Jump to content

Talk:Cascade Mall shooting

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

Hispanic

[edit]

The reference to the shooter being hispanic should be removed. That is not confirmed, i.e. That is not encyclopedic information, and wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.220.245 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems unconvincing. they havent established that the shooter is indeed hispanic, to merit inclusion, it should be established info imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.220.245 (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP. Not a verified twitter account so we can't use as RS. This is breaking news (and frankly concerns of WP:NOTNEWS are present) but we must err on the side of caution and exclusion given the fact that often initial info like this is wrong. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now the article says shooter is sikh. Is this something to joke about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.220.245 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news channels are reporting the police says it is Hispanic. Until new information comes out, I believe it should remain there. I doubt a small town's PD will have a Twitter handle anyway. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We are not here to politically correct articles or determine when something is "confirmed". When Reliable Sources say that police describe him as a "Hispanic male" so be it, for the time being at least. I removed the weasel word, "possibly", as that is editorializing and not what the sources say. KINGOFTO (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article

[edit]

Remove "2016" from title of article because there is no 1993 Cascade Mall Shooting and no 2039 Cascade Mall Shooting yet. If it is not changed, it is a proof that all articles should have a year in the front of the title. Sally882 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of error has been going on for 3-4 years. By 1945, Hitler had been killing Jews for several years does not make it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally882 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sally882 How is a criminal thing similar to a government-sanctioned pogrom? Newsboy39 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Went full Godwin I see. Anyway, reverting move as it was contested already and pinging Jim Michael. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree, no shooting happened here before. Remove 2016. I also suggest to change it to Burlington shooting. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support This change. Sally882 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best idea as Cascade Mall is not a commonly known place. Mapabo (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is somewhat of a convention for using the year for these events, but the purpose is disambiguation. The year should only be used in cases where the rest of the title is general enough that there could be other article with the same name. I don't believe that applies here and while I like consistency, I think conciseness and naturalness are more important than consistency with other titles.- MrX 23:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If there is no need for disambiguation, there is no need for the year. As there has not yet been another shooting at the Cascade Mall, and, hopefully, there will not be, there is no need for disambiguation. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not usual style - it's for disambiguation purposes, which is unnecessary in this case. Westgate shopping mall attack doesn't have the year in its title. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon? Every source mentions "2016", if only in its byline and date of publication, as this is when these events have occurred. The sources need not state explicitly "2016" for the dates within them to be understood. General Ization Talk 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is the practice here to include the year in articles about mass attacks and similar events on Wikipedia. It is far easier to include this very basic form of disambiguation now than to do so retroactively should there be a shooting at this or some other Cascade Mall (there are at least two others, in Portland, Oregon and Banff, Alberta) some time in the future, after multiple links to other articles are established. General Ization Talk 18:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That logic would mean to add the month, too, because there could be a shooting in November. Burlington WA shootings is better, actually. Sally882 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been any other shootings in Burlington? Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should Cascade Mall be in the title? It's only well-known locally and it's not the only mall in the world (or even the US) that has this name. Outside Washington, is this widely known as the Cascade Mall shooting? Jim Michael (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once an event has been widely discussed in reliable sources, we generally follow their lead in terms of how they refer to the event. This event is generally described in cited and uncited (e.g, [1]) reliable sources as either the "Cascade Mall shooting" (or shooter/etc.) or "Washington [state] mall shooting". Given that the latter is even less disambiguated than the former, and it is even more likely that there will be another mall shooting somewhere in the state of Washington someday, I suggest sticking with the former. General Ization Talk 20:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been other shootings at malls in Washington? Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether there have been other notable shootings at malls in Washington state; that's not the point. There could well be in the future, whether measured in months, years or decades. The more time that elapses, the more links will exist to this article and the more difficult it will be to retroactively disambiguate it from another. A little forethought can pay big dividends. To Sally's point, if there is another within the next three months, there will be relatively few links requiring correction; this argues against including the month. There is nothing wrong with the current title. General Ization Talk 22:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't deal with this move as merely a choice between retaining the current title and removing the year. That's because other suggested titles have been proposed here, such as Burlington, Washington shooting, which could be preceded by 2016, or not. This isn't the only Cascade Mall. We can't use Washington mall shooting, because the Tacoma Mall shooting was a shooting at a different mall in the same state. Additionally, outside Washington, this mall isn't well-known - so that's not what most readers will be searching for. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since that is the clearly stated proposal at the top of this section, that ("deal with this move as merely a choice between retaining the current title and removing the year") is precisely what we should do. If someone wants to make (or move) another proposal outside of this section, then it can and should be considered as well, but only after this question is resolved. An attempt to "fork" a proposal, as was made above, only leads to headaches and confusion, as your comments reflect. General Ization Talk 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have consensus one way or the other in regard to that. Also, it's not only me who's pointed out that having Cascade Mall in the article's name is a bad idea. Jim Michael (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is barely three days old. Finding consensus often takes much longer than that (and this type of discussion is generally given no less than 7 days before closing). Thinking that you need to change the question because you haven't found a consensus after such a short time is unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful (and unfair to other interested editors who may have contributed or yet contribute to this article, and/or this discussion, but don't edit every single day). Give it a little time. General Ization Talk 04:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There have been no previous shootings at that mall, so the year does seem pretty unnecessary. That is, unless the article is completely renamed to instead include the city's name (in which case the year would be absolutely necessary). Parsley Man (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Cascade Mall shooting title as indexing for future historians

