Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Workplace shooting

Whether or not terrorism was involved, should this be called a workplace shooting in the infobox? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It will depend on the motive, once that's firmly established. The setting, I think, is less relevant. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It can be "terrorism" and a work place shooting at the same time. It can be both and doesn't have to be one or the other. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be appropriate per 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting. Bod (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I said "Whether or not terrorism was involved." Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It was his workplace. It was a shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't his workplace. It was a rented venue, which does differentiate it from most workplace violence attacks, as they usually happen at the location where the perceived slight took place. The 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting is the reverse. It was a terrorist attack that took place where the shooter was "employed", only because the military happened to be the target of jihad for this particular terrorist. grifterlake (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd considered showing up to office parties part of the job. Networking, schmoozing and whatnot. Though yeah, some might see them as a break. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, "workplace shooting" strongly implies a whole different set of causalities and motives than an act of terrorism. Maybe I'm mistaken in this presumption? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be possible that what you know is concordant with what you know. There was until now no source mentioning a manifesto issued by the shooters, so who knows ? (https://www.google.com/search?q=motivation+of+the+shooters) --Askedonty (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I know the news has repeated that "disgruntled worker" and "domestic terrorism" are two possible scenarios. This seems to have led some here to believe they are the only ones. It's not that simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Workplace shooting" has just been restored per "they had a training event b4 the party, so were at work, see https://gma.yahoo.com/multiple-victims-san-bernardino-california-shooting-police-201637857--abc-news-topstories.html#". I've always considered a "workplace shooting" to be at the workplace, rather than, as Grifterlake notes, at a rented venue. Consider: your entire office rents a public park for a holiday party, where a mass shooting ensues. Is that a "workplace shooting"? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Were the workers being paid at the time? Then it was a workplace shooting, regardless of the venue. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The article says "had been at a holiday party and training event for the San Bernardino Department of Public Health." One could assume they were being paid but, absent confirmation—which does not exist within the article—it is only an assumption. Still, let's assume for the moment that my hypothetical park event is paid; is that a workplace? To me, "workplace" means "place of work", as in the location at which an employee spends the expected majority of his/her work hours, and thereby excluding this rented venue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are clear legal definitions of workplace, depending on jurisdiction. People can visit a variety of sites, which are all the workplace. In this case, staff were attending training and a banquet at a venue lawfully rented by their employer. It was their workplace, for the time being. This was a shooting in the workplace of one of the shooters, and the extent to which it was work-related has not yet been determined. EvidenceFairy (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Would that not, then, require a reliable, secondary source to have classified this as a "workplace shooting" per the legal definition in place in San Bernardino, California? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 12:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To accept this as a workplace shooting would mean that a truck driver who shoots an attempted carjacker was involved in a workplace shooting. I don't believe I have ever heard such an event characterized that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grifterlake (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Only if the carjacker worked for the same trucking company. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there have been events labeled workplace shootings that involved disgruntled clients, customers and others who weren't employees. grifterlake (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed—becuse they occurred within a workplace. . —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevant policies

For those wondering why WP:BLP applies when Farook and Malik are dead, see WP:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead:

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

So does the question becomes one of whether the mention of religion (as backed by Reliable Sources) in the "Suspects" section constitutes "contentious or questionable material"? I certainly see how building a "Motives" section with items which are suggestive of motives but independent of any motivations given in reliable sources is WP:SYNTH (at the very least), but I don't see a clear problem with including this widely reported information in §Suspects. Isn't the issue really WP:UNDUE, and should we be taking our "due weight" clues from our sources? -- ToE 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's possibly contentious. It's certainly not questionable given the # of primary sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy means pretty much what they want it to mean. "Can extend" means "Must extend". "Six months to two years at the outside" means at least two years. Extensions that apply "particularly" to material with implications about the living apply to everything under penalty of ban. And "contentious or questionable" doesn't mean that external sources regard it as contentious - it means that some guy on Wikipedia says it is contentious. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I would not agree that "Can extend" in this case means "Must extend" and I take "two years at the outside" as meaning no more than two years. In any case, in this situation its going to apply for a least six months so its not worth discussing right now. In a situation like this, it would be generally reasonable to apply it at least until the official investigations are concluded. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Victim data coming out - let's cover this well

It looks like the notifications have been done and the stories are starting to come in, like this. These are important aspects of this case and I am praying that the kind of Wikipedia philosophers who, in an inversion of how the rest of the world feels about such things, claim that only people who shoot should be covered because the people shot are somehow less important ... are going to miss this article. But I doubt it, so count this as the first Strong Vote for full coverage of all the victims we get reliable coverage of. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Does full coverage include how great their friends and families thought they were, what hobbies they enjoyed, which charities they supported or who spoke movingly at their funerals? If so, my philosophy involves a trombone and a hand gesture. But definitely relay their names, ages, jobs and family nutshells. If someone tried to stop the shooting or protected someone else, that'd be notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Beware of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This being said I support including as much information about the victims as possible, including, but not limited to, hobbies, favorite colors, favorite movies, music tastes, religions, and info on how their relatives felt about them. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In case anybody couldn't tell, you're being sarcastic. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did state that "I support the memorialization of the victims of terrorist attacks and mass shootings." in that same discussion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And just to be confusing, you said that while you were arguing against it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I was simply putting WP:NOTMEMORIAL ahead of my own personal opinion. Wikipedia policy is above subjective personal opinions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So, are you actually down for favourite colour today, all things considered, or are you being weird? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am being weird and obviously sarcastic as you indicated above. I guess it makes sense though that if the shooters' and/or victims' favorite colors are being widely reported in the press, then they should be added along with the rest of their basic biographical information as per what seems to be the consensus decided on this page. I also recommend adding as much information about the victim's religious beliefs as we possibly can as per precedent and consistency. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is too soon and in poor taste to use the victims as the butt of your unfunny tu quoque attempts at humor. If you persist in what appears to me to be disruption, I will file a request for arbitration enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not once mocked any victim of any crime. I am only mocking the absurdity of adding irrelevent information. Please do not threaten me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Waste of space? Probably. Minor waste of time? Yes. Disruption? Please. I suspect arbitration enforcement has more important things on their plate. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A few notes. November 2015 Paris attacks#Casualties is only one paragraph. Charlie Hebdo shooting#Victims is detailed, as the victims were in the room for different reasons. The Umpqua Community College shooting article has names in columns, and in the "attack" section has a footnote I added with the religion of two victims as it relates to the shooting. -- Callinus (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning religion

Is there any point to mention the religion of the gunmen? It doesn't seem to be related to the shooting, so I would say that it only fuels the fire of right wing extremist. Vote to remove? 81.237.232.140 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck getting that removed. Some editors even think his beard is notable! WWGB (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fucking fascists.. I mean, if he had grown a beard prior to the event it could be notable since it is a religious duty in islam, but we have no evidence of this, or that they were islamists, so it should all be removed. I guess this shows how racist Wikipedia is. 81.237.232.140 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Go someplace else to troll. 98.67.0.97 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Muslim is not a race. 66.87.108.189 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If it turns out to be terrorism, the religion would have to be mentioned. If not, it wouldn't necessarily have to be mentioned. However, multiple reliable sources have reported it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no report of the "reasons" of the shooters, they could be religion inspired or laboral conflicts. Since its not a serious report of that, we should not discard that fact.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There should not be a mention of the suspects religion unless relevant to the incident. This is yes a BLP and under discretionary sanctions - Cwobeel (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course their religion is relevant. Even if they were not motivated by their religion, who they are frames the debate in our society, frames the discourse in the media and in society, and pretending it does not (or wishing it would not) is attempting to engineer the debate rather than face reality and understand that is for damn sure relevant. You know and I know that everyone wants to know what their religion is. Only on Wikipedia can we pretend that their religion is "irrelevant" in today's day and age. And who are we to say it is "irrelevant"? It's certainly relevant to any number of groups and organizations and advocates involved with the Muslim community, for they need to know what is happening in their world, how it will be discussed, and need to consider how these things need to be addressed. Pretending it is irrelevant is ludicrous, it his HIGHLY relevant. Marteau (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

By all means the religion should be mentioned. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political correctness exercise. The sources think it is relevant, ergo, it is relevant. It is not up to us to rewrite freaking history. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has noithing to do with PC. Same as we don't describe the religion of other mass shooters. If and when it is determined that his religion had anything to do with the motives, it can be added.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooters motives are not relevant. The fact of the matter is, I wanted to know their religion, I sure you wanted to know it, pretty much EVERYONE wanted to know it. Saying readers of our encyclopedia don't need to know this is somewhat outrageous. Major reliable sources are reporting it. For Wikipedia editors to repeatedly remove this information is ridiculous and can serve only to draw further attention to the dysfunctions of Wikipedia. When the book is written about the censorial, politically motivated actions of Wikipedia editors, this could well be part of the introduction. Marteau (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If his religion was Christian or Jewish, you will not be making that argument. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's because the sources wouldn't be making that argument, it is only to be expected. Indeed, we might not have had an article to argue about... Wnt (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable sources believe it is relevant, so it should be mentioned here. Dream Focus 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

