of caution. We cannot label him as gay unless a preponderance of RS do so as well (see WP:BDP). PS: gay is usually preferred to "homosexual". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I question whether we should rush to identify his sexual orientation. It certainly seems like he may have deviated from hetero 'normativity' but he was also married too. I agree^ it would be prudent to wait. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

today the washington post published an article about him being sexually interested in men. --MXfurry (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Place of birth

The article indicates New York City as place of birth, but the sidebar lists New Hyde Park, New York. This discrepancy should be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.169.76 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources say New Hyde Park, specifically that small section of NHP that is in Queens, which is part of NYC. Saying New Hyde Park is more precise than saying Queens, which is more precise than NYC. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: Umm... New Hyde Park isn't part of Queens, and I know because I live nearby. It's part of Nassau County, New York, just outside the Queens border. NHP borders Queens, but the only Nassau town that actually has a portion in Queens is Floral Park, New York. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Umm... According to Wikipedia: "Unincorporated areas of New Hyde Park lie in the Town of North Hempstead in Nassau County with small portions located in Queens County." and "Smaller areas lying in Queens are patrolled by the New York Police Department." These details, I think, are so specified as to suggest the writer knows whereof s/he speaks.

One of the sources for the NHP birthplace, no longer in place in this entry as was and as it should be, included an image of a document completed by Mateen where he filled in the blanks like this....

Town: New Hyde Park County: Queens

I'm just following the sources. Don't know if I have the energy to track down that lost citation right now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: I think that's a dispute for the New Hyde Park, New York article. My sources are this (borders southeast of Queens border) and this (Nassau County website). The Queens boundary runs diagonally to the northeast from the southwest starting at about 257th Street and Jamaica Avenue to 268th Street and Union Turnpike. The unincorporated areas of New Hyde Park are wholly in Nassau; Queens does not have any unincorporated areas as it is wholly part of New York City. More likely than not, the unincorporated areas come from the diagonal literally slicing through houses. I will take this up at WT:NYC. Regards, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the source for Mateen's request to change his name where he claims NHP Queens as his birthplace: Here. Funny that it's from the Queens Chronicle. I expect someone who writes for that publication knows what they're talking about when writing: "The document says that he was born on Nov. 16, 1986 in New Hyde Park, on the Queens side." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Weird. Learn something new every day. I suspect it's actually Glen Oaks, New York, which has portions in Queens. Anyway, thanks for the link to the document.

Also, this map refers to zip code 11040 for New Hyde Park. A small sliver of 11040 exists between 268th Street and the Queens-Nassau border at Langdale Street. I would advise against using the zip code 11040 and the name NHP interchangeably, though. For example, 77-40 269th Street is actually in Glen Oaks, Queens, though it can be argued that it is also in NHP due to the 11040 zipcode. (On a side note, if he lived in New Hyde Park, Queens, that's only about 100 to 200 houses.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely weird. Also this from the NYPD. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: Most likely Mateen was born in Long Island Jewish Medical Center, which is in 11040 and, weirdly, straddles the Queens-Nassau border. It's very unlikely he was simply born in a house in 11040. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2016

Copypaste of entire article removed

Rouznameh (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Father "backtracks"

This graf us a disaster:

A Florida man came out after the shooting and said that he and Mateen had visited gay bars together. Mateen's father Sidiqque denied that his son was closeted, saying, "If he was gay, why would he do something like this?"[48] Two days later, however, he appeared to back away from that assertion after his son's alleged true or repressed sexual orientation became a point of inquiry as focus continued to grow on the topic with multiple witnesses emerging to give evidence on his son's private activities going back at least 10 years, though he stated he himself didn't believe his son was secretly homosexual or bisexual, saying, "I didn't see any of it and I don't believe that was the case."[49]

The father actually reiterates his view that Omar was not gay. The backtracking described in the source involves the father's more general comment about homosexuality, first "God will punish those involved in homosexuality" and then revising that to: "What a person's lifestyle is, is up to him. It's a free country. Everybody has their own choice to live the way they want to live." And the blathery center of the graf could be much reduced (became a point of inquiry as focus continued to grow?). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In the Personal life section, it says: Two days later, however, he appeared to back away from that assertion after his son's alleged true or repressed sexual orientation became a point of inquiry as focus continued to grow on the topic with multiple witnesses emerging to give evidence on his son's private activities going back at least 10 years, though he stated he himself didn't believe his son was secretly homosexual or bisexual, saying, "I didn't see any of it and I don't believe that was the case." The sentence is far too long. Can someone edit it? Break it up a bit? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I took care of this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Where proof is for Pashtun? I not see any

Plz remove "Pashtun" from "Personal life" because no news report support that. don't connect this peoples with Pashtuns until proof is shown in media. there r no proofs he or father belongs to Pashtun group... Pashtun marry Uzbekistan woman? the father use non-Pashto means maybe they belongs to other ethnic see ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Father face and son face do not even resemble Pashtun. I also explain, Durand Line is national issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not ethnic issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan3662862 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone has cited the Tampa Bay Times as proof that his father is a Pashtun. I know where you are coming from but we're bound by the sources that are out there. If you can find other sources that say otherwise I'd happily change it. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I cited the Tampa Bay Times: "I don't think religion has any role in what he did," said the father, a Pashtun who moved to New York from Afghanistan in the 1980s and has lived in the U.S. ever since.

If there's a question, no problem at all. But Pashtun is what it says. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

i couldnt access that site but now i see it says Pashtun, but i think more proof is wanted to accept such accusation... news reporters always makes mistakes. i make concern here and find this suspecting bcause: he looks Central Asian or south Russian, his name is not fitting general Pashtuns names, he not speak Pashto but only Dari and English, and he called for imprisonment of Hamid Karzai, Ashraf Ghani, Mohammad Hanif Atmar, and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf... all 4 of these are Pashtuns.. so my suspecting is very legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan3662862 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Khan3662862, one of the sources discussing the father's Youtube videos points out that while he gives support to Pashtun causes, he doesn't use Pashtun language, which is odd. I'm out of my depth here on understanding this and as others have pointed out, we have to use what sources say rather than what we know to be true, but you could well be right here. Media may be using 'Pashtun' for no better reason than that father or son claimed it and most US would not know or be able to verify that it was true. Unfortunately we can't change without sources. Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Allegiance? ISIS? You're joking

This guy called 9/11 and declared allegiance to Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. He was not a part of any of these organizations, and it should not be listed as such.

