This is an archive of past discussions about Pulse nightclub shooting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mini request for "External links" section: change "Official website" to "Official website of Pulse" or "of Pulse Orlando". Elsewise it looks like there is already an official site related to the shooting. 87.114.160.161 (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done, because it implies clear knowledge of the motive, which is still unclear. Mateen may well have had some hatred of gays, or possibly some dispute with someone at the club. This needs time to settle down.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Photo of damaged helmet & description
It's being stated elsewhere that the photo of the damaged helmet shows a bullet hole, but I believe that to be incorrect. The hole is too round and it's also positioned about dead-center in front. If you look at the other photos of SWAT team helmets, there is some type of hardware (comms or camera?) mounted in this exact spot. Likewise, the rest of the visible damage doesn't properly correlate with the location or angle of the hole.
We don't add commentary that hasn't been published elsewhere. Also the photo has been deleted (probably a copyright violation), so this is no longer an issue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Muslim response
Found out about this today because my PVR of Face the Nation was replaced by news reports. After doctor discussing blood drives the president and senior imam of the Islamic Society of Central Florida named Muhammad Mustri came on to speak and urged people not to jump to conclusions. Has anyone else spoke on it?
I don't like the map in the infobox, but it is early days. A lot of the images on Flickr aren't well suited as an exterior of the nightclub itself would be best. If someone in Florida could take a photo of the club, that would be great.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It is the deadliest mass shooting in American history (surpassing the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007) and the largest act of terrorism since the September 11 attacks in 2001.[7][5][6][8]
To this:
The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in United States history.[7][4][6][8]
There are multiple sources attesting that it is a terrorist attack, and that it is bigger than the 9-11 attacks. Officials are treating the investigation as a case of domestic terorrism. How many sources are needed? We can quibble over what might be the exact motives, but it's pretty obviously a terrorist attack. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's too speculative and we don't know what was going on in the gunman's head. Investigators are looking into a possible Islamic extremist motive but it is early days yet. See the "Terrorism" section above. WP:TERRORIST discourages splashing this term around without clear cut sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Support keeping the mention of a terrorist attack in the lede. It is clearly a defining part of this incident and easily source-able. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"Law enforcement officials are treating the case as an act of domestic terrorism" is in the opening paragraph and accurately describes the situation at the moment. Saying "it is terrorism" is WP:OR because it isn't clearly supported by the sourcing given.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems inevitable, albeit too early. Just remember to use sources that call it an act of terrorism, rather than an act of terror. One is scary, the other is a tactic to coerce policy change. And if you're comparing it to 9/11, be sure the source does, too. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:58, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing comparisons to 9/11 in the articles cited. The comparison to an earlier incident that it surpasses is redundant: we just said it was the deadliest ever. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
From The Guardian: "Officials have described the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism, and said there are “suggestions” that the gunman “may have had leanings” toward a violent jihadist ideology."[2] This isn't the same as saying "it was terrorism". News media are free to speculate, they always do. A full official report will take months to compile. Let's steer clear of "Muslim-sounding name, I rest my case."--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It is the deadliest single attack in the USA since 9/11, but it is also part of the long litany of mass shootings that have blighted Barack Obama's term as President. If it turns out that Mateen was able to buy a powerful gun and large quantities of ammunition despite concerns being raised about him by law enforcement, there will be more questions asked about gun laws in the USA.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Only the Indian one calls it a terrorist attack. The others say terror, and one explicitly says the FBI is still determining if it was terrorism. So if you must, go with the Indian one. InedibleHulk(talk) 17:16, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
There is a new CNN source: "A gay nightclub here was the scene early Sunday of the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11." XavierItzm (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
A newspaper journalist can make opinionated assertions, encyclopaedic editors can't. There are authorities whose competence it is within, after due investigation, to determine whether this was a terrorist incident: we can wait for them. This article could say that some reporters described it as terrorism, but that is only a reflection on the willingness of reporters to come to conclusions without evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Definition of terrorism in Patriot Act is that the intention fulfils one of three criteria:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
Mateen called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS, just before shooting....yet nowhere found in this article...
why is this very important fact (mentioned and confirmed on NBC news) not mentioned anywhere in the article? Mateen actually dialed and called 911, and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, etc, just before shooting. It's important, relevant, and informative crucial information, that thus far (for some reason) is nowhere in this WP article. Any thoughts? Redzemp (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Mateen's mental health (which we don't know much about) is relevant in all of this. He may have been a Grade A crazy that ISIL would not have touched with a ten foot pole. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's been established that he made that 911 phone call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Including that fact, which is objectively established, and not mere speculation, makes no comment on his motivations and mental state. One could argue that all of ISIS is mentally ill. But such debates don't mean that their actions and words can't and shouldn't be included. Psalm84 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's in the Perpetrator section. Something a politician heard from someone or another. Reportedly [http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/terrorist-omar-mateen-29-was-investigated-by-fbi/ could not confirm] when it happened. InedibleHulk(talk) 17:29, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
Are there any ISIS-related categories to add, or is more than pledging allegiance required to establish a connection with the terrorist group? ---Another Believer(Talk)17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The ISIS connection is being reported all over the media as fact, and given that there is a recorded phone call, that is hard evidence. It belongs in the article. It's not a question of "if," but "how." At this point, it's been established that he called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS, and the media commentators are saying this isn't clear if this means that he is a mere sympathizer, or if he coordinated with ISIS. A statement reflecting that should be in the article. That also obviously leaves open the question of his personal motives, saying nothing definitive about them. It is not speculating on his state of mind, but merely reporting on a significant, overt action he took himself. Psalm84 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Remove "and/or homophobia" from deaths section of template and/or move it to the correct section, as it has nothing to do with how many people died in the shooting.
The agency responsible of the news of the Islamic State, Amaq, claims a IS fighter carried out the shooting.