CNN was discussing his religion at length last night. If he was a devote Jew or Christian and leaders of those faiths were actively speaking out about them, we would mention his faith as well. There is also the matter that Muslims are carrying out mass shootings & other terrorist attacks regularly (its been in the news). 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

CNN on screen- "Sources: Male Shooter apparently radicalized." and bomb left right out of Inspire Magazine. "We've moved past workplace violence" except "as a possible catalyst" Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Their religions have nothing to do with the shooting itself (which is the subject of thise article). This is not conservapedia (in other words this is not the place to further your anti-muslim political agenda) and it clearly ciolates WP:NPOV to state the shooters' religions without providing a source which connects their religions to the shooting itself. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are their citizenships, education, marital status, and other things mentioned? None of those things is demonstrably relevant to the shooting. Religion is a basic fact about a person that is almost always included in Wikipedia biographical pages if known; it's part of the template for Infobox_person because it's regarded as a standard piece of biographical information, just like birth place, education, occupation, and marital status. It should be included when known, and in this case it is. Mrhsj (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Two of the shooters were married, hence why their marital status is mentioned. Their educations are not mentioned. The shooters' religions had nothing to do with the shooting, hence why religion is not included. The subject of this article is the event of the shooting itself, it is not a biographical article. This isnot conservapedia, please stop pushing the anti-muslim agenda. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Farook graduated from California State University, San Bernardino with a degree in environmental health in 2009." How is that not a mention of education? As to "anti-muslim agenda", please Assume Good Faith. Mrhsj (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooters' religions had nothing to do with the shooting,

You don't know that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If we don't know that, then their religion (at this time) is inconsequential for the article, same as with many other articles about mass shootings, in which the perps' religion is not mentioned. If later on it is found out that they are Jihadists, then we can explicitly refer to Islamic terrorism. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Article currently mentions they were "radicalized" and in contact with international terrorists. What kind of radicalization or terrorists? Radical vegans? Now the case to mention his religion is stronger than before. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to not mention their religion. It has been mentioned in numerous RSs and they're being investigated for ties to Islamic extremism. Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no reason not to mention it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There's every point in mentioning the religion of the perps. Why? Because it's arguably all tied in to their belief system, and even more importantly, the perpetrators themselves mentioned their religion as pertinent, beforehand, to why they even committed these acts. Political correctness = suppression of facts. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be like that (though sometimes unfortunately with ideologue-ish gate-keeping it turns out that way). But if the article is to be complete, thorough, careful, accurate, factual, blunt, and informative, it is not really even debatable (especially at this point) that it should be included, even deeply included. Redzemp (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is politically correct to be offended by non-inclusion of religion in this article. See I can do it too. Wikipedia is not here to promote an anti-muslim agenda, this is not conservapedia and our work here should be held to a higher standard and nor be subject to popular politically loaded terms like "political correctness". It seems that a consensus has been made which says that the shooter or shooters' religious beliefs should be included regardless of whether said information had anything to do with the shooting or not as it is "basic biographical information" as several editors have phrased it. I stand by my position that religion should only be included if it has a widely reported direct connection to the event and should not be included as a matter of course without debate, even as I am aware that I hold a position of minority. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and this is not so-called "Rational Wiki" either (a libby outfit), nor "Conservapedia". So yes, "higher standard", and suppression of facts that PC police don't want to consider as pertinent makes this no better than "liberapedia" (aka "rational wiki" so-called). It cuts both ways. Not including the religion of these perps, and the ideology of these actors (which is directly tied in to their religiosity and religion) when the perps themselves mentioned it, and also the way the world is in general in case you haven't noticed, mentions their Mohammadan religion, would make this article (and Wikipedia in general) sorely lacking and incomplete and even dishonest. They pledged allegiance to "ISIS", which itself stands for "Islamic State" etc. Also, by the way, even known liberal media stations have been "mentioning their religion". Redzemp (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

i think we have all had enough of Park's disruption and POV pushing. Welcome back by the way, please behave now. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How can Park's comment up above not be considered a blatant example of trolling? We are way, way past the point of not talking about the faith of the terrorists, yet he still persists. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Was it actually a holiday party?

Not according to this Dec. 3 Washington Post article.

In that article, the event is described as "another requisite all-staff meeting" and one of the survivors claims to have said at the start of the day to Syed Farook, "Ready to be bored?" There is a reference to Farook leaving his "papers" at his seat when he left (to collect his wife and weapons).

And the shooting is said to have happened at about the time that "The division chief had just finished a talk about statistics. The county supervisor had announced more hiring for next year and then given everyone a five-minute bathroom break."

(And how many staff holiday parties start at 9:00 a.m., anyway?)

NME Frigate (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)NME Frigate

Feel free to make required changes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"A technician wheeled out a lectern." Sounds pretty wild. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is very detailed and should be used to expand the attack section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

From one of the press conf I got that it was a staff training session in AM transitioning to a Christmas party in the afternoon. Nearly all victims were county employees. It appears the first person he shot was a jewish man who he argued with about islam not being a violent religion (that was on Nancy Grace so maybe exaggerated). Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Anything involving Nancy and a Jew should be taken with a Grace of salt. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a hate crime against Christians. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Father's alcoholism

Farook's father's alcoholism has been noted by several reliable sources. So it shouldn't be removed as BLP or irrelevant. If we are noting the heritage of his parents (Pakistani), then I don't see why his father's alcoholism and domestic abuse, which Farook grew up with, would be considered irrelevant.VR _talk 21:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because this is not a bio of the shooter. Including every published detail about his upbringing would be inappropriate and beyond the mission of the article. Encyclopedia articles are not intended to be include exhaustive details about things, but to provide more generalized coverage. Marteau (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I fail to see how Farook's father's alcoholism is relevant to carrying out this shooting. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources that mention it, use it as a detail to paint Farook's early life as "turbulent" and that he grew up in an "abusive home". Wouldn't details of the shooter's early life be relevant? If this is not relevant, then perhaps other details about Farook's parents should also not be relevant.VR _talk 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That could be their own original research though, and it might have nothing to do with his carrying out this attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The definition of original research is research done by wikipedia users. Reliable sources are allowed to do original research.VR _talk 05:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Was slcohol served at the party? Maybe the motive was a liquor run gone terribly wrong. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The party hadn't started yet. A technician had only just gotten the lectern wheeled out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there was an argument before when someone at the Christmas party said something about the dangers of radical Islam and this angered the shooter and he stormed off. This was a shooting "War on Christmas" and I guess the guy the shooter was arguing with won the argument but not in the way he liked. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful with sources as Farook's father and brother share his first name, only their middle names are different. Likely why there was so much hesitation by police to confirm the townhome was where the shooter lived at first and why they were looking for his brother as a possible suspect at one point. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the father's anything is irrelevant. Sorry but including details that lay blame at someone else's feet in any way is BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The claims that the father was an alcoholic, along with other claims related to his mental state, are all based on claims made by his wife in divorce proceedings, when many outlandish claims are likely to be made. None of these claims have been verified by a neutral third-party. Furthermore, the father is not a public figure and has not been directly linked to this event, so the addition of controversial material about his personal life is a violation of WP:BLP/WP:NPF. --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the statement as "According to sources, he had a "troubled childhood" and "abusive" home." The way it is phrased now talks about Farook directly, not his parents. If we can talk about Farook's bachelor's and master's degrees, then I think we can have one sentence on his childhood as well.VR _talk 05:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Islam / Muslim

We've got a handful of people working very, very hard to keep the words "islam" and "muslim" out of this article, even though nearly every news story referenced contains those facts. Is there a barnstar for defending the islamic faith? --Dan East (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's about what, 10 paragraphs before "Muslim" is even mentioned. The primary motivation for the attacks. You liberals... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 04:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just mention it but don't focus on it. People want to know if he was Muslim. If he was Christian, it would say. To omit this is POV. Bod (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned quite appropriately, but User:Cwobeel is whitewashing the article of any mention of islam as fast as he can. It was said that the FBI are now investigating links to islamic extremists and he edited that out as well. He has also threatened me, and others, with discretionary sanctions for including that fact, and that was my one and only edit to this page was undoing the removal of a properly cited fact. --Dan East (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted Cwobeel's deletion of Islamic extremism from the lead. He claimed it was unsourced after someone removed the citation. I find that a bit disingenuous on his part. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel's conduct has been reported to WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor excluding widely reported undisputed religion of San Bernardino Shooter. As far as the article content goes, at present it has "Farook was a devout Muslim according to his father and coworkers." which seems fine. If we wanted to add more about that we could add that he went on hajj in 2013^[1] which is when he met Malik and her family.^[2] The article already has that he then went to Saudi Arabia in 2014 to marry Malik. At present we do not know if religion was why they carried out this attack. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There's every point in mentioning the religion of the perps. Why? Because it's arguably all tied in to their belief system, and even more importantly, the perpetrators themselves mentioned their religion as pertinent, beforehand, to why they even committed these acts. Political correctness = suppression of facts. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be like that (though sometimes unfortunately with ideologue-ish gate-keeping it turns out that way). But if the article is to be complete, thorough, careful, accurate, factual, blunt, and informative, it is not really even debatable (especially at this point) that it should be included, even deeply included. Redzemp (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Devout Muslim edit

This edit is a BLP violation, cherry picked content and UNDUE. I have removed it.