[edit]

(Started a new section because could no longer figure out what "support" or "oppose" supported or opposed above.) As a cultural historian let me ask you to please think of the future users of this article-- probably just historians once it is not longer newsworthy. Observing the growing convention of indexing by year will help them locate events which may relate to their topics, whatever they may be. Profhum (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose If there is no need for disambiguation, there is no need for the year. As there has not yet been another shooting at the Cascade Mall, and, hopefully, there will not be, there is no need for disambiguation. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is, indeed, a policy that states as much. It is no more our job to predict what future historians will want us to do than it is the predict the result of the coming United States Presidential Election. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles aren't, like all good journalism, the "first draft of history," what's the point of writing them, then? (Forgive one snarky comment: please don't tell me that can only be discussed at the Village Pump under Article 23, subsection 9 of WPRCG.) Seriously, why should we bother, if this is ultimately pointless?Profhum (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year is fine even if there are no further shootings in this mall. it tells the reader an important fact about the shooting, though i do acknowledge that its not strictly necessary to add year.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:A975:93E1:5CF:D334 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect shouted a girl's name

[edit]

I read on Daily Mail that he shouted a girl's name when he started shooting. Might be the same one he allegedly broke up with. I haven't found him screaming a girl's name in any other news site article. Can someone find some other sources for him shouting her name. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is generally a rubbish source. We'd need a better source. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Daily Mail should be used as well, that's why I'm asking for other sources. According to Daily Mail's article, the police think the suspect shouting a girl's name suggests it was a targeted killing. I'm unable to find any other source for it though. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://q13fox.com/2016/09/23/at-least-two-people-shot-at-cascade-mall-in-burlington/
Q13 News Staff, "Fifth victim dies in Cascade Mall shooting in Burlington; suspect remains at large". Q13 Fox TV, 23 Sep 2013 7:39pm, 24 Sep 2016 5:49am.
[Washington State Patrol Sgt. Mark Francis] "declined to comment on an unconfirmed report that the gunman yelled a woman’s name when he entered the store."
Maybe later proven rumor or fact. Very little out there. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim?