In his earlier statement, President Obama said the US was still investigating any "sympathies" or "associations" the suspect may had had.
It is still unclear if the killer had any direct links to the group, (ISIS)
Do we need the infobox of the perpetrator in this article? I've seen some articles of shootings with and without one and it doesn't seem to fit correctly in right now. Adog104Talk to me14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've temporarily commented it out - it does appear to be OK for general inclusion, however with the article being short it appears very high on the page for most resolutions - development on the box data should continue. — xaosfluxTalk14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep it, this is what we've always done, gives an overview of the terrorist without having to create a whole page about him that could be used to glorify him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The initial inclusion was organic, so in WP:BRD I'm find with taking the bold stance in the hide, I was reverted no big deal: let's discuss further - though my main concern should go away soon as the article content continues to expand. — xaosfluxTalk14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The general use should be OK, and comparing to say 2015 Chattanooga shootings - and once the page gets built out a bit more it should fit right in - this is the top ITN and a national news story now, so maintaining balance and accuracy is very important to our readers right now. — xaosfluxTalk14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If we get about 3 more paragraphs of text in the Incident, Investigation, and Victims sections this should be good to unhide in general. — xaosfluxTalk15:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the page seems to have grown enough for this to be balanced now, at most resolutions it is "beneath the fold". Thank you all above for working together on this. — xaosfluxTalk16:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Why has the perpetrator page been removed? A lone wolf attacker causing the largest terror attack in US after 11 September attacks is important enough to have an article dedicated to him. isoham (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I would suppose another imagine would be alright to use in the article (such as the club or crime scene evidence), however using a picture of the perpetrator would need discussion. Adog104Talk to me15:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Another editor has added an image - I don't really have an opinion on to if it should be included or not right now though. — xaosfluxTalk16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
1RR due to SCW&ISIL sanctions
Please note that this article is automatically placed under 1RR restriction due to the ISIL link to the event. Please avoid edit-warring and refer to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL for details.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I will be seeking a clarification from WP:ANArbcom on this, as 1RR is an onerous requirement for an article about a recent event.19:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the name of the killer's ex-wife, who had no connection to the actual events.
Per policy at, WP:BLP "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's action" and "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care".
The mayor of Orlando clearly stated on CNN that the 50 killed does not include the shooter. The mayor stated 2 victims were found dead outside the club, 39 victims were found dead inside the club and 9 victims died at the hospital. The mayor also stated that including the shooter there were 40 dead inside the club. Therefore, please fix this within the article, it includes the killer in the 50 dead total, when in actuality, he killed 50 people and including him, 51 people died. Thank you kindly.
Currently, the article says, "A man on his way to a pride festival in West Hollywood was arrested after tannerite, assault rifles and ammunition was found in his vehicle. There is no known connection between this incident and the attack in Orlando, though security at the festival will be increased." Is this appropriate? If there is no connection between these two incidents, I don't think the L.A. incident is worth mentioning. ---Another Believer(Talk)19:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I realized, after the French terrorist attacks last year, that these days I had begun turning in frustration to the Wiki Talk page instead of to the New York Times. The media, both liberal and conservative, were all invested in one political position or another. Each article could have been titled, "See? I told you so!" and the facts selected were skewed to prove that. I got tired of wading through the Root Causes and turned here. I hope all you editors and writers can keep up those standards. Profhum (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your explanation. I just happen to disagree, hence why I am inviting others to discuss whether or not the link should be included. All three links seem relevant to me, but of course I will yield to consensus. ---Another Believer(Talk)19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm reading suggestions in some sources that the police response caused some deaths. The lead sentence may overstate the case. --Pete (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If the cops caused any deaths, that'll be revealed during autopsies & will be reported. Then it can be added to the article. Until then, it'd just be speculation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw a report stating this. Trying to find it again in the flood. Good to see that we aren't claiming Mateef was killed by police. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
As of this posting there are 3 images, which I don't think is all that excessive. However, perhaps a good idea would be to remove the generic picture of the nightclub in the infobox and replace it with the picture of the police arriving on scene? Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The actual quote is here. Even presuming that Amaq is legit and not something SITE whipped up, it doesn't say ISIS claimed responsibility. It just says someone told it that buddy was an IS fighter. This truth was removed as undue. But The Telegraph, which mischaracterizes the supposedly unreliable source remains. The Independent, based on the same, at least calls it "alleged" and notes "an official claim from ISIS has been disputed." But Wikipedia currently looks foolish for not following the original source. InedibleHulk(talk) 20:20, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Mateen may have been a typical wack job who looked up a few radical Islamic websites and thought "Hey, I can do something like Bataclan." The media is going over the top with dubiously sourced speculation during the first 24 hours as usual.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I see a "reportedly" has been tacked on. Not sure if that was the extent of your edit, or someone else's. But now that it's not tagged as dubious, I don't think "reportedly" gets across that nothing of the sort happened. Would it hurt to just say what Amaq said? InedibleHulk(talk) 21:40, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
I found a source that both quotes the anonymous Amaq message, and three anonymous American officials who say there's no evidence of a connection. That might clear things up. InedibleHulk(talk) 22:04, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
Orlando Police Dept Twitter just tweeted "Pulse Shooting: The number of dead has NOT changed. It remains at 50. Please avoid erroneous reporting." --Flipper9 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Suicide isn't a cause of death, anyway, it's a manner of death. Gunshots are the cause, anyway you slice it. InedibleHulk(talk) 22:07, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
I added a redlink for this article as I found the name, and then someone found a quote that incorporated it but didn't wikilink it, so I added it back, but User:ThiefOfBagdad took it out, [6] saying that the suicide bomber "didn't deserve an article". But this particular suicide bomber was the first American to die in Syria, and his current burst of coverage in relation to Mateen, in addition to publicity over his suicide video in 2014, makes him warrant a biographical article. So I've started it, and you don't have to suffer the horror of looking at a redlink if you use it. (I think redlinks are lovely myself; they invite growth) There's actually quite a bit out about him - I didn't even incorporate everything in the sources I linked, and there are more. So I'd like to get the link back and have some editors build on this article. Both Salha and Mateen lived in Fort Pierce, Florida, and the FBI investigated a connection in 2014 but couldn't find anything. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It has been reported that he was licensed to carry a firearm as a security guard. In most states, you will be fingerprinted and a 'mug shot' will be taken as part of the licensing procedure. This may be the source of the photo. Drlegendre (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Editing out what the sources state
Both sources CNN and ABC read that this is the deadliest "terror attack" since 9/11.