According to Farook's father, he was married, had a child and was a devout Muslim.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. No true muslim would ever do a terrorist act. Therefore no terrorists are muslim - even though they quote the Koran and follow it to the letter carrying out their sick crimes. Did I get your "logic" right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't object to the information. The source is reliable and the primary is the suspect's own father, so that's a fairly solid source. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the assertion about the degree of the suspect's Muslim faith, it expresses only the opinion and belief of the father. Let's wait on that until there is more to back it up. Some would argue that a devout Muslim would never engage in behavior like this (while others would claim it explains the behavior). General Ization ^Talk 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Risks WP:SYN to mention it in connection to this event, however. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes; to be clear, I was suggesting we not mention it. And without that nugget of info, the info that he allegedly was married and had a child is not remarkable (at this time). General Ization ^Talk 05:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the name of a second suspect was posted in Twitter and picked up by the Washington Times. This article falls under WP:BLP and we need much better sourcing than that. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Twitter post was by Rick Serrano of the LA Times, who was likely live tweeting from a briefing, but I agree we should wait until the Times actually publishes it. General Ization ^Talk 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

With Muslim spokespeople at the press conference, shown on live feed, obviously the authorities and the Muslims think this is relevant. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It may very well prove to be relevant, but it is not urgent that we include it here until the facts are more clear and better sources are available. General Ization ^Talk 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Names such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik indicate they were Muslims of Pakistani background. If sources are found then we should add this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This source says he was Pakistani-American. [3] See also [4]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sayed Farook's father described him as a devout muslim so that should be included in the article. This especially since members of the Farook family had a press conference making it a point to describe him as a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information directly related to shooting can be included. Unless you have a source stating that the shooter's religion had something to do with the shooting, that particular factoid is not notable. Stating that the shooter is a muslim without stating that particular fact's relevence to the shooting also violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like his trip to Saudi Arabia might be relevant. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is a source reporting that the trip was relevant to the shooting? If not, such speculation violates WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Biographical information about a shooter is relevant. And since he and his wife are quite dead, BLP does not apply. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information about the shooting itself is relevant. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Its basic bio info, like his age and job and the relationship between the shooters. Nothing wrong with it. The Muslim part is in the middle of a three point sentence so its just two words, hardly undue. I restored the line.Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's very relevant at this point, considering he recently traveled to SA. According to our Wikipedia article on state-sponsored terrorism, "Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism" and "the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism". Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That is speculation and thus violates WP:SPECULATION. No source is reporting that his trip to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas are you saying that, since he traveled to SA, that trip must have been Islamist terrorism-related? How does that not violate WP:SYNTH? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in fact a POV to not mention it. If he was strongly evangelical, atheist, or was strongly into a political movement it should be noted like anything else. He is being described by his father as being very devout, with strict adherence to prayer. If he was a minor part of his life then it would not be worth noting. . --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No sources are reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. Including the shooter's religion would be the same as including information about the shooter's taste in music or his favorite color. Unless it has something to do with the event of the shooting itself (which is the topic of this article), then it is not notable. This is not conservapedia. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Cwobeel and ParkH.Davis on this one, at least for the time being. Some reports have indicated that Farook had a beef with a co-worker; say, for example, if—and that's a big if—that beef was specific to Muslims or Islam and is reliably linked to the shooting—say, as a motive—it would most certainly be germane. To include this data now, without context, is potentially inflammatory. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the FBI brought in the Joint Terrorism task force and that Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia AND that his own family describes him as a devout Muslim; his religion is relevant to this article. The same way a person who shoots up an abortion clinics religious Christan beliefs is relevant to a story like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we also omit that the suspect "worked locally as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels" or should we only omit that the suspect was "very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim"? [5] Bus stop (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, with all respect. The former speaks to his presence; the latter speculates on a motive that cannot possibly, at least at this point, be synthesized. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooter worked for the organization throwing the holiday party which he attacked. Thus his employment status actually has something to do with the actual shooting itself. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So why do we display religion in the Bio info boxes of people from political figures Ben Carson, Stephen_Harper to terrorists Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ? Muslim leaders are all over this thing. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are biographical articles. The subject of this article is the event of the shooting, not of the life of the shooter. It violates WP:NPOV to state facts about the shooter which have nothing to do with the shooting and which promote a biased position against muslim people. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, the collaborative effort—theoretically, anyway—of thousands of active editors, many of whom—let's be honest—push an agenda. Not that you are; not that I am. Ideally, however, this fact would be mentioned only where germane, even for a person who self-identifies as whatever. Are you a Muslim? Irrelevant. Are you a Christian? Irrelevant. Are you an atheist? Irrelevant. Unless it is part of why you're relevant. Do you fund Islamist terrorism? Relevant. Did you build the biggest church in your community? Relevant. Did you file numerous cases against school districts to abolish prayer? Relevant. Ideally. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We just report the information from RS. Same as his name, age, relationship with the girl etc. No one here adding the info is saying his religion lead to the shooting, but scrubbing it out is POV by the editor removing it because that editor is saying it is not important. 08:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Unless a source says that it is relevent, then it is not relevent. This is not conservapedia and it clearly violates WP:NPOV to state the shooter's religion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, we're seeing different things (and, no, we don't "just report".) His name is germane; he's the suspected shooter. His age probably is not germane, but that's rarely contested. His relationship to the woman is germane; they were together when killed in the shootout, per police. His religion, or whether he even had one, is not germane unless it can be tied with some degree of certainty to the shooting itself—like his name and his apparent partner are. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Hussam Ayloush with the Council on American Islamic Relations said Farook was married for two years. He wouldn’t confirm whether Malik was the wife." Source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Other sources have since confirmed she was his wife. It's likely that the reason the above source couldn't confirm it is because they didn't know. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Please do not re-insert this material unless there is consensus for inclusion, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - there is consensus that his religion is important, look around this page. Also it was removed by an editor on his 6th RR removing the religion, so had he not edit warred it would still be there. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any emerging consensus for inclusion. We don't indicate the religion of Dylann Roof or Robert Lewis Dear because it was not relevant to their actions. If and when the religion of the perps in this incident becomes known as relevant, it can be added, but not before. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my adding it back after a now blocked editor removed it is edit warring. I template you for disruptive editing already. There are tons of sources discussing his religion. Reverse your revert now. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? There is a discussion here ongoing and no emerging consensus for inclusion. Please respect WP:DR and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and be aware that this article is under discretionary sanctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

His religion is presented as a biographical and uncontroversial fact with other similar facts. Since you brought up discretionary sanctions... Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline. If this emerges as a crucial issue out of the investigation, it will be added and expanded. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, and it's your job to determine what "crucial issue" means? Not hardly. It is being widely reported by all the news organizations cited by this article, and there is a consensus to include his religion. It's not your sole decision to make. --Dan East (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, he was a Muslim? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!