Thetalkingheads (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the corresponding category that said he was ISIS member. I see the allegiance thing has already been removed. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Syria and ISIS are at war with each other, an indication of how ill-informed the shooter was. Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS and al-Qaeda share the same ideology ... Jabhat Al-Nusra And ISIS Alliance Could Spread Beyond Damascus ... Al-Qaeda: Ayman al-Zawahiri urges jihadis to unite against Russia and West. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The article says Mateen claimed to have "had family connections to al-Qaeda", which is not contradictory at all since ISIS was a direct part of Al-Qaeda until 2014 (it was for many years known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq"). User2534 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but whatever was in the guy's head, it is an indication of how 'not-up-to-speed' he was. I can boast about being related to the Queen, it doesn't mean I am, anywhere outside my own fantasies. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why these anecdotes are much less important than him actually calling 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS during the attack itself, which is the thing that matters. User2534 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we may be saying the same thing ultimately. That he connected himself in the calls and possibly in brags, but any further or firmer connection to known organisations is dubious at present. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I will add a remark : The suggestion made of : "The article says Mateen claimed to have "had family connections to Al-Qaeda" says - My INTERPRETATION, not Yet based on Facts - that the Son, would be as his Father (= the same in tribal as God or Family) ; who has connections to Al-Qaeda and more ( I will return on this) … This renark of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Roseboom (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Allegiance component is still present in the infobox, unfortunately. From reading the article, we we were to include everyone he pledged allegiance to, half the terrorist organizations in the world should be in that infobox. I think we should remove it and leave a note. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is just plain misinformation. According to sources his comments abouth al-Qaeda and Hezbollah were made prior to 2013, which is what caused him to come under investigation by FBI in that year. As you probably know, ISIL/ISIS in its current form did not exist at that point, so his old comments are completely irrelevant to what he actually did during the attack, namely pledged allegiance to ISIL. User2534 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Birth place again

We now know that Omar Mateen marked down his place of birth as "New Hyde Park, Queens, New York" as described above. New Hyde Park is zip code 11040, which covers the part of Queens that contains Long Island Jewish Medical Center. I wonder if there are any sources to substantiate the most-likely-correct guess that he was born at LIJMC? Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need that level of specificity? I've not seen a BLP/BDP mention the literal location of birth. NYC is fine.EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Actually, NYC is not fine. The NYC border literally goes through New Hyde Park, so it is kind of disputed whether Mateen even got his place of birth in the correct county, or if the name of the Queens neighborhood is erroneously written as the name of the town across the city limit. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how that level of specificity is helpful. As far as I'm concerned he was born in New York City. I've never been there, but to me the distinction, even amongst the boroughs, is completely irrelevant. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's "kind of disputed". He wrote in a legal document that he was born in New Hyde Park and in Queens. There is such a place. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Bayat

Many people are missing the point of why Omar stopped shooting and called the police. For islamic supremacists, they are fulfilling the bayat, which is a part of what they must do while they are committing jihad. Jihad is incomplete without bayat. They must do this openly and they must do it where people can hear them - its a part of the process of wiping out infidels. Omar calling the police is not all that different than the hijackers on 9/11 shouting Allahu Akbar on the plane for all to see.

Significance of Orlando gunman calling 911 during standoff, CBS News "ISIS tells its followers that they must pledge bayat, they must pledge allegiance to ISIS before they die." - CIA deputy director

Morell is slightly wrong here. Islamic supremacists will continue to do things of this nature, Allahu Akbar and otherwise to where people can hear them, because it is a part of the bayat and is much, much bigger than ISIS. The 19 hijackers weren't ISIS - ISIS didn't exist back when they were proclaiming Allahu Akbar. ISIS will be gone one day, but bayat will still be here in these slaughters. Some people mistakenly believe that islamists do this practice because they are seeking fame or notoriety, but its not that at all. Its a part of the process for their religious proceeding.

An explanation of why Omar called the police the way he did is an important part of this situation, and until that is included in the article this article is NPOV. 97.76.210.20 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a good point about interesting information and a good source, though I don't think you understand POV vs NPOV, nor do I understand how excluding or including this detail raises POV at all. It needs to be added with care, and without distracting lingo like bayat. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Casualties and attribution to Mateen

There's currently a content dispute regarding the number of casualties and whether or not to attribute all of them to Mateen's actions. There's a related ANI posting at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unsourced_content. The dispute is whether or not Mateen was responsible for all deaths/injuries or if police injured/killed some innocent folks when storming the building.

I personally have no problem with making the language more vague, simply stating that 49 people were killed and 53 injured in the event. But WP:TRUTH applies here and some sources are saying Mateen killed/injured them all. Until we hear otherwise, this wording is acceptable as it's been verified with reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely, 100% agree. This attempt to shift some of the responsibility to police or anyone else when these claims are still unconfirmed and purely hypothetical is completely ludicrous and plain-out WP:OR. Parsley Man (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you agree that the language should state the casualties without saying Mateen shot/ injured all of them, and without introducing tortured theories and explanations about who else may or may not have done so. I think I did that in the body. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016

The word "Mateen" is Arabic. It is NOT Persian. Please edit the misleading copy.

71.105.80.15 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Will remove the translation as WP:OR since neither source mentions the translation EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a good source for a ref, but an interesting blog post by someone named Mateen:

“Mateen” is a good name. It is one of the 99 names of Allah found in the Qur’an. My Muslim father gave me that name, hoping it would become an apt descriptor of my life. The Arabic word means “firm, strong, immovable.” blog

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Category:LGBT American people of Asian descent

Resolved

Really? Doesn't one need to identify as LGBT to be categorized as such? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-identification is only required for living people. Jim Michael (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And the recently dead. See WP:BDP EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Separate article not needed

No consensus to merge. SSTflyer 08:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

As the only reason for this man being known is his connection to the night club shooting, does not merit a separate article (analogous to Adam Lanza/Sandy Hook). Propose that this be merged. Ies (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - we dont give adam lanza his own article.BrxBrx (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:TOOSOON. Hours after the attack, with fresh details still coming in, and the guy gets his own article? We probably should wait until we have enough information to support an individual article, if we do. Parsley Man (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:TOOSOON is an invalid argument here. There are plenty of RS with provisional details, and the article will continue to be edited as fresh info comes out. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - He clearly satisfies WP:GNG. (I have often made the mistake of citing/arguing against a citation of a policy I haven't read—please make sure not to... er, mimic me... here.) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge/redirect. This is an individual notable only for the shooting, and the page length at the other article doesn't justify a split. Since the individual is dead, there will be no trial, which is a factor that I think weighs in favor of merge/redirect. Neutrality^talk 03:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The topic concerns the mass murderer with the greatest body count in U.S. history. I'd say that right there is all the solid ground for the notability necessary for an early Start-Class article like this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In support of this train of thought, the former deadliest single shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had his own article as well. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed true, but if this article winds up being merged, there's no stopping anyone from recreating it. My only concern is it having enough information that would support itself and not make it an essential copy-and-paste from the main article (especially if the original material hasn't even been removed from the main article too). Parsley Man (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(copied from below) At your quasi-suggestion, I've cut down the section in the event article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To note, however, is the fact that Cho's motives were complex outside of the realm of extremism, and that at the time mass shootings had not yet become the unwelcome staple of American society that they are now, so his incident was much more of a distinct one. It could very easily be argued that body count has no bearing as a determining factor in a discussion like this. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge Everything which has been stated in the individual article has already been covered in the broader article about the incident. New details may come out but they probably will not make the subject more notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an argument to trim down the content in the event article, not to delete this one. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you do that in the first place when you created this article, then? Parsley Man (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not making this argument, just saying what it's really an argument for in my view. I think the blurb's current length in that article is okay, for the moment anyway. Could be shortened, but not in urgent need of it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