Yet people keep citing only what they like, i.e., "attack", and removing what they don't like, i.e. "terror."
Clearer cases of bias in editing are rarely seen. XavierItzm (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed "terrorist" once. That's a whole other ball of wax from terror, and wasn't supported by the source, aside from what it appeared like to Michael McCaul. If the source says terror attack with certainty, say terror attack or attack. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:14, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
As the only person available so far who can speak from first-hand knowledge of the perpetrator, his father's comments seem to me highly relevant to report. He says that it wasn't about religion, and whether you believe him or not, he's a character witness. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I would think that only what the father actually witnessed then, his son's anger toward homosexual behavior, should be included. The father's speculation about it not having to do with religion should be omitted IMO, as it gives undue weight to this baseless claim. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, baseless speculation contradicted by the shooter swearing allegiance to ISIL. Should be kept out. Father only supports a secondary motivation which explains why this was targeted over non-gay nightclub. Ranze (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, especially with the revelation that the shooter swore allegiance to ISIS, the father's contradictory quote should be removed. I will remove it and if any objections are made they can join discussion here. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove ALL of it, just the part about it not being religious. Father observing hatred to gay men is certainly relevant for inclusion. Ranze (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no contradiction. A man can like ISIS and hate gays at the same time. Perhaps he felt an affinity to ISIS because it famously hates gays. Plenty of people hate gays in a secular way. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:01, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
But expressing allegiance to ISIS, an explicitly religious organization, is not secular. While his original motives may not have been entirely religiously-grounded, saying the attack had "nothing to do with religion" is false. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
And who appointed you the judge of his motivations here? Our role is to report the facts, not just the ones that fit your version of the story. Cherry picking which part of his father's comments to report and which to suppress violates NPOV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
ISIS is primarily an army. It uses religion for recruiting and propaganda. Its enemies play up the "no true Muslim" thing for counterpurposes. A little prayer never hurt winning a war (its goal, after all), but the brunt of the job is in the same sort of mundane earthly pleasures a "normal" army does. Digging holes, driving trucks, shooting guns, getting paid. Maybe he just thought ISIS could use a hand in demoralizing or antagonizing Americans, rather than anything about martyrdom or jihad. ISIS is definitely less secular than ISIS, though. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:22, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
We definitely should include this comment, because it was made and widely reported and relevant. How we interpret that comment... it's interesting. There are a number of articles out about the father now, and I suspect more are coming; there's a lot of bait in the water and the reporters aren't going to leave until every last scrap has been picked up, I hope. We just have to go one article at a time, writing down what we can support with the source in hand. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
OMAR MIR SEDDIQUE MATEEN was born 16 November 1986 and he lives (or lived) at 2513 S 17TH ST APT 107 in FORT PIERCE, St. Lucie County, Florida, U.S.A. His voter ID number is 114484524. He registered to vote 19 July 2006 and he is registered in the Florida Democratic Party. He is listed as Other (race).
I don't think we should list a street address but mentioning he is from St Lucie would probably be okay, and that he is registers democrat. Ranze (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. Primary sources at not to be be avoided. It is completely acceptable to use them to support basic info. Secondary sources are only needed to state interpretations of that info. Primary supports "he was Democrat" but not something silly like "he did this because he was democrat". Ranze (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources can be used, carefully. A document of questionable provenance, posted to the cloud, cannot be used.- MrX19:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: I list an apparent direct link to the source below. However, it may qualify as a primary source for a BLP and still fail. But the data in it is really useful for getting started down the rabbit hole... Wnt (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wnt: I would consider flvoters.com to be a reasonably reliable WP:TERTIARY source because I believe their data is gleaned directly from Florida voter records. The degree of detail that we should add to this article would then be a matter of editorial discretion. His address should not be listed, but his party affiliation may be a point of interest.- MrX23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: I am reluctant to call it tertiary or secondary because it doesn't correlate more than one source, i.e. the voter records. It's all a very automatic transcription. True, to introduce bad data from the voter registration you'd have to commit a serious crime, unlike with other forms of publication, but in terms of how sure you can be that the data is correct? I mean, it's not unheard of to move and forget to change your registration, for example. I'd like simply to acknowledge it as primary and include it anyway, being careful about interpretation, but that's kind of an IAR against BLP situation. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a non-primary (news) source that both he and Moner Mohammad Abu Salha lived in Fort Pierce, Florida in that article. I would welcome the added detail but I do recognize that Wikipedia shows some resistance to this level of detail. For what it's worth you can find out all kinds of computer generated shite about this unit at Zillow etc ... no idea if this is real or just a simulation though. [7][8][9] (third one is surprising - realtor.com makes it look like a standalone building, not an apartment, in a photo they provide) Note the original source is apparently [10] and they provide data for another person at this address, which I am afraid to try to share here but comes up readily from the street address via Google. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) With this kind of primary data you can keep digging and find non-reliable sources like [11] - we cannot use these, but they point in interesting directions - says the father was a candidate for president of Afghanistan and former director of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce Inc; these will be interesting to check out and see if we can confirm! Wnt (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Note: the Afghan President thing is confusing - apparently, it may not be real according to the Washington Post, though he certainly represented himself as such in a long video episode. Him being a former director of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce is traceable to www*corporationwiki*com/Florida/Fort-Pierce/mateen-siddique-P6268692.aspx (blacklisted here, I should add) which alas is several bricks shy of a load in terms of sourcing, yet really intriguing. Maybe the press will look up the records and give us something. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Facebook Safety Check