(No, it doesn't really matter. It should really seriously be removed unless it's relevant here.) epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus: For

1. Cla68
2. Legacypac
3. Krzyhorse22
4. Harizotoh9
5. Viriditas
6. 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68
7. Bus stop
8. Dan East
9. Dream Focus
10. Bod
11. Viriditas

Against

1. Cwobeel
2. General Ization
3. ATinySliver
4. epicgenius

Dan East (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I also expressed a position of "against" as is well documented in this talk page. Please keep in mind that as per wikipedia policy, if, in a discussion, 10 editors support one side, and 7 support another, this does not mean the side with 10 automatically wins. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it a dog whistle when everyone can hear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.195.122 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• If devout Muslim should be added to this article, shouldn't devout Christian be added to the Robert Lewis Dear article? Frankly, I don't like it in bio boxes unless the person is a religious leader. Objective3000 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  That article is being deleted, but mention of him being a Christian is in the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting article. "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic". If their personal belief was part of the cause of something, it shouldn't be censored out. Dream Focus 21:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Couldn't find the word devout. First, we need to have a relevant reason to include religion. Second, we shouldn't be measuring a person's religion based on what someone else said. Further, the entire concept of measuring a person's devotion and expressing it with an adjective is bothersome. And please, don't use that "censorship" label. Not adding content that is not right to add to an encyclopedia article is not censorship. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devout deeply religious : devoted to a particular religion. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelistic the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ. So "extremely evangelistic" means the same as being "devout Muslim", only different religions of course. Removing content and keeping it from an article is censorship. And if reliable sources believe something is significant enough to mention, relevant to this case, then that's what we go by, not your personal opinions. The news has already covered the Facebook post where his wife made a post pledging allegiance to an Islamic State leader, this according to federal law enforcement officials. They were clearly jihadists. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihadist Dream Focus 05:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotection

As this article will be highly controversial and delicate for an extended period, I have semiprotected it for 3 months. I should add if folks really feel like unprotecting it sooner I really don't mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter reaction

Does the massive number of liberals/democrats/SJWs (including media personalities) blaming white men on Twitter immediately after the attacks rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not even on this talkpage. Stop listening to people with airtime to fill and nothing to say. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Witty and lol-worthy. Bod (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If it gets noteworthy coverage beyond the alt-right, go for it. Otherwise, it's part of the public sphere of Twitter where the liberty of expression allows freedom to say things without evidence. Anyone jumping to conclusions on a massacre is an idiot, I can remember The Sun's front page after the Breivik attack, proclaiming that al-Qaeda had attacked the children on the island '''tAD''' (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Motive

Throughout the day, I have seen the motive listed in the infobox switch between "Islam," "Islamic terrorism" and something like "Radical / extreme religious views." I think we need to pick one thing and stick with it, at least for the time being. It might not be a bad idea to get some form of protection back on this page either. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would contend that we still don't know enough through RS to conclude a motive. Let the investigation take its course. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, has anything been confirmed yet? Is the investigation into a cause all done? Why is this being changed back, and forth? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That's just what Wikipedia does. Everybody only knows everything about developing stories. Once the story's been established, they stop caring. Then a new story develops, and we have all the same detective sections on the Talk Page, because only a few of us bother remembering anything we learn during the other ones. Give it three more days, it'll look quieter and truer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the motive not be set to "unknown" or is there a reliable source which gives a motive? ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

All reliable sources are reporting that Malik pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on Facebook. Is there a reason why such a self-evident motive of Islamic terrorism should be ignored in favor of "unknown"? Please explain you reasoning. ISIL explicitly encourages individuals to commit isolated, lone wolf attacks, unaffiliated and without centralized directives. How is this not a clear and obvious motive? And how could one possibly argue that it is "unknown"? Please explain. Malik acknowledged her motive with her Facebook posting. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's multiple independent sources discussing this pledge, and the pledge itself doesn't convey a motive (since she posted it under another name and presumably didn't expect it to be connected with her). The pledge info apparently comes from the FBI rather than independent reporting. All this should be in the article but stated precisely. I'd prefer not having a motive in the infobox, or listing it as "under investigation" or some such, since the matter is complicated. The article can go into the details. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Its not self-evident. Saying that her pledge is equal to her motive is a conclusion. We should not be providing analysis. You need to find reliable sources that report that her motive was "Islamic terrorism". If it is as clear and obvious as you suggest, you should have no problem finding RS material that says so. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am confused how anyone could argue that a pledge to ISIL doesn't imply or suggest a motive. In fact, I am having great trouble trying to consider any other kind of motive. RS have reported on the increased threat of ISIL-inspired lone wolf attacks since July.[6] And the FBI has been talking about it since at least February.[7] How then, is her pledge not equal to her motive, when we've been aware of this kind of threat for some time? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

She pledged to ISIL, which encourages attacks on soft targets with weapons easily found - then shoots up a room creating a horrific bloodbath for ... what reason again? Maybe she got bored with paintball... Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unknown reason again. Maybe she was pissed off at something. Someone. Somewhere? Anger, despair, guilt...all way closer to most of these sorts than boogeymen from Syria are. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason is known. ISIL has already talked about it and RS reported on it. This is what ISIL terrorists do. I don't see any questions about motive. It's called Islamic terrorism. Seriously, is it that hard to understand? What's the problem here? Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So, just Islamic terrorism. She was motivated by Islamic terrorism to kill people without making any demands or political statements? Just saw an ISIS ad, and said "Yep. That's for me." And then her husband said he knew some people they could kill, and off they went on their radical journey. Or is there more to it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really confused by your statement, and similar comments by others who believe it isn't Islamic terrorism unless they are directly connected to a terrorist network, receive explicit instructions, and then make demands or an official statement. As all of the RS articles on ISIL repeatedly point out, that's not how it works anymore. ISIL uses social media and other platforms (such as the Inspire magazine in possession of the aforementioned terrorists) to actively encourage and promote decentralized lone wolf attacks with the sole purpose and motive of inflicting casualties on infidels. What is so difficult about understanding this? Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

People inflict casualties among "the infidels" every day in America. Without either a (real) link to a terrorist group, or an indication that this was meant to persuade someone of anything through terror, it just doesn't make sense to call this terrorism. And even if we do, that's the act, not the motivation for it. Were they passionately pissed about something to do with Islam? Syria? America? War? Peace? Sources indicate nobody noticed anything "extreme" about them, up until a last-moment "pledge" on Facebook, whatever it allegedly said. Let the forensics guys unbreak the computers and dig around, then we can start talking about motives. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you just saying this stuff as a contrarian or have you honestly not read the news today? It's an unambiguous terrorist attack committed in the name of ISIL, whether connected directly or as lone wolves. Reports indicate Malik had ties to an extremist mosque and Farook made comments indicating long term planning. Please stop positing this stuff and read the news. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And I think you've read too much news today. Seems to have boggled you. I know I've read too much Wikipedia talk today. I'm off to collect the bones of an undead child molester and burn them, once and for all. You have a good weekend, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to read the NYT link up above. It describes the motives for the attack down to the target itself. I am surprised anyone is claiming that the motive is unknown when this fits the pattern for an ISIL lone wolf attack that we already know about. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? That article, written 2 July this year, does not (and cannot, absent a not-yet-if-ever-there update) reference this attack in any way, which means your assertion that "this fits the pattern for an ISIL lone wolf attack"—however much likely—constitutes OR. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you are the one who is kidding. OR only applies to article space. I established that the motive of lone wolf ISIL terrorists who act on their own has been well established by reliable sources and law enforcement. Therefore, how can anyone say their motive is unknown? We know it, it's called terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about—or, at least started with—what goes in article space (and, on an article's talk page, it's supposed to). We can speculate all we want here, but until a reliable source specifically says the act itself was one of terrorism—and what I've seen so far refers only to "ties" between the perps and Islamist extremists—the article cannot say so, and the 2 July article certainly cannot be used as a RS for this event. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the motive of ISIL lone wolf terrorist is already known. It's published just about everywhere. Read "What ISIS Really Wants" in The Atlantic. Are there RS saying this was not a terrorist attack? It seems that there are political games being played here, and Wikipedia should steer clear of them. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"It seems that there are political games being played here, and Wikipedia should steer clear of them." I could not agree more. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Spoken like a true President! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The hopeless attempts to whitewash and censor continue, with the silliest of sophomoric arguments. Edison (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please WP:AGF with editors here? This is why we have WP:OR, namely WP:SYNTH as a policy. Investigations take time, I for one believe that it was terrorism but we need the dust to settle a bit before labeling it as such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

too much emphasis on "mass shooting" in the article?

Early on in the incident, it was assumed that this was a "mass shooting" characteristic of a great many other "mass shooting" events in recent american history. That it fit an "American" pattern. But things have greatly changed since then and now it seems more clear that this was an act of terrorism. While a "mass shooting" can be an act of terrorism, I think its not really appropriate anymore to compare this to incidents like Sandy Hook or San Ysidro. Particular areas of concern in the article are:

The material in the introduction comparing the incident only to "mass shootings" such as Sandy Hook. At a minimum, it should also be compared to other terrorist incidents such as the Oklahoma City bombing (as one example). In my opinion, it would be better if the comparison to Sandy Hook went away entirely but I can see the other point of view on that.

Parts of the early reaction from Obama now seem very dated and incorrect. In particular Obama's comment that: "We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world". This incident was not part of any "pattern" of mass shootings and it very much does have parallels as terrorism in other parts of the world.

The line "Malik was one of a small number of female mass shooters in the U.S.; according to FBI statistics, women constituted only 3.75 percent of shooters of active shooter incidents between the years 2000 and 2013". Malik should be examined in terms of "mass shooting" statistics, but rather in terms of females directly involved with terrorist incidents.