At your quasi-suggestion, I've cut down the section in the event article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge - Both articles combined total less than 80 kB, and should be merged together, at least FOR NOW. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This article keeps getting bigger and bigger every minute. His father is an interesting character so possible more information coming. 70.50.215.119 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Observation: 5 vs. 3 is not consensus, so please nobody get any ideas about closing this discussion prematurely or unilaterally changing this to a redirect. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No one's assuming anything just yet, so please, don't jump to conclusions. Parsley Man (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No conclusion-jumping here. I only made this comment because I've done something similar myself. Just trying to avoid a headache is all. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the article's creator, you seem overly defensive about it, so I'm trying to keep it from spilling over and making the heat go up. Parsley Man (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just active in the discussion with an opinion. There's no heat from me. I know it's not "my" article and that WP isn't finished. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I oppose merging this article and appreciate your dedication to the subject matter, but others may interpret your responses to most every vote as being bludgeoning. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support speedy merge Unknown guy shoots up a bar. Classic one event. Anything that needs to be known about him can go in the shooting article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Change to Oppose merge I just read the article and there is enough to warrent this artice. Also those who brought up WP:BIO1E's mention of the incident being highly significant and his role being large. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Sadly history has another villain to add to its books. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy merge - Dude was completely unknown prior to today and is now dead. Classic BLP1E. The crime is of course notable but the shooter fails one of our strictest policies, BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

From that policy: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Substantial, well-documented role in significant event (i.e. deadliest Islamic terror attack in US since 9/11, deadliest anti-gay attack in US history, deadliest mass shooting recorded in US history). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Man does not DESERVE his own article, damnit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.6.181 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disgust for the perp, however well justified, is not a WP policy against writing an article on him. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a movement to deny media coverage BY NAME to mass shooters, etc. Minimizing the exposure of this extremist would fit along those lines. We can minimize his exposure by putting only the barest minimum information about him in the article about the shooting. He does not need a separate page. Xalorous (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would we minimise the amount of attention that Mateen gets? By trying to 'bury' Mateen, we would essentially be intentionally obscuring what could be relevant information. Legocityfan119 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - With the original content at the main article now trimmed down to a basic summary, this seems like a good start for this article. Of course, it still needs some more improvement, but it'll get there. Parsley Man (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral I would like to point out that this is the deadliest attack on US soil since 9/11, it was done by one armed man. Ralphw (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Do not merge (i.e., keep separate) There's so much information about Seddique, that it does merit a separate article. -Mardus /talk 04:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The article should be merged if not taken down. No terrorist names should be posted in media. Doing so fulfills part of their goals. The attack article should give his age and mention his name exactly one time.Xalorous (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While it might be true, is that actually a valid reason? WP is an encyclopaedia - it is supposed to provide information to those that seek it. It just seems senseless to essentially 'censor' the site purely because we don't want to support the terrorist. Legocityfan119 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Very true and well said; see WP:NOTCENSORED. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - Article should be kept, as it currently meets the WP:GNG reqs. He might have only been involved in one event, but he committed the deadliest mass shooting ever in US history, among other things. Legocityfan119 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy merge - Per WP:DENY (in spirit) Mlpearc (open channel) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge - Sole reason for this person's notoriety is a single event which already has a wikipedia article as per BLP1E (Narkstraws (talk))