Not sure if useful, Facebook has activated their Safety Check program for this incident. <ref>{{cite web|title=Orlando nightclub shooting: Facebook activates Safety Check feature|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-facebook-safety-check-the-pulse/|website=www.cbsnews.com}}</ref> — xaosfluxTalk20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I've restored it to the article per the discussion here; I'm not sure whether this was taken out accidentally or purposefully, but it's certainly worthy of the one sentence. (It is quite rare for Facebook to active the feature, and its deployment in this case was noted by CBS News, Time, The Orlando Sentinel, and many others).Neutralitytalk20:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
We should be careful about balance here. Is Facebook's reaction more notable than the Pope's? Gh0d I hope not! Wnt (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
wnd.com is not a reliable source, and it predates the shooting anyway, so it can't be about it. I'm not sure if fusion.net is considered reliable, but I also don't see any definitive connection between the speech and the shooting. I would definitely want to see better and more sources before including anything about this in the article.- MrX00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
'One of the deadliest' vs 'deadliest' mass shooting
Multiple reports including those listed as sources in this article are describing this as the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Front page of the NY Times literally says 'ATTACK IS WORST MASS SHOOTING IN U.S. HISTORY' Shouldn't the article make this clear rather than mincing words by saying 'one of the deadliest'> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sae123 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we not include something like 'the attack was widely reported' as being the worst mass shooting in US history". The attack breaking the 'record' (if we can call it that) is a large part of why it is receiving so much media attention, particularly outside of the US. Sae123 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a modern public mass shooting where an individual shooter had access to a gun with a rapid fire capability. Comparing it to racial massacres in the 19th century USA is not comparing like with like. People in the USA were killing each other with guns long before semi-automatic weapons were invented, but it is now possible for a deranged individual shooter to kill dozens of people in the space of a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
and your point is....? the fact remains that almost the entire Western media is (in my opinion correctly) reporting this as the deadliest mass shooting in US history and that is clearly significant enough to warrant inclusion.Sae123 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit like saying land speed records are unfair because people in the 19th century only had horses and carts. Well they had trains, but anyway.... 50 exceeds the previous highest number of people killed in a single shooting incident. Surely common sense applies here.Mozzie (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If this form is kept, it should at least be altered to "2016 Orlando shooting", as it was one incident of shooting, not a series.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"2016 Orlando shooting" isn't specific enough, and the gunman seems to have targeted the club. The official website of the club seems to be offline at the moment, but is on the Wayback Machine here and simply names the club as Pulse.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that Orlando isn't in the title. "2016 Pulse nightclub shooting" isn't very specific either. "2016 Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting" is a bit of a mouthful but might be better.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If the club's actually called Pulse Orlando or Orlando Pulse, that'd be perfect, by my eye. ("Pulse Orlando shooting", that is. No year or "nightclub".) InedibleHulk(talk) 13:37, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
I propose we change it to "2016 Orlando terror attack" or something that implies it was a terror attack as some sort of ISIL affiliate (I'd be more detailed but I'm actually posting this on break at work) has claimed responsibility and the FBI is investigating as well and they usually only get involved in shootings and whatnot when they suspect terrorism, as well as the fact that many media outlets are referring to it as a terror attack.
NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. Or don't thank him. I'm Binary code, not a cop. 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's what I thought, too, when it was the The Washington Post, but then the British news (the good ones, not The Daily Mail) said it. I tried to revert myself, but United States Man beat me to it. InedibleHulk(talk) 14:45, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
Early reports said "20", later reports say "50", probably because previously-injured people have since died and more deaths have been confirmed. It is common for death tolls to go up like this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The later point appears to be one of the key reasons, in particular it was suggested that need to check for any unexploded bombs or booby traps meant it was a while before it was possible to start even a proper basic examination of the scene. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The media can often get things wrong in these highly charged late breaking news situations but it seems this case they made the correct call as the figure has been out there for a while, but no one AFAIK has corrected it. Casualties generally includes more then the dead, but in this case it seems it was referring only to the dead. The media probably figured based on the fact that the 20 figure was referring to the number of dead not injured+dead and also that that the 50 figure wasn't including those hospitalised. (The later meant either casualties was referring to both people who were dead or injured (which given the length of time would surely mean these people's injuries weren't serious enough) but not injured people who had been hospitalised, a fairly weird combination. Or it was referring only to those dead.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sparse info. Can we expand this as thy identify them? Even before that have the police given a gender breakdown? I figured it was a male gay club so it would be mostly men but I remember reading w woman got shot in the arm so was curious of any of the fatalities were women and how many. Ranze (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just re-included this as a statement rather than a list, but the reference goes to an external live list (see note below) — xaosfluxTalk20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is a RS for victims: <ref>{{cite web|title=Victims|url=http://www.cityoforlando.net/blog/victims/|website=City of Orlando}}</ref> . It is being updated following notification of families. — xaosfluxTalk20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
At least not at this point, and not without rock-solid sourcing. I do think an external link would be fine.- MrX20:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I would not put in a list of victims until there is a final list released by an official source (which could take a week or so). If we are to include a list, we should not do it piecemeal. Neutralitytalk20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please respond: "Motive" still not known
Nobody responded to my comment, please respond and discuss. Also stop editing my comments and don't move it. It's not allowed to edit other people's comments especially when they don't want it.