Again, I fully accept that terrorism can be a mass shooting and am not calling for the removal of the term. But I think the article has to be careful not to compare this incident to other incidents where terrorism was not any sort of motive or (worse yet) lump the incident into a "pattern" of other events into which it does not really fit or look at the incident from too much of an American-centric perspective. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you may infer more from the term than anyone intended to imply. A mass shooting is simply one that kills three or more people (or thereabouts). It has nothing to do with why. If you find a reliable source ranking this among terrorist attacks, we can play the "deadliest in/deadliest since" card with that, too. But it'd still also be yet another mass shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible overthink. To use the same term for two events because they both meet the definition of that term is not to equate the two events. Apple and orange are both fruits, but that does not imply that apple is equivalent to orange. For starters, only one of them is a citrus fruit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And you don't see Apple County remaining vigilant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The myopic mass shooting aspect needs to go. It's a term from gun politics and this is clearly beyond it. It's the deadliest terror attack since 9/11. It's closest cousin is the 2015 Paris attacks or the Russian passenger plane bomb. The foiled train attack is another. Those are clearly beyond the scope or lens of gun politics in the U.S. when the weapons include IEDs, attackers include foreign nationals and pledges of allegiance to ISIL. We don't have an epidemic of terrorist attacks in the U.S. and we shouldn't leave in outdated quotes and analysis that will look myopic in 25 years. "Thoughts and prayers" quotes need to go as well because those taht angrily accuse republicans of only offering thoughts and prayers are now defending immigration and soft foreign policy regarding troops on the ground fighting ISIL and concerned about backlash against Muslims. This isn't the article for any of that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You prefer to attach the gun politics connotation, I prefer to limit my thinking to the simple definition in the lead of Mass shooting. There is no reason we can't include five or six different items in "Attack type", if they all apply, and that includes terrorism if and when it becomes appropriate to say that in wiki voice. This is a different situation from article title, which is being addressed elsewhere on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the official definition of a mass shooting is an event in which 4 or more people are shot. To that end, all terrorist attacks that involve 4 or more people who are shot are mass shootings. But not all mass shootings are terrorist attacks. San Bernardino was a terrorist attack. More specifically, it was an Islamic terrorist attack. The evidence is overwhelming at this point--from the planning involved, type of weaponry involved, to the "IED factory" found at the house to the pledge of allegiance to ISIS. To hide behind a fig leaf at this point, given the evidence and statements by officials is absurd and the article on this event should accurately reflect what we now know. If this were a terrorist attack by the IRA or Basque separatists we wouldn't even be having this discussion. grifterlake (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you've seen all the evidence, what do you figure was the point of this obvious terrorism? What message was sent? To whom? By whom? The IRA and Basque guys were much clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we take ISIS and their supporters at their word, that they can strike within the United States whenever they want, disrupt the way of life in the United States and that its days are numbered, and that no one is safe. The same motives for the Paris attacks and countless other attacks over the years. grifterlake (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not wise to treat all ISIS members as a single-minded hive, but even less so to assume anybody who (allegedly) Facebooked a Like their way inherits everything you think you know about them. If this had anything to do with Beirut, Ankara, Paris and the plane, where's the bragging? If America is such a big deal to them, they'd have made a big deal by now. Or at least SITE would publish something to that effect. Nothing. Sometimes homicidal maniacs just dig other homicidal maniacs. That's the "link", I think. InedibleHulk

Actually, they should be seen and treated as members of a "single-minded hive", since the stated goal of ISIS is the reestablishment of the Caliphate and that's what all supporters of ISIS are tasked to work towards through individual jihad. ISIS supporters aren't just running around and perpetuating violence against people because they are upset. They have a focused goal and all of these small terrorist attacks and their larger military operations are intended to advance that goal. That's why it is misleading to label this as some kind of generic mass shooting. Guns were one small aspect of the events that unfolded. Bombs were another. Terror was another. Poking a finger in the eye of the United States was another. But it was all to advance a common cause shared by all Islamists in general, and ISIS in particular: The reestablishment of the Caliphate for the Ummah--the one community of Muslims. grifterlake (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC) It's a terrorist attack. It's no longer just a mass shooting. Change it. It's misleading. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, we don't have to choose between mass shooting and terrorism for Attack type. Nor should we. Attack type is not a POV battleground, that's what article title is for. In any case, as the Hulk has said, the fact that the FBI is investingating this as a terrorist attack does not mean we can declare it a terrorist attack in wiki voice, a couple of days into their investigation. As usual in these things, people need to calm down and slow down. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The intention of the original comment was absolutely *NOT* to force a choice between mass shooting and terrorism. But when this is compared to "just" Sandy Hook type events or we keep including an reaction that this event is part of an "american" pattern of mass shootings and say that this even has "no parallel" in any other part of the world, those are POV problematical for some people. It is a mass shooting, but there should not be inferences that lump it in with other events that are not necessarly similar. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with characterizing this as a "mass shooting" is that it is incorrect to do so. The terrorists left remote controlled explosive devices at the scene of a coordinated attack. The fact that they were not yet detonated is irrelevant. Up to the point where they were killed they retained the option to detonate them. They were also set up to stage another attack, with even more explosive devices at their disposal and their house was described as an "IED factory". When multiple weapons are involved, be they bombs, knives or even throwing stars it becomes misdirection to paint the event as a mass shooting. That's like saying Grenada was a Field Training Exercise. In military terms this might be called a "combined arms operation", which would a heck of a lot more accurate. grifterlake (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC

If its a problem, its a bigger problem than this one article. The November 2015 Paris Attacks article characterize those attacks as including "mass shootings". The other issue I have with your saying is the issue of detonation is meaningful. I think that we should avoid confusing the intentions of attackers with what they were actually able to accomplish. The best you could do is say "attempted" bombing. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hence my mentioning the term "combined arms operation", which more accurately describes both events, along with others. Note the difference between the "Attack type" descriptions for the San Bernardino and 2015 Paris attacks, and the 2012 Benghazi attack type, which is listed as, "Coordinated attack, armed assault, rioting, arson". That's a very accurate description, and the only substantive difference between the two is the number of people. Both were directed at people who were some type of government functionaries. Both involved multiple weapons systems, significant planning and coordination. Both were terrorist attacks. grifterlake (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comparing this to Benghazi is just wrong. Benghazi was not a terrorist attack. It was a full-blown planned military operation by a paramilitary group in a failed state. What happened in California was in no sense of the word a "combined arms operation". It was two morons with guns and poorly made bombs that didn't work. People talk about planning. But I don't see any evidence of that. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

??? The Benghazi attack was initiated by an al Qaeda affiliated group. The San Bernardino attack was initiated by an ISIS affiliated group. The only difference was the number of perpetrators involved. You could describe the attackers of both events as being executed by a paramilitary group. And at this point we don't know if the bombs didn't work. We just know they didn't detonate. They were supposed to have been built according to ISIS standards, which can be found all over the Internet. grifterlake (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Two people in San Bernadino is not a "group" in a reasonable sense of the word. The degree of their affliation has yet to be established. There is no reliable source that the bombs were built to "ISIS standards" (whatever that means). A bomb that does not detonate is by definition a bomb that didn't work. The situation in Benghazi was much more complicated than an attack by an "al Qaeda affiliated group". There were a number of different groups involved and it is still difficult to draw any conclusions which group was actually responsible. US public accounts of what happened are still incomplete or inconsistent. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL related (Inspired or Directed)

To editors that don't edit war by deleting every hint of their religion, or scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT this is not a big surprise. Community Sanctions now apply, which means 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• If this is really the case, then shouldn't this notice be at the top of the page, where everyone can easily see it? ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac added the ISIL template acting as a lone wolf. This despite the fact that ISIL was not involved in the attack, and Farook has no known allegiance to ISIL. Malik "liked" ISIL on Facebook. It seems that Legacypac applied the ISIL template because ISIL was mentioned in the article. WWGB (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It was at the top but WWGB removed a 1RR notice twice in just a few hours. Suggesting I am a terrorist is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I suggested you are a terrorist? Oh, please! The long-established definition of "lone wolf" is one who acts alone. See [8]. That definition long-preceded modern terrorism. WWGB (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear if the WP:GS/ISIL sanctions would encompass this article based on a Facebook post by one of the perps pledging Bay'ah on Facebook. It seems to be a stretch. OTOH 1RR may be helpful here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification here Wikipedia talk:General sanctions#Request for clarification: WP:GS/ISIL sanctions - Cwobeel (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this issue. Please weigh in there - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward's edits - insertion of unsourced material, deletion of sourced material, etc.

DHeyward: this series of edits concerns me greatly:

• You added "The shooters traveled internationally and were not on the no-fly list" without a source - do you have a reference for this? This seems like blatant original research/synthesis to me. The authorities have not said whether any of the suspects were or were not on the no-fly list.
• You removed the well-sourced paragraph (citing to the Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Atlantic, etc.) on reactions from members of Congress, etc., writing that it was an "unrelated to the shooting" - which is simply not true, as all of the sources deal directly with the shooting and the response to it.