Read exemption number 3 "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Deadliest mass shooting in the USA is very significent due to the proficiency of mass shooting within the country. GuzzyG (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Most of the support votes are not supported by policy but are symbolic attempts not to memorialize the killer, but that's not how history works and a free encyclopedia should not be run on those conditions, the people spouting BLP1E should read rule number 3 and as this is the deadliest mass shooting in the USA's history, this is a significant event. GuzzyG (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't support on the grounds of not memorialising a man whose face is on practically every paper and TV in the world. I support because at present very little is known about the supposed perpretator and what little there is could happily sit within the main article. At the moment there are oceans of speculation, but little reliable info. WP has a better chance of containing those known facts within a single article, that is the practical argument. NOTNEWS and BLP1E would be my policy arguments. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – He needs a separate article same as Anders Behring Breivik.--Opdire657 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BIO1E : "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". El pitareio (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is a reason the public is so interested in the terrorist, his parents, wife, etc.: the guy is the deadliest terrorist in the United States since Osama Bin Laden. Of course he should get his own page, just like Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC terrorist group does. XavierItzm (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Sadly meets WP:N, and removes article bloat from the main article. See also Seung-Hui Cho Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are separate articles for Seung-Hui Cho and Timothy McVeigh as well. The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting article will be expanded enormously, and there is a need for a separate article for the shooter's detailed backgrounds. Jusinhan (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Per previous responses; meets WP:N, removes bloat from main, and follows in same vein of previous incidents' perp articles. Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's better to have the two articles split. Both meet WP:N.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It has big information for 1 page.Shadow4dark (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per BLP1E. Let's wait a few years for responsible secondary source analysis. Right now all we have is drive-by journalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Notability asserted by widespread public scrutiny, will highly likely be centre of attention for long time with much more information due to extreme nature of attack. Many examples above of separate articles for other mass murderers/terrorists "only" known for their attack. User2534 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: keep separate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep separate, because this is one guy who committed the worst terror attack since 9/11, it only makes sense that he get his own page. As this story develops there will be information that is not notable for the article about the shooting, but relevant to the man and such. A potential example of this is court cases and dates. Will2022 (talk 13:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a merge. There's two reasons why the article was split – they are called notability and bloating of the main article. Seung-Hui Cho and Timothy McVeigh also have their own articles, as other people pointed out. Adam Lanza is a different matter altogether. Finally, WP:BLP1E does apply, but it just confirms that this article should not be merged back. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, now I see that much of this article's content is duplicated in the main article, so let's wait for further analysis of the situation. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: - why does Lanza not have his own article? Ck786 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Ck786: I don't know. I think it is best to ask the original authors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. Lanza is definitely notable enough for his own article, given what we have now, but no one has ever come around to splitting the articles. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Epicgenius: - it is strange. I checked out the SH shooting page earlier and there's a FAQ section suggesting that theres "consensus" on merging Lanza's article with the SH article, despite him murdering his mother separate to the SH shootings. The inconsistency is bizarre. Trying to change anything over there appears to be firmly in the too hard basket, despite him being more than notable for his own article... Ck786 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
          • @Ck786: I think such a split should be discussed over at the Sandy Hook shooting talk page. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
          •  Done – The discussion about Adam Lanza is here. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support at this point the individual is not notable. If previous patterns repeat themselves he may become notable in the future however it is also possible he will not achieve any notability separate from the shooting itself. Until there are sufficient sources for independent notability the two should be merged to the incident. SPACKlick (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge at this point the individual is not INDEPENDENTLY notable, and this article is an unnecessary and premature mirror of the 'shooting' article. It may later transpire that biog info will come about, which at that time would justify a seperate article. At the moment it is simply a FORK and distraction. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge for now. Put all of this information into the Olando shooting article. If the section on him becomes too big, then it can be split off. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This guy has got massive coverage worldwide and will go into the history books for this infamous act. Although this is a one time incident, we still need to keep a separate page for him as he has become very notable now. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This page will only act as martyrdom. We must be cautious in the way we approach documenting this man. In one hand he must not be censored, but in the other there should not be emphasis placed on him. I believe merging him into a section of the shooting will act as a good compromise (see Adam Lanza).Rhumidian (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge for now. The attack at Pulse is not known because it was committed by this guy, this guy is known because he committed the attack at Pulse. The event and the killer are not independently notable. Paris1127 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral on merge but suggest all participants in this conversation review WP:ONEEVENT. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - there are multiple examples of single event killers with their own WP articles. Anders Behring Breivik, Timothy McVeigh, Martin Bryant, etc, etc... Ck786 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The 9/11 hijackers and Boston bombers have a page, so should this monster, worst attack since 9/11. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Has enough backbone and meets guidelines to be its own article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Notoriety is beyond dispute and the level of detail to be developed in a biography is quite unlike that found in the context of the Orlando shooting WP entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Extremely high-profile individual to extensive media coverage. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge for now He was only notable for the shooting, and died during it, so IMO this falls into WP:1E. Breivik's article should stand because his experience in prison has also garnered news coverage in addition to the shooting. If more information becomes available that supports his notability then we can keep the individual article. EternalNomad (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Far too much sourced topic-specific content to be merged to the shooting article which would be out of place there.--Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This article wouldn't be glorifying him or anything. --The Copper Miner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Look at Andrew Cunanan as an example of article created for notorious killer. Note, Mateen was responsible for the nation's deadliest mass shooting attack. He merits his own article. Maslowsneeds (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Deadliest shooting-cum-terrorist attack on American land since 9/11. The man had a compelling background (FBI investigation). The article is getting bigger every hour. Surely we cannot fit all that in the club shooting article. Meganesia (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:1E rightly encourages most people known only for a single event to be documented in the article for the event. But it rightly makes the following exception: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The significance of the attack and Mateen's role as the perpetrator clearly meet those criteria. A useful side-effect is that it allows the facts of Mateen's background to be documented independently of the horror of the attack. Including significant detail of his life in the article on the shootings might be seen as giving the perpetrator undue prominence compared to his victims. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I can see both sides - the murderer certainly qualifies for notability, although only in the context of the crime he committed. It is disgusting that someone can commit a crime like this and this provides instant justification for notability and a wikipedia page for immortality. I think that is bad policy. There are also the victims, who one could argue are also now notable. Ample articles could be cited on who they were and what they were about. Taking the long view, what we would like is for someone researching a related topic 50 years from now to be able to go to wikipedia for the essential details of what happened. From that perspective, I'd like to suggest a new page on the people associated with this horror, including perhaps both victims and perpetrator. Or at least a page describing the soon-to-be well-documented victims. Irrespective of the precedents of existing articles on single-crime perpetrators, I tend to oppose giving notability to such criminals in this way, hence tend to support the merge crowd. Could one argue that the details of this man's life are not encyclopedic, and merely part of the narrative of the criminal investigation? Why would someone want to know where he went to school, yet not want to know where his victims went to school? etc. Bdushaw (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Rupert Clayton ~ Henry ^TALK 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose He played a large role in a significant event. Anyone care to offer persuasive definitions of "large" or "significant" that contradict this simple statement? If not, !votes based on BLP1E should be discounted.
  While I have some personal sympathy for the off-wiki movement to treat the names of villains and scoundrels as unpronounceable, ala the treatment of the Dark Lord's name in the Harry Potter series, it is not policy here at Wikipedia. If it ever becomes policy, we can revisit the issue but, for now, !votes based on this rationale should be discounted.
  The subject sure seems to have significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Anyone care to offer persuasive definitions of "significant", "multiple" or "independent" that contradict this simple statement? If not, !votes advocating merger should be discounted. David in DC (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect. This man has no notability to warrant a separate wiki page. The subject is sorely known for the shooting and should thus be discussed in the article that is about the shooting. As it is this page is in bad condition as it violates WP:TERRORIST in the introduction itself and is filled with irrelevant trivia that has no encyclopaedic relevance. --Nazeer (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Enough content is unrelated with the shooting. Lorstaking (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The subject was a person of interest who has been investigated by the FBI previously. His back story needs to be told, separate and distinct from the event that made him notable. // Internet Esquire (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is plenty of source material to work with for an independent bio, and too much for the main article. The subject passes WP:BASIC.- MrX 21:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not only is this a critical matter for the USA that deserves a lot of scrutiny (I periodically come to the article to get a current overview on new data rather wading through the usual media morass looking for info specific to the shooter), there are other articles which refer to it (eg Controversies surrounding G4S) which would suffer if they had to revert to back/forth editorializing on the person rather than just pointing to a well-updated page on this person. Facteditor (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Largest mass shooting in American history.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - He clearly satisfies WP:GNG.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Did nothing notable outside that one event. Belongs inside that one event's article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. There is far too much material for inclusion in the shooting article, and more than enough material for a separate article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge: Again, a BIO1E situation. The material here, while extensive, can be tightened and worked into a section of the main article. I also do think it is important to note that the situation is still developing and that the main article is the best place to keep everything together. Montanabw^(talk) 06:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: One event does seem to apply on the face of it, but this is a rather significant single event, and the history of the shooter will be relevant information. Charles Whittman got the article over Tezas Tower Shooting, for example. This guy's psychological profile will be studied by the FBI, alongside other terrorists and spree killers. I don't care much which way this falls, personally, but there is the BIO1E policy to quote. I think his notability, while centered on the one event, will balloon past the acceptable size of a perpatrator section in the shooting article. Take Timothy McVeigh for example. He's a one event exception. And please don't turn this into a straw poll, folks.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Dylan Roof, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have articles; so should Mateen.
• Support merge as Omar Mateen himself is not WP:NOTABLE for anything other than the Orlando shooting. On his own he does not meet the GNG criteria but a section on him as a person could be written within the article for the shooting. --PatientZero ^talk 17:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I don't support the claim that other suicidal or terrorist are going to commit a severe crime just to get their own Wikipedia page. I also oppose of this page merging because this person has multiple details that should go further in-depths such as his family background, his wife, his motive, and I don't think all of that would be appropriate to stay on the other page. I oppose of this article to merge. Nick2crosby (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sadly, murdering 49 people makes him independently notable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge this article concerns the murderer. I oppose this article being merged, this is a stand alone article, separate of the largest mass murder in U.S. history .Vwanweb (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with many above, including White Arabian Filly ^Neigh. MordeKyle (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• COMMENT: Can an uninvolved editor SNOW CLOSE this merge nomination? It looks like the merge tag was already removed because there was no consensus to merge. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  I wouldn't try WP:AN, they have a backlog that dates to March. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not a snow close situation. Per Wikipedia:Snowball clause#The snowball test, the decision is not unanimous and if this was closed with merge opposed, people will still come here and discuss how this article should not exist and will just start the it up again and we will all feel obligated to !vote again. So I recommend we just let it sit here and let people vent until they stop. Then close it. There is clearly not a consensus and it is not likely there will be one, so the article will not be merged. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Curiously, the article on Sandyhook seems to have had several discussions as to whether the perpetrator should have his own article. They decided to not have a separate article on the perpetrator, though the issue has been reopened again. I suggest Wikipedia should develop a general policy for how to write articles like this (horrible crime+perpetrator). There have been many such incidents, there will be more, sadly. I still tend to lean toward merge - a separate article on a perpetrator just tends to attract edits to include every little factoid about his life (as this one has). I don't view many of these factoids as germane to the crime; even as a separate article the material should be limited to material relevant to the crime. (Why is it important we need to know what schools this guy went to and that his was a member of the Democratic party??? Unless these facts can be shown to have influenced his criminality, they should be left out.) Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC): I've posted a request for comment on situations like this on the Village Pump. I suspect we need general policy guidelines. Bdushaw (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly support merge Giving this man his own Wikipedia article sets a bad precedent. You're essentially granting mass shooters fame for killing scores of people (which is, most of the time, what they're aiming for). We need to be part of the solution and de-emphasize killers.72.221.75.205 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If I follow your logic then we would also have to get rid of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin for the same reason. This is a WP:NOTCENSORED encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I have thought about the situation and its various facets, and there does not seem to be any alternative to having this separate article. The several other examples cited (sadly there are several examples) seem to demonstrate this imperative. It is true that the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not have a separate biographical article - partly there may not be sufficient material, but I suspect also the editors there have clamped down on the addition of new material related to that shooter. Strangely, the guidance WP:PERPETRATOR has not yet been cited here. I strongly urge the editors of this biography to extraordinary care in its development, however - this is not an ordinary biography such that every little factoid about his life deserves a place; this is not a shrine to the shooter. From what I've read, he did have a long history of violence and hostility, and the article needs to describe this history, however. Bdushaw (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• merge if size allows, or keep, but downsize the section on the main article to a (short) summary. Right now we have one very large section and one full article about this person. That is too much duplication, of information and of editor effort to keep it in good shape on both places. - Nabla (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Comment