As I said earlier- The article mentions Islamic extremism as motive, but the actual motive hasn't been confirmed by authorities even though Mateen had pleadged to the ISIS. This act might simply be motivated by homophobia and we shouldn't simply label it as Islamic extremism especially since the real motive it isn't confirmed and just because it is homophobic doesn't mean it's automatically extremism. It could be both even. I don't see any of the sources saying that Islamic extremism as the motivation was confirmed, I suggest we avoid mentioning any motive until authorities confirm it. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I just recently removed the motive(s) since they will not be known until the investigation concludes.- MrX01:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Please change the sentence from this: Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer declared a state of emergency for the city and asked Governor Scott to request a state of emergency.[67][68]
New Sentence---> Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer declared a state of emergency for the city. Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in Orlando County.
Please can someone fix the death toll to the Proper number - Gunman killed 50, not 49
This Wikipedia page is the only source that states the gunman killed 49 people. This is incorrect, so please someone fix all the occurrences of this within the article to 50 killed by the gunman, which means 51 dead including the gunman. Here is a BBC news link which, clearly states the following, "Omar Mateen, 29, killed 50 people and wounded 53 at the Pulse club before being shot dead by police." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36513658 Also, all the links provided as sources within the article clearly states the gunman killed 50 people and wounded 53 others, so why is there any confusion over the amount of 50 vs 49 killed?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.109.184 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 June 2016
In the Casualties section, the sentence "another 53 people were critically injured" should read "another 53 people were injured", as the link provided does not say "critically" anywhere.
Revise Mateen's infobox, take out "Killings" header
Having a "Killings" header under the shooter's infobox, followed by the number of people he killed and injured almost reads as if it were acknowledging his accomplishments or giving him credit/praise. Though it is well-meant, this infobox section should be revised to give less attribution towards the killer and his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzo9 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The police officer (and patrolcar) was deployed outside the club or ...
Should the article be more clear about where the first responding police officer was deployed to? Should the article be more clear about the police officer being stationed at one of Orlando's police stations, but deployed elsewhere? 178.232.222.245 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have some information we don't have. Can you provide a link to a source about what this deployment issue is? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My question was a difficult way of asking: Was the first responding police officer stationed (or deployed to) outside the gay bar, or near it, or inside. In some countries it is a strange concept that police officers can be stationed inside a club (or gay bar) rather than being stationed outside/near a club, while sitting in the squad car - or standing next to it. 178.232.9.184 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
On their Facebook page, they needed to include all the major categories that they thought people might be searching. Their own web site uses the term "gay night club" in the graphics on their home page, and "gay bar" in the text. I don't see a contradiction or need for an edit here. NameIsRon (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Related incidents
I think it would be a good idea to add two "related" incidents into this article. These include the shooting-suicide of a prominent singer in under 24 hours in the same city, and the discovery of another man with explosives who "wanted to harm the gay pride parade". These incidents may not be related, but the are similar, and should be included.
I'm not so sure that it would really be necessary to help the article at this point, but I would like to hear others' opinions on this matter. United States Man (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Parsley Man; there is little linkage between the events other than geography (in one case) and the sexual orientation of the victims/intended victims (in the other). Linking the articles would seem to be an attempt to suggest otherwise. General IzationTalk 00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed one of these from the article earlier - unless a reputable source shows a topical link between these, I don't think this article is the place for those entries at this time. — xaosfluxTalk00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of reversions on the article. Four by User:Parsley Man and three by User:ATS. I note that this page is subject to 1RR, as per notice at top. Perhaps the perpetrators could still their trigger fingers a little? --Pete (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll need diffs, please, and an explanation of how anything I've done makes me a "perpetrator" of an "edit war". 🖖ATS/Talk22:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Both of you, go here and do a page search on the phrase "Undid revision". I also direct you to WP:EW, which says, "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." (my italics). --Pete (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thesethreeedits constitute the entirety of my "undid"s—and each was correct as explained within its edit summary. Please refrain from bullshit warnings and assertions that anyone is a "perpetrator" of anything, or you may be the one facing sanctions. 🖖ATS/Talk22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Whether you regard your reversions as "correct" or not – and none of the three appear to be exempt – is beside the point. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and you have breached the rule swiftly and repeatedly. I also direct you to WP:CIVIL. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of EW and 3RR is and has always been to prevent the back-and-forth that occurs in an actual edit war. Meantime, as someone who does not consider himself a "perpetrator" of anything, go read WP:CIVIL yourself. 🖖ATS/Talk23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ATS: It's crazy, but read it from the horse's mouth: [12] It says one revert per editor per article per day. And you don't get dragged to the usual EW board over it, you can get dragged straight to WP:AE where damn near anything can happen (and often does). So you should be careful here. I actually myself have held off re-adding the link to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha that I described below, in case my adding the wikilink the second time would be counted as my revert ... which sucks, because it was taken out because 'we didn't need an article' and now it's a bluelink. But if people are going to be like this, I may get tempted to say adding a bluelink isn't really reverting taking out a redlink, hmmm.... Wnt (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Wnt, the EW "prevention" process has been radically rewritten since last I read it, FWIW—no excuse, since I should keep up on these things, however recent, but holy mother of fuck! One per article per day regardless of the content? We've jumped off the deep end.
Nevertheless, it was nice to see that Skyring's effort to make me collateral damage in his "report" was shot down, and correctly so. To block someone for engaging in a good-faith effort to make articles better cannot be more insane! 🖖ATS/Talk02:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The broad 1RR AE sanctions have been Special:Diff/725000760 removed, for now at least. That being said - not only is this on the top of the main page, and a top search hit; but also both an emotional topic and it does boarder on contentious topics -- so please edit respectfully. We should not be approaching 3RR with any regularity here - please continue to help shine a positive light Wikipedia's coverage of this area as new information becomes available. Thank you to all the editors who have developed this article over the course of the day so far - good job! — xaosfluxTalk00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Many editors seem to wield the revert sword liberally, but reverting good faith edits is not something that should be done lightly. To quote from Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary:
The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits.
Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration.
Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant... Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia.