--Neutrality^talk 20:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored that paragraph and removed the unsourced sentence. We don't know whether they were on the no-fly list. On the other hand, sourced and relevant material was removed, as it was related and was not editorial (though I have doubts about the NY Daily News headline's relevance). epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - much obliged. Neutrality^talk 20:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

support keeping NY daily news headline mention as it received notability per se. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callinus: How come you think this falls under WP:RECENTISM? This does read like the "Reactions of horror to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting" article to me, but it is too early to tell if WP:RECENTISM applies. epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sniping at people over tweets using the word "prayers" is petty in the extreme. Wikipedia articles on events like this should be written in past tense - if the event causes changes in gun control policy then that result should be discussed. But if it's only a bunch of Democrtic leaning "blog" sections on websites discussing tweets then it's insubstantial and fails RECENTISM. -- Callinus (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't know whether this will lead to gun control discussions yet, though... epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since there's 2 editors who don't agree with this material's inclusion, I have tagged it with {{relevance-inline}}. epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Political reactions - point scoring and recentism

Per WP:RECENTISM, only material that satisfies the 10 year test should be included. Wikipedia is written in past tense, designed to document what happened, not for hour by hour coverage of "blog" sections on news sites that give a blow-by-blow analysis of Democratic and Republican tweets.

I think that political reactions should be limited to a very few (eg the President and the Cal. governor).

Mentioning Democratic senators attacking Republican senators reads like trivial point scoring and petty politics.

The motive isn't yet fully documented by the FBI or other agencies, and there are still details around the motive that could break in the next 24 hours.

-- Callinus (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

True... but what about public reactions? Popular reactions? Should we not include them as well? It depends on whether this is covered by the news a week from now. epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We simply cannot ignore the political and policy implications of the event, as reported by the reliable sources. For better or for worse, it has been publicly reported that, for example:

• The tenor of the immediate responses to the mass shooting in California exemplified the partisan divide. (Atlantic)
• The mass shootings from California to Paris stoked fierce debate Thursday between Republicans who maintained that the killings must intensify the focus of Congress and the nation on Islamist terrorism and Democrats who demanded an end to “thoughts and prayers” for victims and immediate action to control the sale of guns. The angry back-and-forth highlighted how violence at home and abroad, rather than uniting the country, is escalating the ideological fights over gun control, immigration, foreign policy and religion. (NYT)

Neither of these sources, nor many others, are "blog posts" - nor are they trivial. The long-term impact remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: this is part of the story, for better or for worse.

The issue is "blogs.wsj.com" -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely that political reactions shouldn't dominate the article. But by my count, we have 3-4 sentences of congressional and media reaction, in the context of a much wider discussion. That is entirely appropriate. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is definitively becoming part of the story, in particular as the guns and ammo were purchased legally, rendering moot arguments by gun ownership advocates that "bad guys" gets their guns illegally. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If concrete policy changes are proposed as a result of this shooting then the policy changes should be discussed - Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Gun Control includes five paragraphs - there is no coverage of inflammatory tweets, only legislative proposals, official actions by the President, or limited coverage of remarks - notably there's no inflammatory mockery of tweets.

The comments by Chris Murphy where he mocks the term "prayer" feel like an internet flame war, that doesn't meet the 10 year test. -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

#NoReactionsMatter InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The presidential candidates reactions will only be relevant for a week or more, then forgotten. No one will care about this in even a years time when most of these people will have dropped out of the campaign.

Imagine if this shooting had taken place in 1980. Would anyone care about any of the random candidates in that year in 2015? Not at all. Unless it some major event that completely disrupted the campaign or something of that nature. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the candidates (much less the "random" candidates) are mentioned by name in this article. Rather, this is a broad overview, generalizing the split reactions by party. If this was some sort of blow-by-blow with quotations from a dozen of different members of Congress, a handful of different governors, etc., I would say it was excessive. But that is simply not the case. This is 3-5 sentences in a much larger article. We cannot have a complete article if we ignore the political reaction entirely, as you seem to advocate. Neutrality^talk 21:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It would be disingenuous to argue that these type of incidents do not have political connotations. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They have policy changes proposed (eg Newtown) but the reactions by low-level politicians mocking other low-level politicians is relatively mundane. I'm Australian - I know of all of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, and Jerry Brown. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is a political nobody outside the U.S. - a senator I've never heard of mocking other people on Twitter is not particularly interesting outside the U.S. - especially to other Anglophone readers that know that Democrats and Republicans mock each other on Twitter all the time. -- Callinus (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A U.S. senator is not a "low-level" politician. More to the point, though, the subjective views of you and me on the level of "importance" of a given figure (or whether various readers may find him "particularly interesting") is irrelevant. The question is: do multiple high-quality, reliable sources make note of what the person said? Is the statement either part of, or an illustration) of part a wider debate of social importance that ties into the event? The answer is yes and yes. Neutrality^talk 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They also have vague, implicit connections to all sorts of fields. Religion, policing, sociology, business, entertainment. Giving undue weight to opinions of politicians (the most well-known liars, especially when speaking generally) is silly and undue. Ignore everyone equally, so long as it's just hot air. If one of these people actually do something in direct consequence, that'd be notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In no way is 4-5 sentences in the context of an fairly large article "undue." Neutrality^talk 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is when the other guys get zero sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What "other guys"? Neutrality^talk 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

These guys. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And far less prominently, these guys. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Most people would agree that policymakers (members of Congress, etc.) are more worthy of note than random celebrities. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to hear Google News tell it. About split. ABC treats them roughly equally. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add more, go ahead and see if they stick. I have no objection in principle to the addition of (brief, properly-sourced) responses from the community; e.g., the prayer vigils scheduled (4,000 are expected to attend at San Manuel Stadium); Muslim communal leaders' condemnation of the attack (NBC News, LA Times); the mayor of San Bernadino's remarks (Press-Enterprise, NPR), etc. These would be sensible inclusions; Chrissy Teigen would not. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You apparently missed my "#NoReactionsMatter" and "ignore everyone equally" comments. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, and think it plain that this kind of blanket approach—"ignoring" all responses, rather than doing the hard work of including a sampling of significant responses and excluding the rest—has no basis in policy and will necessarily lead to an incomplete article. As Cwobeel said above, it would be disingenuous for us to ignore the reactions to the event. Neutrality^talk 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hard work sucks, don't get me wrong, but that's not the issue here. I just find none of them significant. They're all "the rest". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The knee-jerk political cheap shots need to go as do the irrelevant "solutions" posturing like quotes about "no-fly list" people being added to NICS. It has nothing to do with the shooting. If we include the "no-fly list" comment, it's fair game to point out that they flew to/from Saudia Arabia without an issue (do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of why people with pipe bombs in their house aren't on the no-fly list). If we want to include background checks, it's fair game to point out that the women entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa [9] which expires 90 days after entry and she is a prohibited possessor that would have failed a background check to buy a gun. But all of it (including quotes by Obama and congress critters) should be dropped as unrelated. This event is akin to the Boston Bombing and the Paris shootings. The initial blow-up on gun control is too RECENTISM to include. Maybe we could rename it "The War on Christmas."--DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think people would indeed be interested in the political details, in much the same way they'd be interested if somebody had a fistfight on the deck of the Titanic while it was going down. We've just seen huge political capital, quite possibly the fall of the Fifth Republic, made out of a somewhat similar attack in France, and so there's no reason to assume there's no historical significance to this stuff. My suggestion is let's do the article split sooner rather than later, get a Political reactions to the 2015 San Bernadino shootings fired up, and start dumping most of the data there. The politicians are going to be pimping this thing for all it's worth for the next month... unless someone does something a lot bigger. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Or a lot more recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Of course activists and politicians are going to use this incident to try to score points for their social agendas, whether it be gun control, the danger of religious extremism, workplace violence, immigration reform, etc. Adding sourced content to the article documenting the bickering and point scoring between prominent political parties or leaders is fine, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• It will run the gamut. The republican response isn't "thoughts and prayers," it's more active anti-terrorism, opposition to middle eastern refugees, illegal immigration control and any number of things. That the shooter is a U.S. citizen will be as irrelevant to them as much as the fact that the shooter passed all gun background checks and isn't on the no-fly list. Listing every pet project doesn't change the basic narrative but just adds noise. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The New York Daily News‍ '​ front-page headline, "God isn't fixing this,"...is not a political reaction and doesn't belong here in this section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a political reaction to the political reaction. As such, it's inherently a political reaction the shooting. Not made by a politician, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the cover of a Newspaper offering their opinion in response to tweets from candidates, it's not a political reaction by a politician and it doesn't belong there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Does The Daily News not offer political commentary anymore? You don't need to be a politician to make a political statement anymore than you need to be a chef to sell food. If the section is now only reserved for politicians, that's even more slanted than only allowing politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the headline related sentence does not belong. It is a headline, not the content of an article authored by a journalist, but that written by an editor to grab attention. Therefore I'd suspect it is meant to be sensationalist by nature. Velojareal (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Every source here has a headline writer looking for clicks. Here's the content, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the Daily News took a very strong editorial view favoring more gun control in that issue (not just the front page). Gun control is a highly divisive topic in US politics so that is certainly a political reaction on the Daily News's part. There is also significant secondary coverage of the Daily News cover,[10][11][12] secondary sourcing of course being the touchstone of notability on Wikipedia. So per NPOV, the Daily News cover should be documented as part of the media reaction to the shootings, and should be weighed into the article's presentation of the shooting itself (how much weight to assign is debatable of course). 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus emerging for including presidential candidates' comments, such as the recent addition of Ted Cruz. if we report what Cruz says, we have to report what all other said. Not encyclopedic, not news, recentism galore. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that we should exclude individual reactions (were to to include all of them, we'd have 20...). A generalized statement about the varying reactions by party would be my ideal. (I have not had a chance to draft some language). Neutrality^talk 20:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Investigation

