Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the Orlando nightclub shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Negative reactions

[edit]

There are a lot of very ugly reactions out there especially from extremist religious and right-wing people/media like Yeni Akit, and from the perpetrator's father. I would like to have some input from LGBTQ people if, what and how this should be mentioned here? --SI 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you spend any time on this, I suggest you participate in the AfD already underway for this article. General Ization Talk 23:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've come to "no consensus" on the question of deletion, can I raise this question again? Isn't there room for some of the anti-LGBT pastors' comments? I'm not sure about the appropriate weight, but 2 sentences with 3 citations might suffice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please broaden the scope here?

[edit]

This article is called Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, as in it should be expanded to include prose like info from the sources that are out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Deletion

[edit]

It is entirely appropriate for a reaction page to include primarily quotes. This does not make it un-encyclopedic. On the contrary, a reaction page is a special kind of page that never existed in a traditional encyclopedia and is entirely appropriate for a post-internet era of widespread personal media applications and usage. As a scholar and futurist of internet culture, I encourage Wikipedia to loosen their stated standard with regards to reaction pages (and/or other pages in which many quotations may be warranted).

PaulBHartzog (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Republicans

[edit]

In a deletion discussion as to whether to keep or merge this article, I added that there was content needed wrt criticism of Republican reactions. A discussion ensued, and these are my subsequent comments from there (non-relevant part of the comment from there redacted):

Republican politicians have been called out for on their hypocrisy both for their 'thoughts and prayers' to the victims, whose everyday lives the said legislators have continually been making difficult; and for the fact, that lawmakers from that party have blocked legislation that would have curtailed the sales of assault weapons (especially AR-15). This doesn't mean, as if the Republicans should not have expressed support for the victims; it's that there is a deficiency of forward-looking statements on their part about improving LGBT rights, or at the very least making gun laws stricter. Therefore, the criticism of Republicans is rightful, since their condolences are thought not to be heartfelt in the way they have reacted.

-Mardus /talk 15:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of WP:SOAPBOX by unnecessarily promoting a democrat viewpoint - there is hardly consensus on criticising of republicans by the media at any rate, seeing how both sides are flinging mud at each other (before the corpses are even cold smh...)BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 04:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nothing but democrat political opportunism on the deaths and injuries of a hundred people. Adds nothing to the article other than entrenching certain political viewpoints by attacking another. Its tricky because this is the reactions page but, considering the discourse is not new at all, political reactions/talking points add little to helping readers understand the incident. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without chiming in on the original issue, I think that reaction-to-another-reaction is only suitable in summary form, if at all. Most likely, there are better pages for them... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish newspaper

[edit]

Whatever the unsympathetic reaction in the Turkish newspaper (Yeni Akit) is, it isn't a 'popular reaction' and it isn't important enough to be so early in the article. there wasn't an obvious move so simply recorded here.Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of that fact is kind of charged. On one hand, you can say it's a leading Turkish newspaper, hence a popular/press reaction that belongs in the non-governmental section. On the other hand, the Turkish government has done so much to destroy freedom of the press that such a statement is practically an official statement, in which case it would belong under the Turkey entry in government reactions. A secondary source carefully explaining this case would do much to move it to the other place in the article. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flags at half staff

[edit]

Under political reactions, it says that Alaska governor Bill Walker ordered them at half staff. I know in my state of Wisconsin Governor Walker did the same. I checked Wisconsin's website and it says that Obama ordered all flags to be lowered to half staff. I'm not sure but I believe this should be changed in the article. Ghoul flesh (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Alaska text, leaving the nationwide text.Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that POTUS ordered flags at half staff nationally. That should be enough to draw the inference that flags were lowered across the US, regardless of the PR of certain state governments. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there are officials directly going against the order of flags at half-staff: [1]. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least that official is consistent, he refused to lower the flag for 'Paris' and for other US attacks.Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the citing of applicable regulations while going against orders from high-up solidifies his position. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that so long as the order was generally followed, it would be intolerable to have 50 state entries or innumerable local ones about each observance, so removing Alaska was the right call. I would cite the Alabama case if the official were responding specifically to the attacks by not lowering it, but since he makes it clear that this is a general policy of his that is not really a reaction at all, or even the omission of a reaction, but just a difference in interpretation of policy. It would be a statement about him, but not about the shootings. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we ditch the "too many quotes" tag?

[edit]

@PaulBHartzog: above seems OK with the quotations we have, as am I. I tried taking the tag off but got reverted by User:John. [2] I don't think anyone is seriously working on taking quotes out, nor suggesting which - my feeling is that in a contentious yet solemn topic that we want to keep some decorum about, by far the best thing is just to quote what people said so we don't have endless POV battles over how to paraphrase it to give advantage for one side or the other. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Wikiquote does. Here at Wikipedia, we summarise the best sources. An article cannot consist of a selection of quotes. There are copyright concerns as well. It can't stay like this, I'm afraid. --John (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense - copyright might kick in if we had a page worth of quotes from one book, but it most definitely is not a factor when we have no more than one or two sentences per source! And while Wikiquote is interested in curating quotes as quotes, there's no reason why they can't be used to document speakers' opinions as part of encyclopedic coverage. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's interesting to hear your opinion. I very strongly disagree with you. I'm not aware of any Good or Featured articles that consist of 90% copyrighted quotes, are you? --John (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since this article is nowhere near 90% quotes, that isn't really relevant. Also, I see nothing in WP:Good article criteria about 'too many quotations', so I don't see what Good Article status has to do with it. And again, copyright is meaningless in reference to single lines of text. We can rest pretty well assured of this when we consider that every one of those quotes was obtained from newspapers all over the world, subject to all sorts of copyright policies, not one of which has to worry about quoting a line of a speaker's text even though they are for-profit businesses. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: The template:quotefarm had been added by John on 13 June 2016[3], meanwhile 9 days and >200 edits have passed so the current status has a broad consensus. If you see the need of changing more, do it, in case of reverts open a new talk section on the specific changes you want and wait for consensus before reverting. But keeping the badge doesn't help anything anymore. --SI 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that the tag is gone. Quotes are the essence of an entry like this. The prose just needs tightening throughout. It still reads like a rushed compilation. I'll give that a shot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"constitutional reform"

[edit]

I'm surprised that we've had this (clunky) language or something close to it in the lede for some time;

...the USA's internal discussion for constitutional reform in relation to the gun control related rights...

I read "constitutional reform" as an attempt to amend the US Constitution, which isn't happening. And linking the phrase "constitutional reform" (my emphasis) to the Second Amendment doesn't ring true. How about this:

...the domestic US debate about constitutional rights and gun control...

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting edit of Richard Marx's comment

[edit]

The F bomb used in Richard Marx's comment(he said "We should demand more of our elected officials rather than their fucking thoughts and prayers") is rather tasteless and out of place with Wikipedia standards. If the comment is to remain, I suggest editing it so that it sounds more clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We can't change his quote and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Jiménez

[edit]

Edds might want to chip inn here [4].Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&oldid=1252358572"