Reversion is simply inappropriate for the vast majority of good faith edits. There are many better ways to deal with things than reversion. Good faith edits should be only be reverted when the clearly make Wikipedia worse. In an article like this which is being heavily edited, no one person needs to go around policing such edits. Consensus will remove them pretty quickly. I think it's pretty amazing that the article has reached this standard within hours of the event. This is something that we have achieved together!Mozzie (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I should probably note here that at least two of my edits were, rather than reversions, restorations of edits that appeared to get lost in edit conflicts. ATS/Talk01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
ATS, I don't think you were doing anything wrong, apart from being uncivil about it. You got mentioned because you made three reverts on a (then) 1RR article. Parsley Man is up to fifteen reverts in less than six hours, but I'll let someone else look at that if they wish. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
... which is why you attempted to make me collateral damage in your properly shot-down report after calling me a "perpetrator"? Uh huh. Meantime, if this is your definition of uncivil, you need to grow a thicker skin, because I could not have been more correct. 🖖ATS/Talk02:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You should avoid making personal attacks. You made three reverts to an article then subject to 1RR. If I reported PM for making four reverts, then it would have been unfair to leave you out of it for making three. Sorry you're taking this personal, certainly not intended. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"You should avoid making personal attacks", says the attacker. On the talk page of an article about a mass murder committed by the perpetrator of an actual crime, you called two editors "perpetrators" of a nonexistent "edit war". Now would be a good time to step away from your illegitimate effort to paint yourself as a victim of something, and step back into actually contributing to an encyclopedia. Or is that not why you're here? 🖖ATS/Talk04:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Gun used
the wikipedia page lists him using an "assault rifle", he used an AR-15, which is actually a semi-automatic rifle.
the confusion likely arises from police reporting it was an "AR-15-type assault rifle"
real assault rifles in the USA are banned seeing as they're automatic.
This seems to come from a police tweet "@ChiefJohnMina Suspect had handgun and AR15 type rifle." Not quite so clear cut, but it's interesting that Adam Lanza also used an AR-15 at Sandy Hook, which he was able to fire once every two seconds for the duration of the shooting as a semi-automatic rifle.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
See Assault weapon and compare Assault rifle; see also Federal Assault Weapons Ban for the 1994-2004 law. "Assault weapon" is a term used for certain semi-automatic weapons, some of which, like the AR-15, are rifles. "Assault rifle" refers to military weapons capable of semi-automatic and burst or automatic fire. But "assault rifle" is colloquially used to refer to the rifle-type weapons classified as assault weapons, the ones which were banned until 2004, when discussing civilian-owned firearms. Most semi-automatic rifles are not assault weapons, so it is probably better to use "assault rifle" in the article. Roches (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Instead of changing it from "assault rifle" to "assault weapon" I've removed the "assault" portion altogether, since it's also possible to have an AR-15-style rifle that doesn't fall under nearly any definition of "assault weapon" either (i.e. no evil features) and we do not yet know what features the rifle had. Anything else is simply simply misleading and borderline deceitful AFAICT. jayphelps (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Attack section
Under attack section, there is a statement, It is unknown WHEN the gunman killed the victims. I feel what the author was trying to write is It is unknown WHY the gunman killed the victims. Please clarify. Darreg (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That statement in the Attack section reflects the uncertainly expressed in the Reuters article quoted: "The Florida shooting evolved into a hostage situation, which a team of SWAT officers ended around dawn when they used armored cars to storm the club before killing the gunman. It was unclear when the victims were killed." NameIsRon (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Darreg, there was a three hour gap between the initial round of shooting and the final law enforcement assault. Reports from neighbors, etc. only mention shooting, and/or explosions, and/or screams just after 2am and just after 5am. The 2am part was at least three rounds of shooting. 1) The initial attack. 2) The suspect tried to leave, got into a gunfight with police, and reentered. 3) More shots were fired shortly after he re-entered. From 2am to 5am it seems there either were no shots fired or the shooter was able to suppress the sounds enough that they were not noticed in the area. After the assault it was thought the area was booby trapped with bombs as a remote camera spotted a device. This delayed entry and assessment of the victims until it was determined the device something that had fallen out of a smoke detector or an exit sign. Thus it makes sense it's not immediately known if a victim was killed around 2:00am or 5:00am. --Marc Kupper|talk05:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"Perpetator" is still a suspect
The article is treating Omar Mateen as he's been fully confirmed a perpetator. But the authorities are still treating him as a suspect even though he was at the nightclub and most likely is responsible. I don't think we should call him a "perpetator" when he's still being considered a suspect by the authorities. That is equal to making our own conclusions. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Since he's dead he isn't going to sue for libel. There seems to be little doubt that Mateen was the shooter, although some sources are still using the word suspect, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Many news sources will continue to use "suspect" out of respect for a perp's living family members. I speak from experience. 🖖ATS/Talk21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There are strong similarities here to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, where police caused two of the fatalities and all of the injuries. Probably premature to speculate that Mateen was the sole gunman, particularly as we also have reports that the police were firing. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
We haven't had any conspiracy theories yet. Where have all the tinfoil hat wearers gone today? Usually they would have turned up by now and said that it was all a false flag operation. It's too early to say whether police gunfire caused any of the deaths, and the media seems pretty sure that Mateen was the only shooter..--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Death of victims by the hand of official forces during a hostage crisis has happened before outside United States, while during the aftermath, then officials then blame all fatalities on the perpetrator(s). There's really nothing new in that. -Mardus /talk07:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We have to use common sense, not legalistic distinctions, because they don't prosecute the dead. There's never going to be a trial. If the cops say he was the perpetrator, well, you can think what you will, but if the reliable sources say he's the perpetrator, we take their word for it. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
PERHAPS the deadliest terrorist attack.