This section has become a messy, ill-connected list of newspapers clippings and quotings, as well as being overly long, tenuously relevant in parts, and overall showing itself to be a poor example of encyclopedic writing. I tagged it for fixing, but it was removed. Bod (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are certainly parts for which flow could be improved. I do think as more information gets out there and confirmed, a lot of the initial speculation and hedging ("The Times reported this," "The police chief said this...," "investigated as...") can get taken out. The hope is that we can streamline things into a narrative.

I don't think length is a per se problem - at least not yet. This article is currently 61K bytes, which is smaller than, for example, 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt: 102K bytes). Neutrality^talk 23:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL template usage

My edit adding the Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was reverted by User:WWGB stating that "ISIL did not sponsor this event any more than the Catholic church sponsored the Irish trouble." The perpetrators were inspired to act as ISIL operatives despite possibly having operational independence, which is why it is discussed in the article. Since ISIL inspired the shooting, that makes the template's inclusion just as relevant as its discussion in the article. ISIL overall is a relatively decentralized global terrorist organization, so it doesn't make sense to me to not include an attack related to ISIL in its template because it is consistent with a characteristic of that same terrorist organization. Reliable sources are covering ISIL in relation to the shooting, so the template should therefore be included. Hello32020 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RS coverage is required for inclusion, but it does not require inclusion. This concept was recently articulated quite well by an admin, here. So your last sentence is moot. The difference between the template and the treatment in the body is that the latter can include explanation and attribution; I don't think it's a valid comparison. It comes down to how badly one wants to pin everything they can on Islam, to the greatest degree possible. I lean toward general exclusionism in articles, so I would set a high bar for inclusion of that template. I don't think you have cleared that bar. My opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think its too early to characterize how ISIL was associated with the event. People are drawing conclusions based on what is currently very thin evidence. We know one of them made statements that supported ISIL, but we don't have sources & facts to say they did it "inspired" by ISIL. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda may claim attacks like this, but it wasn't reported to have been co-ordinated or planned by them, so shouldn't be included. -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that Reuters reports the woman was from Punjab, with a hardline religiously conservative father in a region with influence from the Lashkar-e-Taiba. If ISIL wasn't in the news the shooters probably would have declared themselves to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. -- Callinus (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It was not ISIL. It was someone inspired by ISIL. Just like 7 July 2005 London bombings is not by Al-Qaeda, but by someone inspired by Al-Qaeda, not that either of them is desirable anyway. epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While the RS part of my argument wouldn't meet the bar for inclusion alone, it wasn't the only reason. This is adding the template of a terrorist/militant organization which the New York Times says "has relied mainly on “lone wolf” followers to strike Western targets with relatively low-tech assaults." [my emphasis]. Since this attack is consistent with what a reliable source describes as ISIL's "main" method of attacking outside of ISIL-controlled territory in Iraq and Syria, the template should be included. Additionally, the "lone wolves" aren't unsolicited supporters of ISIL, they were actively encouraged to carry out attacks independent of direct tactical coordination with/by ISIL leadership. Hello32020 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I pledge allegiance to the United States. The United States encourages killing terrorists in the Mideast. If I went and killed a terrorist in the Mideast, would we add the template "United States" to my article? Most probably not, since association is different than inspiration and single-sided pledges of allegiance. epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The United States does not actively and publicly encourage whoever reads its statements to take militant action on its behalf independent of active coordination with its government/state agencies. ISIL does. Hello32020 (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Army of One" pitch strongly implied it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times article says that ISIL relies mainly on lone wolf attacks on western targets. But the article does not back up that statement with any proof. In fact, the list in the article of incidents seems to disprove the theory that most ISIL attacks on the west have been "lone wolf" operations. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert Lewis Dear expressed support and admiration for the terrorist activities of the Army of God, but this does mean that the Army of God had anything to do with Dear's attack. Until it is shown that ISIL was involved in the planning or the execution of this shooting, I think it wise to not include the ISIL template. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL template is appropriate as they are terrorists associated with a terrorist organization. The train attack in France, Charlie Hebdo shootings and Paris attacks are equivalent to San Bernardino. Militant extreme Islamists that support the objectives of ISIL through the use of terrorism. They aren't Kurds or Shi'ites or Chechnian but they are ISIL. Fale equivalencies above do not negate the overt connection of the shooters and ISIL. There allegiance was very specific to ISIL. --DHeyward (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Only the female shooter has been reported to have had expressed support for ISIL. This is well documented in the sources and is mentioned several times in the article currently. Are sources reporting that the male shooter expressed any sort of support for ISIL? Are there any sources which state ISIL was involved in the planning or execution of the shooting? ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of most of the other attacks you mention, the group responsible made a public announcement of its responsibility. For example, ISIL proclaimed its responsibility for the November Paris attacks. In this case, there has been no claim of responsiblity (yet) by ISIL. The shooters themselves made no statement of their motives. We have one social media post by the wife in favor of ISIL but nothing else. As the investigation continues, more information may come out. But the article needs to reflect what we actually know right now. If official sources release new information that clarifies the situation, the change can be made at that time. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was inspired to play guitar by Metallica. By shitty logic, I'm related to Metallica. Yes! But no. That's just stupid. Same here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL is not a baseball team where members are picked, a social club that votes in members, a company that hires representatives. It is a volunteer terrorist group that demands all Muslims pledge allegiance and assist them. If a Muslim pledges to ISIL and carry out an attack, it is an ISIL attack, period. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it count if a Shiite does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The moronic level is approaching 11. There are many factions fighting in the middle east. If she expressed support for Houthi's or Kurds or Palestine or any ethnic group, we would report that differently than expressing support for a terrorist organization. ISIL is not a religious denomination or ethnic minority. If this was a bombing in the name of the IRA, and the IRA cheered it on, there would be no question that it was an IRA bombing. Not Catholic and not Irish but IRA. We don't need to find their special laminated ID card. --DHeyward (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. ISIL-inspired but not direct connection yet. Bod (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - At this time we have just a Facebook post attributed to one of the perps, which is IMO, a very tenuous connection. Adding that template is almost as if WP is giving its imprimatur to this issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support since someone started voting. This will go on the List of ISIL attacks pasge too, where ever that is. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Create a template for ISIL-inspired attacks.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Investigation of man thought to have bought 2 weapons

FBI agents early Saturday raided the home of a man believed to have purchased two military-grade rifles used in this week’s deadly rampage in San Bernardino, Calif., as federal authorities raced to piece together clues about the most deadly terrorist assault on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. at WaPo and Reuters--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 06:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ready to be bored?"

I'm with WWGB. Farook's movements are one thing, tracking the event's unfolding. The conversation strikes me as trivial and peripheral, absent some indication that its participant found it odd. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, how can an innocuous comment that a meeting was likely to be boring have any relevance to a subsequent murderous attack? WWGB (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant to me.--WillC 11:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend discussing pros/cons for all points here, clearly stating reasons for why a particular view is held. This is a delicate one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to start said discussion by indicating why you think it is "delicate". WWGB (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are serious... Bod (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

When I read the article, I thought this was irrelevant and out of place. Not sure it needs to be included in the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC) --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that "Ready to be bored?" was a running joke between Farook and co-worker he was sitting with at a table. The intent was to show that Farook's actions seemed entirely normal. In the middle of the meeting he got up and left, leaving his jacket, notebook, etc. at the table. People likely assumed he was taking a bathroom break or had to take a call. The meeting continued and reached a planned break. Farook and his wife returned at that moment with some people surviving as they had already left the meeting room and were in a restroom nearby while others were still milling around the meeting room. If we have "Ready to be bored?" in the article it should be as part of showing that things seemed 100% normal with Farook and his actions, what he said, etc. prior to the attack. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page cleanup

I archived stuff that was resolved in case anyone is missing something. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find my watch. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I misplaced my pony. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is set up for auto-archiving for topics that have been idle for five days. Maybe this should be trimmed down to 28 or 24 hours. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a pretty drastic move, but I dropped it to 4 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 had a 24-hour expiration for a while^[13] which caused some disruption but for the most part worked well. I had meant to suggest 48 or 24 hours, not 28 or 24. 48 hours would clear off some of the cruft while giving people time to check back in a day or so for topics they are interested in. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Past tense error

Article says: "The FBI investigated the case as terrorism..."