I'm sorry, but the article is proof of why there should not be an article YET about the shooter. Whereas on the main page, a lot of careful discussion is happening about what is known, this article looks like a final resting place for every idle speculation that's out there, plus lots of WP:OR on this page. 100s of allegedly's reportedly's etc. do not make any of this info more useful to anyone IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You should be commenting in the section at the very top of this page. It's entitled "Separate article not needed". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Already did. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Was bipolar"

She alleged he had bipolar disorder. No one "is bipolar" any more than they "are cancer". Okay, bad example. Also, is it known that he actually had bipolar disorder or is it just the type of thing that gets thrown around on urban Twitter about some girl or guy who was acting up? Also, if it is going to be brought up as a significant piece of information, perhaps more information about how a mood disorder (as opposed to a personality disorder such as narcissism or psychopathy) relates to homicidal violence. In my research there has not been a clear link, according to actual studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.95.208 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"His family was described as being moderate Muslims and "an all-American family".

Sorry but most actually describe his family as highly religious and unusual considering his father has a pro Taliban show. 24.217.75.105 (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Afghan descent" in lead sentence

I have boldly removed the part about Mateen being of Afghan descent from the first sentence of the article. I do this based on WP:BEGIN and WP:BLPLEAD. His parents nationality is not extremely notable or vital to the reader's understanding of the events. BLPLEAD states that we should not include the subject's ethnicity "unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Mateen is not notable for being of Afghan descent. Further, we do not use this language on similar pages when introducing mass shooters (e.g., Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., Adam Lanza).

Understandably, Mateen's ethnicity and religion (and the intersection of the two) is important to understanding the events, his self-proclaimed Islamist allegiance, and the reaction to the events. But those details, and the needed context to explain them, is best left to the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that.- MrX 13:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Registered Democrat- edit request

[3] Mateen registered as a Democrat in 2006. I suggest saying in the paragraph about his graduation from high school that he registered as a Democrat in Florida, but had not reregistered since then. TweedVest (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Florida has closed primaries, so he may have registered more to be able to vote in a primary election than because of affiliation with the party. I don't see where the article benefits from mentioning it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the media frenzy over gun control and Evil Republicans the shooting has sparked, it's worth mention. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. And we'd need some good sources for it if we did (WP:BDP applies). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this a good enough source: http://flvoters.com/by_number/1144/84524_omar_mir_seddique_mateen.html ? That says he was still a Democrat on 30 April 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.91.138 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Turns out Mateen was a registered Democrat. A person's political affiliation is definitely relevant for an article about them. Sources below, which are not apparently on the Internet:

• Katersky, Aaron et. al. "What We Know About Omar Mateen, Suspected Orlando Nightclub Shooter." ABC News. 12 June 2016.

• Lyons, Kate. "Orlando Pulse Club Attack: Gunman Identified As Police Investigate Motive." The Guardian. 12 June 2016.

• Westbury, Anthony et. al. "Co-worker: Omar Mateen Homophobic, 'Unhinged.'" Florida Today. 13 June 2016.