I've met a few people today who don't seem to understand uncertainty. The Washington Post article footnoting the "deadliest terrorist attack" bit doesn't say it was. It says "the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning appears to represent the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. It may also mark the doubling of the number of people killed in America by a terrorist motivated by Islamist ideology in the years since September 2001."
And then it flat-out says "The shooter's ties to terrorism are not yet fully established." I won't revert it anymore, but hope that the bold font sinks in and someone else either reflects the source or finds one that backs what they want to say. Wikipedia appears smarter that way. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:03, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
The CNN reference reports "the nation's worst terror attack since 9/11". If there is still ambiguity (or better yet if anyone can point to a specific contradictory article) then I'm fine for moving it back to the assumptive. — xaosfluxTalk01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think I realized we have a different interpretation of this sentence - you are questions if this is "terror" or "not terror" - not if there was a undisclosed other more deadly terrorist attack in the interim, which is what I was trying to clarify. — xaosfluxTalk01:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Terror is simply strong fear. Terrorism is the practice of using that fear to make change. When politicians and the media want to invoke the spectre of terrorism without technically lying, they say "act of terror" or "terror attack". And it seems to work! But they're completely different words. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:19, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
If there is not consensus that this is a "terrorist attack" please reword - I was only trying to reinforce that if this was a terrorist attack , it was indeed the deadliest since 9/11. — xaosfluxTalk01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is it's still undetermined, at least by people trained and paid to solve crime. Rather than say perhaps, I've just said it was the deadliest attack since September 11. That much is certain, regardless of why. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:54, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
'Deadliest attack since 9/11' and 'deadliest shooting on U.S. soil in modern history [or living history]'. Something like that. Both can be used. -Mardus /talk07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Lead section reversions
I made an edit to the lead section as per MOS:BOLD, from:
On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gaynightclub in Orlando, Florida. At least 50 people, including the gunman, were killed and 53 people wounded.
to:
The Orlando nightclub shooting of June 12, 2016 was a mass shooting in which approximately 50 people were killed and 53 people wounded. The shooting occurred at Pulse, a gaynightclub in Orlando, Florida.
However this has been reverted twice now by User:Parsley Man and User:Jujutsuan. Please note several points from the manual of style on lead sections:
If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.
I will not re-revert, but some change of this style should be made, and it needs to stop being reverted.Mozzie (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it was more desirable not to have the title in the first sentence, but I guess not. I will put that back in. United States Man (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mozzie: thank you for bringing this to the talk page - further development may be warranted and this is the place to hash out stylistic changes. — xaosfluxTalk00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No, there's no need for bold here, since the name is not a "formal or widely accepted name." It's just the name we've given it. Neutralitytalk00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
What about the other elements, that the title should be the subject of the sentence? (fyi: the subject comes before the verb.) As for a widely accepted name, I think the matter is grey. We can put the emphasis on most accepted or most widely accepted, or widely recognised. I favour the latter: any reasonable person would accept this name. It may change over time, for example if the article is moved, but it is more consistent with the general Style of Wikipedia.Mozzie (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have re-edited the text to make the title of the page the subject, as per consensus in this discussion but have not added bold. I have also removed the bold comment tag in the code.Mozzie (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mozzie: I did not mean to deliberately revert your changes. It must have been a casualty of an edit conflict that I resolved poorly and in a rush due to the flood of edits coming in. My bad. As far as I'm concerned, that lead edit looks fine, but do defer to any consensus that develops here. Best, Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll go in and rearrange the lead section again. At present the first sentence is very complicated with six ideas ideas (date, terrorist shooting, location and death toll plus the inclusion of the shooter and the wounded toll). This violates WP:BEGIN. Also The sentence needs to be arranged to place the title as the subject of the first sentence. The Orlando nightclub attack (subject) of 12 June 2016 (prepositional phrase) was a terrorist mass shooting (object) that resulted in the deaths of 50 victims(clause). I'll split the information about the wounded and the location into difference sentences to simplify the first. Could any contributors who want to change the lead section please read WP:BEGIN and make changes with this in mind.Mozzie (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I want it on record that ThiefOfBagdad has repeatedly added IS as "perpetrators" to the infobox of this article. It is inaccurate and inflammatory, and I will nuke it on sight. ATS/Talk06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, English is not my first language. Didn't the shooter say he's part of IS? Doesn't that mean they're the perpetrators? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No. For something that controversial we need a stronger demonstrated connection than a few of his words. Like something from IS, or his training with IS. ―Mandruss☎06:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's simply not supported by the sourcing at the moment. Any crank can say online "I'm a member of IS". It's a safe bet that IS in Syria had never heard of this guy until yesterday.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No. Mateen is the perpetrator, and the sole perpetrator, by all accounts. While he apparently pledged allegiance to IS prior to the shooting, it would still be irrelevant if he was directed to commit the attack—and, even then, he is the sole perpetrator if in fact he was the only one killing people.