[edit]

At this point, there really is no reason to identify Çetin as "Muslim", since it is unknown at this point whether his religion played any part in this outrage. Kelisi (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did the article say anything about him being a Muslim? There's no thing about his religion in any of the sources anyway and until now there's no connection of the shooting to any beliefs. If there is, then it will be inserted, if not then it is not news and won't be added. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was, but I removed it. I notice that the edit only stood for four minutes, and was inserted by an anonymous user. Check the article's history. Kelisi (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources say that he was born in Turkey. Which in absence of other evidence is proof of nothing. Certainly not proof that a Middle Eastern is automatically Muslim "a person who follows or practises the religion of Islam". Middle eastern != Muslim. Muslin != jihadist. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But being born in Turkey there is a 99% chance he is Muslim. I think there are sources that state this as well.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:7D03:1FC6:8682:1C (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do not operate on probabilities here, or on things we think there might be sources for. Unless a reliable source is cited that states that he is Muslim, we will not describe him as such. General Ization Talk 21:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Being in America there's a 25% chance he was non-religious too. Don't commit the ecological fallacy. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is a RS, it's irrelevant. ansh666 17:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When most terrorist attacks are made by radicalized muslims, any connection a religion or ethnic group which is often tied to terrorism is relevant, especially when his social media indicated affinity for ISIS and Iranian figures, both supportes of radicalized Islamists Bachcell (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bachcell: it's only relevant is reliable sources indicate it is. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AP and New York Times are reliable sources that cover his posts about Iran and ISIS leaders. Bachcell (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect's C-cedilla

[edit]

Earlier today I changed the suspect's name from "Arcan Çetin" to "Arcan Cetin" because the C-cedilla is not used in any of the sources (at least, all the sources I'm aware of). Those changes have since been reverted. "Çetin" is the official Turkish last name. However, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Cetin" appears to be his preferred name in news reports and social media, and hence the one that we should use. FallingGravity 21:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It (the C without the cedilla) is likely also the spelling he himself has used as an American resident, since the cedilla is uncommonly used here in the US. Agree that the addition was probably based on some editor's knowledge of Turkish, but is unsourced OR. General Ization Talk 22:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's no original research if some Wikipedian knows a language that you don't know. These things don't really need to be referenced. If you need a source, though, how about this one: Arcan Çetin. That's in Turkish, it's about Arcan Çetin and the Cascade Mall shooting, and it consistently spells the suspect's name "Çetin". Kelisi (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in Turkish, not in English. We give precedence to English-language sources in sourcing articles about events that occur in America. We have already cited multiple English-language RS that do not include the cedilla. And Wikipedia doesn't have an exception to its requirements for verifiability when it comes to family names that have (or may have) various spellings in various languages. Unless a reliable, English-language source uses the cedilla, we will not do so. General Ization Talk 01:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"We give precedence to English-language sources in sourcing articles about events that occur in America." Do we really? Where is that in Wikipedia policy? By the way, I am not suggesting that you use a Turkish source for anything more than the spelling of one Turkish name. And a reliable source can be in any language. I'm pretty sure that that is Wikipedia policy. Kelisi (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "regular C" should be used as that's what the sources use. For example, if someone's name is spelled Deville in the US but De Ville in France, we'd use the Deville if that's what sources used. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
American sources are important here because they're more likely to know how the suspect spells his own name. Even if we had his legal birth showing the cedilla, WP:COMMONNAME would likely rule favour of "Cetin". FallingGravity 02:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your questions about policy, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." Also at the same page: "[W]hen deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." General Ization Talk 02:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motive unknown

[edit]

It is too early to jump to obvious conclusions, but the New York Times is reporting on this social media posts: Cetin also appeared to have blogs on the site Tumblr that had not been updated in many months. They included seemingly random posts about serial killer Ted Bundy, a collection of selfies, the top-secret Area 51 Cold War test site and photos of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The two blogs linked back to each other and one of them linked to what appeared to be his Twitter page. New York Times Bachcell (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem notable enough. Parsley Man (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites Arcan Cetin's voting record as a source, but also says he is not a U.S. citizen

[edit]

The article cites this as a source: https://voterrecords.com/voter/40121508/arcan-cetin

But the article also says he is a permanent US resident, and that wikipedia article says they are not allowed to vote.