152.130.15.15 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also, the following category needs to be added to the article: Category:Florida Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.15 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:152.130.15.15 there is no question of adding that category, since it is not in any way a 'defining characteristic' of the shooter. Otherwise we would be adding 1000 irrelevant categories to every page. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Seek consensus for wording and info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ted Bundy was a Republican. His Wiki article includes him in the category "Washington (state) Republicans" so even though he did not target Democrat women. Let's stay consistent and put Mateen in the category "Florida Democrats." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

Registered Democrat?

The same year, he registered as a member of the Democratic Party, and was still listed as a member in 2016.

There has been a slow edit war during the day about including this text. I'm UK, but how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? The guideline is "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", relevance I would interpret as meaning that significant RS have established what the relevance is. The only reasons I have seen for relevance are a mixture of WP:SYNTH and CRYSTAL about possible impact on US elections.Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant from a US political perspective. Democrats are typically the party that advocates for gun control (i.e. 'assault rifle ban') while republicans are typically portrayed as the protectors of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I had read that he was a registered dem. in this article before, I did not realize it was contentious. I think it should be included because it is pertinent, especially to the ensuing political reaction to the incident. A simple sentence stating he was a registered Dem. is sufficient to accurately reflect the RS that report it. Having zero mention of his party affiliation, regardless of how transient, seems to me to serve a political agenda over the goal of accurate reporting of RS. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

We all know what how the US left and right divide over gun control (even in the UK, where I am). How does that connect to Mateen? Are terrorists noted for participation in democratic processes? Do we normally include (nominal) political allegiance in articles about crimes if it isn't a notable feature of the crime? Surely Mateen ought to be an outright opponent of gun control? Who, apart from WP editors, has pointed out the relevance?Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ted Bundy was a Republican. His Wiki article includes him in the category "Washington (state) Republicans" so even though he did not target Democrat women. Let's stay consistent and put Mateen in the category "Florida Democrats." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

@MagicatthemovieS: Category description is "People associated with the Democratic Party of the U.S. state of Florida." He is not associated with the party. He's was just registered as one. The category is for people working for the party or running under its label. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Bundy and Gacy both worked for their respective parties. Mateen was merely a member. There is no established relationship between his party membership and his deeds. No reason to include. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if there are RS citing the terrorist's party affiliation, why not include? By the vacuous standard that "There is no established relationship", then the fact that _three witnesses have said he celebrated_the_9/11_attacks_at_the_time_these_took_place_ should not be included either because, after all, is there an established relationship between the Americans who in the U.S. celebrated 9/11 and some nightclub in Orlando, Florida? XavierItzm (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

His party doesn't belong in the article. That's not consistency in categorization or generally in articles. Bundy was a Republican campaign worker as a paid employee. That's a miniscule subset of the Republican electorate. Consistency, if we were to include Mateer's nominal party affiliation, would require the addition of hundreds if not thousands of political party affiliations to the Florida resident subjects of articles where it was not any more relevant than his shoe size. Here's perhaps a reason there may be some support for adding it. This site below identifies the repetition of a regular theme, examining claims that a great many mass killers are "registered Democrats," even when there is no partisan registration in the states in which they reside or where the killers were not citizens, where they weren't old enough to vote, where they had never registered, where they were actually registered Republicans, etc. Mateer's status is inconsequential to the Democratic party. No one has presented evidence that he has ever even voted in an election. I don't think his party registration belongs in the story. It's clearly a violation of neutrality: https://humidcity.com/2014/05/31/absolute-undeniable-verifiable-proof-mass-shooters-democrats/ Activist (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot even infer that a person is a Democrat or Republican from what they register with the state. American political parties do not keep membership rolls per se, and the clerk does not require any proofs or oaths in order for a person to register a party affiliation with the registrar. In many parts of the US, one party is so dominant in the local elections that the primary for that party is the de facto general election. Personally I am a left leaning independent but I am currently registered as a Republican for the reason stated above. If he was shouting "Hillary in 16" while he was shooting, his political affiliation may be topical. Don't think anyone is claiming that here. John from Idegon (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To be in a category, the characteristic should be a defining feature of the person. Both Churchill and Hitler were amateur painters, neither of them is put in 'artist' categories, because it is not a defining characteristic of either's notability. There are millions of nominal christians in WP articles, again their religion is non-defining. A Pope or Bishop or writer on religion would obviously be different, as would a candidate/organiser or similar of a political party. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Such a straw man argument. This TP is "about including this text." Look above: first sentence on the section! People have seized on the category issue, which is not the subject of this TP, to censor out the party affiliation of the terrorist from the text. Whitewashing much? XavierItzm (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC. Removing irrelevant information is not whitewashing. For the record, I oppose inclusion of any copy or category indicating even what political party's primary he was registered to vote in, much less the highly misleading copy that implied that was his political affiliation. Unless you have sources where he States, "I am a Democrat", we do not know his political affiliation. That's the way it works in the US,in case you were unaware. We don't have to declare a political affiliation. In any case, there is nothing to indicate anything to do with American politics is noteworthy in his life. I'm sure with enough digging, some reporter could come up with the make and model of his first car, what clubs he belonged to in high school and his shoe size. That information would be just as irrelevant as his political affiliation. He didn't kill 49 people over American politics. He did it either over religious fanaticism or international politics. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with John from Idegon on this. I'm concerned by repeated attempts to link him to the current political campaigns. The most recent edits used an opinion piece which is not RS. WP:BDP applies here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm, the reason the discussion here has veered between category and text is that the edit-warring has veered between inserting each. I personally have responded here to whichever has been most recently re-inserted. I cannot see any conceivable justification whatsoever for category and would not be persuaded about text until RS establish a stronger connection to Mateen. … … btw I'm UK and don't have 'a dog in this fight'. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen purchased plane tickets to San Francisco for his family, for two days after the attack

It has come to light that Omar Mateen bought round-trip plane tickets for his family to travel to San Francisco, with the date of travel occurring two days after the nightclub attack. This probably deserves mention somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where to put it, and don't want to give it undue weight. Sources: (here), (and here) (and also here). There are other sources available at news.google.com - search for "Omar Mateen San Francisco".Juneau Mike (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What does that all mean? Has any one advanced any theories? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At the moment it means nothing, and it would be WP:OR to infer any significance. Pincrete (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ex-wife's name

I have removed mentions of the ex-wife's name in the article in this edit. My rationale is WP:AVOIDVICTIM which directs us avoid any prolongation or continuation of harm to victims and, perhaps more importantly, per WP:BLPNAME which states:

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

I proffer that she is only loosely involved, low-profile, and is not relevant to the reader's complete understanding of the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Current wife left him?