Should say: "The FBI is investigating the case as terrorism..."

98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Used As of December 2015, the FBI was investigating the case as terrorism, so that the chronology is preserved if this changes later on. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of deceased victims

The list of deceased victims here seems OK, but isn't it overkill to have the hometowns, family statuses, and number of children to the page? This doesn't seem notable in the long run, as per trivia. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would keep name, age, hometown, and job title, and drop marital status and number of children. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I removed the marital status and children. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

over-simplified

I understand that this article is extremely "hot" and contentious. So it is perhaps no surprise that currently it looks rather over-simplified. It seems to be missing the somewhat meta aspect that this event attracted extreme attention in at least the whole of the US while it was happening, over a period of hours. Is there some objective way to source this? Measure how much mainstream media broadcasts were pre-empted nationwide, etc... The article does summarize the aftermath and reactions, but again does not adequately report the extent to which this event has dominated national politics and general public discourse over the last week, sort of hijacked the collective consciousness. Again, how to measure and summarize this objectively?

The article uses the phrase "active shooter", but only in passing, with no emphasis of this as an important emerging category. Even though the original attack only lasted for minutes, and was actually over by the time police arrived, there was uncertainty about ongoing on-site dangers, and a more vague regional sense of ongoing imminent danger, lived somewhat vicariously nationwide for hours until after the van shootout. Suddenly "active shooter" seems to be an important new concept, with many in the US thinking, talking and/or acting to prepare themselves for the possibility of being in such a situation. Maybe we need some separate terminology for area-lockdown; this seems to have been a very mini version of the day-long lockdown of the Boston area as the Marathon bombers were being pursued.

In a related vein, it is quite weird that the whole "three shooters" aspect has been erased from history in this article. It does seem that a third perp as part of the main attack did not pan out, and so is in some sense now irrelevant -- with 20/20 hindsight. But for a number of hours the general understanding was that there were two or three attackers; this was an important part of the impression of unfolding events in the minds of the audience for an extended period of time. Even the way it just kind of fizzled and faded from relevance without any definite acknowledgement/resolution was weird. In any event, it is a creepy re-writing of history to pretend that this did not happen.

We cannot know how this event will properly appear, looking back from the future, years from now. But it seems that a good summary history would highlight how important this was as a shared country-wide (and perhaps world-wide?) social experience, during and afterwards, with major impact on US politics at least for 2015. And a good detailed history of the hours from the start of the first attack until some time after the van shootout would mention the general confusion about how many shooters there were (two or three), whether there was an additional unknown person still at large posing an imminent threat -- and what about the person seized fleeing from the van scene...-71.174.188.32 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The "three shooters" bit has not been erased from the article. We mention it under "shootout and death of perpetrators" - "A person seen running away from the scene was initially thought to be a potential third suspect, but police determined he was not connected to the shooting.[13] The person did have an outstanding misdemeanor warrant, for which he was booked." Neutrality^talk 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the "third suspect" that was found needing more coverage, but not that much more. It almost seems like a cover-up the way it is treated now. Bod (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Names in Urdu

The following are names of Farook and Malik in Urdu in case anyone wants to add one or both of them:

Syed Rizwan Farook (Urdu: سيد رضوان فاروق / Hindustani pronunciation: [səjjəd rɪzwɑːn fɑːruːq])

Tashfeen Malik (Urdu: تاشفين ملک / Hindustani pronunciation: [tɑːʃfiːn məlɪk])

I'm unsure if the Urdu version of Farook's name should be added since I don't know if he even used the language and because Urdu versions of people's names are usually mentioned in articles about people who are natives of Pakistan (which Tashfeen is but Farook is not). Still, I'm mentioning the spellings and the IPA pronunciations of their names here in case anyone thinks they could be included in the article. —Human10.0 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that needed? Farook is American, born in Chicago. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Farook spoke Urdu in his home. The name we use is an anglicized Urdu name so the name given him is Urdu: سيد رضوان فاروق, not the latin version of it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? We have articles about people in WP that speak French, Japanese, or Russian at home and their names are anglicized versions of their native names, but we don't put their names translated in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added as notes. Bod (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Left Malik's name. There is no reason to spell Farook name in Urdu. He is an American citizen (like it or not), and his legal name registered when he was born is not in Urdu. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you've been reverted by DH. Leave them both in "notes". It is unobtrusive and provides decent information. Bod (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. This is a pretty obvious attempt to make Farook "foreign". Some editors seem to be inclined in that direction apparently, as using foreign names for American citizens referred in Wikipedia articles is pretty unusual to put it kindly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

PLEASE CHANGE

Tashfeen Malik

Tashfeen Malik (July 13, 1988 – December 2, 2015) was born in Pakistan but had lived for most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Her hometown was Karor Lal Esan, 280 miles southwest of Islamabad. She returned to Pakistan to study pharmacy at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan and graduated in 2012. Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki denied reports that Malik grew up in his country, and said that she only visited Saudi Arabia for a few weeks in 2008 and again in 2013.

According to one of Farook's coworkers, Malik and her husband married about a month after he traveled to Saudi Arabia in early 2014; the two had met over the internet. Malik joined Farook in California shortly after their wedding. At the time of her death, Malik and Farook had a six-month-old daughter.

Malik entered the United States on a K-1 (fiancée) visa with a Pakistani passport. According to a State Department spokesman, all applicants for such visas are fully screened. Malik's application for permanent residency (a "green card") was completed by Farook on her behalf in September 2014, and she was granted a conditional green card in July 2015. Obtaining such a green card would have required the couple to prove that the marriage was legitimate, as well as requiring Malik to provide her fingerprints and pass criminal and national security background checks using government databases.

Malik was one of a small number of female mass shooters in the U.S.; women constituted only 3.75 percent of active shooters in the U.S. from 2000 to 2013.

TO

Tashfeen Malik (July 13, 1988 – December 2, 2015) was born in Pakistan but had lived for most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Her hometown was Karor Lal Esan, 280 miles southwest of Islamabad. She returned to Pakistan to study pharmacy at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan and graduated in 2012. Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki denied reports that Malik grew up in his country, and said that she only visited Saudi Arabia for a few weeks in 2008 and again in 2013.

According to one of Farook's coworkers, Malik and her husband married about a month after he traveled to Saudi Arabia in early 2014; the two had met over the internet. Malik joined Farook in California shortly after their wedding. At the time of her death, Malik and Farook had a six-month-old daughter.

Malik entered the United States on a K-1 (fiancée) visa with a Pakistani passport. According to a State Department spokesman, all applicants for such visas are fully screened. Malik's application for permanent residency (a "green card") was completed by Farook on her behalf in September 2014, and she was granted a conditional green card in July 2015. Obtaining such a green card would have required the couple to prove that the marriage was legitimate, as well as requiring Malik to provide her fingerprints and pass criminal and national security background checks using government databases.

Malik was one of a small number of female mass shooters in the U.S.; women constituted only 3.75 percent of active shooters in the U.S. from 2000 to 2013.

It has been a Pakistani Jihadi Organizations strategy to target Pakistani women in order to sustain Jihad. Jihadi propaganda books are released exclusively targeting Pakistani women of socioeconomic background like Tashfeen Malik. Actions of Tashfeen Malik prove both the success of Pakistani Jihadi movement strategy, and expose the vulnerability of the K-1 visa system to handle brides from Pakistan.

sources
References

 Not done The text about the Pakistani Jihadi Organizations strategy, is original research. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cwobeel on this, though I'll fine-tune that to say it's "WP:synth". The link you propose may be correct - I have no data to rule it out - but it also may not be. How do I know if she had anything to do with those organizations before Saudi Arabia, or before getting married? So far as I know, journalists are still citing reports of investigation as to whether she 'may' have influenced her husband rather than the other way around [14] or that she 'may' have been radicalized in Pakistan [15], but these are very, very weak statements to rely on. An article from 2008, without a source to make the connection to her, won't get you anywhere. So keep looking - for neutral sources that do the analysis and make solid conclusions! Wnt (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)