Here's another source that says he is illegally registered to vote: https://www.scribd.com/document/325292244/2016-9-25-Cetin-Complaint

71.182.241.246 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that, though interesting, this is so much unrelated to the reason for Cetin's notability, and so inconsequential in light of the heinousness of the crimes with which he is charged, that it seems like trivia and would not be an appropriate addition to the article. Were we to look, we might also find he was charged for not returning library books or failing to feed his dog, but these are both substantially lesser crimes than the murder of five people, and does not inform us about his motives or anything else related to his notability. Also, the first source is not known to be reliable (I would challenge its current use in the article), and the second is a primary source. We rely on secondary and tertiary reliable, published sources. If a newspaper or other secondary source covers this aspect of Mr. Cetin's history, we could consider including it at that time. General Ization Talk 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, permanent residents can vote in some local elections, but not in federal elections. I agree with General Ization that it's mostly trivia, though. FallingGravity 05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Mall shooting suspect voted in 3 elections without U.S. citizenship: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/29/arcan-cetin-cascade-mall-shooting-suspect-voted-in/ 71.182.242.215 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as it is an important part of his description, I think, just as any other criminal accusations would be. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Times is generally not rs. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per this updated report, this question is moot. Cetin is now reported by federal officials to be a naturalized American citizen, which means he is legally entitled to vote. General Ization Talk 12:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently per [www.snopes.com/cascade-mall-shooter-voted/ Snopes] that's still incorrect General Ization. Lotta misinformation on this one it seems. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the snopes.com item does is recap what we have said above; that early reports said he was not a citizen, but later statements attributed to federal authorities indicate that he is a naturalized citizen, thus eligible to vote. For the latter snopes uses the same source, at KING-TV's Web site, that appears in the article. The rest of the article discusses the controversy surrounding voting and voter registration by non-citizens (legal permanent residents). UNless I've missed something, there is no conflict and the most current information is that this is a non-issue with regard to Cetin. General Ization Talk 23:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting confused too now. The Snopes article says he could face addition charges for illegally voting. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key word in this case is "could". We could spend all day listing off the charges which he could face, but in the end what matters are the charges that he will face in court. FallingGravity 06:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 October 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition, and is reasonable. We don't normally include years except for disambiguation.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


2016 Cascade Mall shooting → Cascade Mall shooting – The present title contravenes Wikipedia policy, common sense and good taste.

  1. Two points of the WP:Article titles policy are contravened: WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. The former says that when there are two titles which are both "precise and unambiguous" (2016 Cascade Mall shooting and Cascade Mall shooting), we should opt for the one that is "the most concise title to fully identify the subject" (i.e. Cascade Mall shooting). WP:PRECISE tells us that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that".
  2. The unnecessary disambiguator in the title of the article is misleading readers. It suggests that there has been a previous Cascade Mall shooting from which this Cascade Mall shooting bombing should be disambiguated. While the title Cascade Mall shooting would make it clear that this was the only shooting in Cascade Mall, the title 2016 Cascade Mall shooting prompts me to waste my time looking up a previous one.
  3. By keeping this article at this title, we are not only ignoring the policy, but also leaving the wrong impression that the current format is proper practice, leading to new articles with titles which again contravene the policy and common sense. People think it is supposed to be done that way and even cite this as an example, but it is not. For example, the article Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire and Unite the Right rally was created under the title 2017 Unite the Right rally, all due to this misunderstanding. Will this lead to 1940 Battle of France, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, 1878 Berlin congress, etc?
  4. Preemptive disambiguation has been rejected by the Wikipedia community on countless occasions. The so-called "future-proofing", or disambiguating this from a future Cascade Mall shooting (as if expected), is not only unnecessary and misleading, but also distasteful to the point of being morbid. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – about a year ago, the opposite move was made with edit summary "This fits the current naming pattern of events". I'm not sure how true that is, some observations on that would be useful. I'm inclined to support the current proposal to drop the year, but unclear on whether there's a relevant convention for events. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I addressed that in point 3, with a couple of observations. The convention for events is not to use unnecessary disambiguation, i.e. WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE apply. If this really is the "the current naming pattern for events", then it's due to ignorance of the guidelines rather than due to a community decision. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cascade_Mall_shooting&oldid=1186583980"