In personal life we have: Salman left Mateen and joined relatives in Rodeo, California, by December 2015 No mention of moving back, but supposedly the two were living together (or at least close) in the weeks prior to the attack. Is the 'moving out' reliable? Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

HIV Status / Univision report

Do we know yet, if Mateen also kind of flipped out by contracting HIV in addition to being an Islamist? Surely by now autopsy results are in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.9 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

All I'm seeing on that is the allegations by a person claiming to be his ex lover. Nothing substantiated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat tangential. But do people really "freak out" about HIV still? I know it "used to be" a death sentence. I thought all that changed. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Still a lot of stigma surrounding it. AIDS stigma. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is why we'll need to distinguish among different readings of the evidence as it emerges. HIV+ can make it much harder to be or pretend to be straight. Different stigma or both. I find interpretive comments of a congressman, for example one we have now with respect to the second wife, of little value. These aren't serious assessments, just people who need the camera lens to reassure them they exist. There are people with expertise worth quoting, or will be. The smartest aren't trying to be first or loudest. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no info on Mateen's alleged Gay Lover?

Please add THIS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: This has been discussed some here and on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. It's an allegation/rumor. We cannot add it as fact and, given it's serious accusation, we shouldn't add it at all without corroboration for investigators and reliable secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Univision is actually a reputed newspaper. And reliable secondary sources have mentioned the interview with him as well for example Telegraph in this article:(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/omar-mateens-gay-lover-claims-orlando-shooting-was-revenge-again/). Besides it's just a claim, not a proven fact; just like all other claims of Mateen being gay. The alleged 'gay-lover' of Mateen even says it clearly that he "believed" Omar did the shooting to take revenge after having sex with HIV-infected men. He never said it is 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.88.199 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless we have multiple strong sources reporting facts not rumors, we don't include it. We have one weak story based on an anonymous report. That report was reported on. So we have nothing we can use. And Univision is an entertainment television network not a newspaper. John from Idegon (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia doesn't need to include every. single. thing. that is asserted about the shooting and that is asserted about the perpetrator within its articles. If the FBI makes a statement about this person and this person's assertions about Mr Mateen then considerations for including or not including the information would be different. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @Shearonink: Sorry about that, I just saw Univision in source, read only part of line of first article and stupidly thought it to be a newspaper. But Univision is a news channel; not just a mere entertainment channel. And multiple sources are reporting the same interview for example: The Express - (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682749/Orlando-shooter-gay-lover-massacre-Omar-Mateen), Toronto Sun - (http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/22/im-going-to-make-them-pay-mateens-gay-lover-says-orlando-attack-revenge-for-hiv-exposure-not-isis), CBS - (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-man-who-says-he-was-omar-mateen-gay-lover-speaks-out-univision/). These are just a few examples ofcourse. You can even watch the video online of the interview and confirm it did happen. Clearly the interview of the alleged "gay-lover" isn't a rumour. And that Omar took revenge is a claim; just like the claims of others about him being possible homosexual. If those claims by others (which haven't been proved) are there; then by all rules the claim of Matten's alleged "gay-lover" should be here as well. 117.199.88.199 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"Alleged"..."Purported"...the interview itself is not in-question, however the assertions this person is making *are*. Frankly, I don't think any of these unsupported statements should be included unless there is something beyond all these news organizations churning the same news. They are simply acting as mirror-sites to the original article, just repeating the initial story. It's like when there's a UPI/AP story that gets picked-up by various outlets...there is no new news, it's all actually the same thing. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

117, as is mentioned above, there is only one source, and other outlets covering the coverage. There was a time when no reputable newspaper would have dignified that interview with ink, but sadly that time has passed. It is unverified, unsubstantiated, unverifiable and cannot be substantiated. In my day we were taught not to speak ill of the dead. There is no way crap like that belongs in this article. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Endorse, There is no way crap like that belongs in this article. yet. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

'No proof found'

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html 82.170.88.56 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• FBI Has Found No Evidence of Orlando Jihadi's Omar Mateen 'Secret Gay Life'--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and ordering

Recent edits by Élisée P. Bruneau regarding this have been reverted by myself and EvergreenFir. I think we can find broad agreement that A) Brietbart is not a WP:RS, and B) this is already in the article.

But I would strongly suggest that we should carefully consider the order of this section and the way that might affect the POV of the article. It may be beneficial to add a strong leading paragraph to the section summarizing that this is not a settled issue, and there is broad disagreement about it. Right now the section starts of with a pretty gay-fabulous paragraph and eventually meanders into "oh yeah, all that might be crap". That's not exactly a neutral way of presenting the issue. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

How to have your own Wikipedia page

WP:NOTFORUM T J W 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just sorry to say that I'm totally disgusted by the fact that this guy has a wikipedia page so quick... First we don't know so many sure things about him yet so most of infos can be controversial at this stage. And second, I refuse to get used to the fact that perpetrating a mass murder allows someone to have his wikipedia page. This can't be right... 84.102.132.234 (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC) WP:NOTE is the policy guiding the creation of Wikipedia articles. It is an amoral policy, and there are a lot of people with their own articles who are notable only for doing reprehensible things. TimothyJosephWood 11:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, but he is notable, the same way the perpetrators behind Columbine, Virginia Tech, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings have been. People remember and will continue to remember their names. It's shameful reason to be notable, though. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC) If it makes you feel better, he's dead. Doesn't have anything. No pride, no shame, no Internet. Mass murder doesn't create biographies, Wikipedians do. Andreas Lubitz' murder was three times as massive, but you don't see anyone reading his mundane life story here. Just about that one thing he did. There's a fair chance you could get this deleted on the same grounds, but you have to risk feeling disgusted at the way other people feel. Easier to just ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC) For some reason the "no internet" made me laugh. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Visions of a skeletal hand on a mouse? John from Idegon (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC) I was thinking more like Lucifer unplugging his router and counting to ten while he waits on the phone with tech support. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC) This tough subject needed some comic relief, but all kidding aside, shouldn't someone collapse this as NOTFORUM? John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Seriously though, this is how to start a deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2016

He was a Sunni Muslim with views that of Wahabbism/ Salafi which is under Sunni ideology which shouldn't be put under the general concept of Islam, please.

2601:204:C301:90F0:20E8:B467:90F9:8884 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Please make you request in the form of change X to Y, or add X to this paragraph. Also, please provide references for any material that you wish to change.- MrX 15:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously he wasn't a Shia Muslim. His parents are Afghan Pashtuns, Pashtuns are Sunni Muslims. His father praised the Taliban. Even his name Omar, implies that he was a Sunni Muslim, not a Christian, not a Shia Muslim. Besides, who ever heard about Shia Muslims commiting religiously motivated acts of terrorism. His faith was Sunni Islam, same as the Boston bombers', San Bernardino terrorist couple and so on. Tons of websites also call him a Sunni, but whenever changes are made to this page, they are immediatly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hezbollah, the various Iraqi Shia militias, the Houthis, and the terrorist groups in Eastern Saudi Arabia. Main difference though is of course the wider diaspora of Sunni's, and that the Sunni nations comprise three: Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain. Two of which are relatively stable. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

WP:BLPNAME

I just removed the names of the wives of Mateen from the article. WP:BLPNAME says to err on side of privacy when related people are not independently notable. No need to put spouses' names on here as they don't add to the reader's understanding of events. Referring to them as 1st/2nd wife works fine. The names themselves are not needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. The ex-wife's name certainly should be excluded. (Including the name of the current wife would be more defensible, but still likely should be excluded). Neutrality^talk 02:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

no confirmation of information source page

Omar is listed as a member of the democratic party and endnote 33 is presented as source, however there is no mention of his political affiliation in the yahoo news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77E4:E3C0:6165:9AE8:2D33:FDA7 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I ran down the ultimate source of that bit on Yahoo & I doubt it qualifies as reliable. Thanks for noticing this issue. The information is "hidden" for now within the text so if a better source can be shown it can easily be restored. Shearonink (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion on including this info and it appears the consensus was not to. Since I was involved on that discussion, I'd appreciate Shearonink's take on it. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why the hell isnt he listed as a terrorist?--Zgrillo2004 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has a screenshot of his Voter Registration that confirms he's a registered Democrat. However, attempts to replicate that record search return no result. (Mateen's records might not be public information anymore, for some weird reason...) --Amaroq64 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Omar Mateens Political Affiliation

Omar Mateens political affiliation is directly accessible via the public Florida Voter File Record. This is an exact dump from the file, DEM = political affiliation of democrat. My previous edit contained a reference to the source, which is publicly accessible, not from a third party media source. STL|114484524|MATEEN||OMAR|MIR SEDDIQUE|N|2513 S 17TH ST |APT 107|FORT PIERCE||34982||||||||M|6|11/16/1986|07/19/2006|DEM| 13|0| 13.2||ACT|18|84|32|0|0|||| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.34.217 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the actual source? Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Being registered to vote as Democrat is not the same thing as being affiliated with the Democratic party. There are plenty of secondary sources that reported his registration. The concensus is it isn't relevant. The factuality is not in dispute. Go look in the archive for my arguement. Not wasting my fingers retyping it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We probably should ignore this guy. These edits are probably in relation to this conspiracy theory going around, where all mass shooters are Democrats, and this it totally reeking of promotion of said conspiracy theory. Parsley Man (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I provided a reference, the Florida Voter File Record and a raw dump from the voter file. If you want to call facts, "Conspiracy Theory", then go for it. The reference is a request for this data set: http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-extract-disk-request/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.34.217 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

But what use does Mateen's political affiliation have to this encyclopedia? So far, it looks like none. Parsley Man (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is some basis for relevance of this information, it is clearly WP:UNDUE. Further, I'm not entirely sure that the possession of a conceal carry permit, while similarly a public record, is terribly relevant either, although it seems superficially so. The amount of training required for a CC is something on the order of 8-16 hours, and so is fairly negligible. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I am sure these edits have something to do with that conspiracy theory that all mass shooters are Democrats. Parsley Man (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, and the information may or may not be appropriate for the article regardless. The latter does not seem to be the case, and so the former is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Weapons permit

It was revealed soon after the massacre that Mateen had a necessary psychological clearance that was attributed to a practitioner who had never seen him, and who was also credited with perhaps 1,500 other similar clearances conducted after she had sold her practice and left the state. These were reviews of MMPI tests. The Wikipedia article indicated he had been cleared by a friend of his family, a family practitioner. That doctor was also the imam of the local mosque. But he would have only been able to give a medical clearance for employment, not a psych clearance. I am not aware that any media sources have reconciled the two accounts. The article also said he had no criminal record. In fact, he had a juvenile record for a criminal offense at school when he was 14, if I recall correctly. Activist (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism

Why are we avoiding calling this terrorism when the FBI characterizes it as such :

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/noor-salman-wife-of-orlando-massacre-shooter-omar-mateen-arrested-san-francisco/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/16/omar-mateen-wife-noor-salman-reportedly-arrested-orlando-nightclub/

And even journalists:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/noor-salman-arrested-orlando-shooting-omar-mateen.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/pulse-nightclub-shooting-orlando-omar-mateen-wife-arrested

And local Orlando news: http://www.wftv.com/news/local/fbi-arrests-wife-of-gunman-in-pulse-orlando-terror-attack/484854623

Why hide that it was terrorism? Are the FBI and The NY Times lying?

Also this is all from today since the terrorist's wife was arrested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B019:5E4D:4055:2214:C0B4:F6DD (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The category isn't appropriate as none of the sources you provide call Mateen an Islamist terrorist. We need sources to specifically call him that. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, can you agree to just put terrorism. The person removing it kept saying it has not been called terrorism period, just look at their responses, and that's what I'm responding to. Although I'd argue the fact it is called terrorism and he professed alligience to Isis that should be enough but I'm fine with just terrorism. The fact terrorism is not there is just plain crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B025:8901:1978:69AB:90E5:ED10 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A person is not "terorism", and the article mentions terrorism a few times in connection with the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting which he perpetrated. See WP:TERRORIST. ^Falling_Gravity 03:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

His wife has been arrested.

His wife was arrested, in connection with the nightclub massacre. This should be added to the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been added. I changed the citation because The Telegraph, a British newspaper quoted CBS but was in error regarding the place of arrest, which was not San Francisco. The NY Times was correct. Activist (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Although Salman is ethnic Palestinian, reports would infer that she was born in the U.S., not long after her parents immigrated. Activist (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the alleged political affiliation relevant?

Was he political? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.220.155 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:LGBT people from the United States

I don't think that this category covers it by any means. But I don't see any other "softer" category to file him under. I'm not exactly sure what the precedent is for these kinds of cases, but this can't be the only one where the question is significant. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't cover anything about this article at all. Review the category criteria: Note that living persons must self-identify as LGBT. Rumors, accusations, what could have been or might have been, does not make someone out, and this person definitely was not out. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't read the article, he's not living. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Alleged psychiatric diagnosis

CNN, quoting Mateen's first wife, to whom he was married and living with for four months, six years before the shootings, reported, "She said Mateen was bipolar, although he was not formally diagnosed." That's grossly insufficient to establish the existence of such a condition and I consequently put the claim into better context and removed him from the category. Activist (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)