Meantime, my apologies if I was unnecessarily harsh. I would ask that you read the edit summaries made by anyone who reverts an edit so you know why the reversion happened. 🖖ATS/Talk06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but does this loose inspiration justify pinning the deaths on IS? I think not. Address that in body prose where it's possible to explain it fully, not in the infobox. ―Mandruss☎07:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree that it should not be included in the infobox. I assume ThiefOfBagdad was acting in good faith, agree with the revert by ATS. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 07:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does the page show the coordinates 81.376815°W, where they should be -81.376815°W? I can't get it fixed because when you try to edit the page it does say -81.376815°W! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE)16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly true that the underlying (source) text has a negative sign while what the reader sees does not. That may make sense (I'm admitting complete ignorance here); if it doesn't, the place to discuss is Template talk:Coord. -- John Broughton(♫♫)16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The source of the revision at the time of your original post [13] does not say -81.376815°W. It says {{coord|28.519364|-81.376815|region:US-FL_type:event|display=inline,title}}. Negative degrees are rarely used for human readers and should never be combined with N/E/S/W as far as I know, so the template correctly writes it as 81.376815°W. A positive number 81.376815 would have been written as 81.376815°E. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Perp had bragged about ties to "terrorist organizations" since at least 2013, and was investigated by the FBI at that time. He also pledged allegiance to ISIS during the attack, and ISIS claimed responsibility for it. A month-old incident reported through hearsay from his father doesn't carry as much weight. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's too early to say. If past mass shootings in the USA are anything to go by, Mateen may have been a wack job who developed a fascination with radical Islam. This would create a quasi-Islamic motive rather than a clear cut one. The article already mentions his father's belief that religion was not the direct motive. The MSN article says "While no one may ever know what was truly going on in the head of the man who shot over 100 people at a gay Florida nightclub early Sunday, his family says he may have been motivated by pure hate against the LGBT community" which is one of the more sensible things said in the media today.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: At first sight, the Pulse nightclub shooting looks a lot like the Charlie Hebdo shooting or the November 2015 Paris attacks, and Omar Mateen may well have been influenced by these attacks. However, scratch the surface and a typical portrait of a U.S. mass shooter starts to appear. He was a loner, full of anger and had easy access to a semi-automatic weapon with plenty of ammunition. It has all happened before. Substitute the word "gays" for "women" and the Pulse shooting is very like the Luby's shooting.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest adding the following in the 'reactions' section:
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick responded to the incident at 7 a.m. Sunday by by tweeting "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galatians 6:7". Following strong criticism for the tweet his adviser Allen Blakemore said that it was an unfortunate coincidence and that 'the post was designed and scheduled last Thursday'. Shortly afterwards another post was tweeted from the account, from Psalm 37:39, "The Salvation of the righteous come from the Lord; He is their stronghold in time of trouble".
Not done. What a Texas lieutenant governor said is entirely irrelevant. Only reactions from Orlando/Florida and U.S. national officials are listed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Aside from what has already been said, there isn't even evidence that this was a "reaction" to the attacks. As you said, his advisor said it was an unfortunate coincidence. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Not done non story. A politician's account sent out an automated tweet that was pre-selected with a stock bible verse - this is a non-issue and he deleted it.-- Callinus (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sources discussed it, so it might be suitable for inclusion somewhere ... but not here. This is fundamentally a story about that governor and the unfortunate interpretations people put on his Twitter/Bible bot, and if it goes somewhere, it's in an article about him. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently a non-story. The 7am posting not a response to the 2am incident in Florida. Dan Patrick: "This morning, as every Sunday morning for the past several years, we post a verse from scripture. Those posts are chosen in advance and scheduled in advance. As noted to the media earlier, the post from Galatians, that received many hateful comments, was put on the schedule Thursday. Our scripture was not posted in reaction to the shooting." http://www.danpatrick.org/facebook-statement-regarding-mornings-bible-verse-post/ -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do editors feel this fork is appropriate? Does the section about Mateen in this article summarize the newly-created biography article? ---Another Believer(Talk)02:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it's a classic case of one event. All the content about the perpetrator should go here, and the name should be redirected to this article. All the notability of the individual is related to the attack (this is particularly true since he is dead, and therefore there won't be a trial and so forth. I expect the page will go to AfD, where I would support deletion. Neutralitytalk03:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
From the policy you cited:
In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
Let's assume Mateen's article stays and, therefore, so does the Main article: link here. I propose we lose the infobox. ATS/Talk03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it warrants staying still, due to the severity of the attack, though his personal page should talk about more than just the attack. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, too many - cities around the country appear to have these spinning up - if there were one at the shooting location (in the future) it may be notable. — xaosfluxTalk22:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Crystal? Events are already being held. I'm watching footage from Stonewall now. And re: NOTNEWS, seems something very general like, "Vigils were held in X city, Y city..." or "Vigils were held throughout the United States", etc. might be appropriate. ---Another Believer(Talk)22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There are probably going to be a number of these, and listing them all really isn't a great idea. I think a brief sentence about an organized vigil in Orlando would be appropriate in the reactions section.- MrX22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Events already being held—if sufficiently notable for inclusion—would not fall under CRYSTAL; those being planned would. 🖖ATS/Talk22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I just removed an entire section listing minor vigils and commemorations - news reports are showing these popping up nation-wide, I don't think listing every one is notable - a threshold for inclusion needs to be determined (if any). Any suggestions? — xaosfluxTalk01:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, buildings and structures (ferris wheels, spires, etc) around the world are being illuminated in rainbow colors. This may also be worth mentioning, even minimally. ---Another Believer(Talk)02:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from this article because of the WP:RECENTISM essay. It is not policy and the 10 year rule is a concept from Wikipedia's history that is no longer relevant. It pertained more to the creation of new articles during the early years of the encyclopedia. For current events, articles are edited enough that "recentist" content is removed as time passes. Roches (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
But somehow, Kaldari, while your addition about the whole of the USA is deemed by the Vigil Police as "not notable" it's vitally important we retain the sentence that says the Empire State Building went dark. Because New York. LavaBaron (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@BrxBrx: It's not just "a few vigils in one country", it's dozens of vigils all over the world.[15][16][17][18] Is there any point at which this becomes a notable aspect of the story? There are already numerous news stories solely about the vigils. I don't think it would be useful to cover all of the vigils separately, but surely some mention of the fact that there are vigils being held all over the world should be included in the article at this point. It's certainly been covered by far more sources than most of the other events mentioned in the Reactions section. Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Recent History of Promoting Killing Gays in Orlando
If there is a large group of people who paid to have someone like this speak in Orlando... this attack was a long time coming. Most articles on tragedies cover the background preluding the calamity maybe we need a background section here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQSsh83 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree on the background section, but until there's a link between the guy in the video and the perp, it's just speculation - we could just as well put Pat Robertson's video on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Carlos, the link is two-fold: The first is the fact that the shooter's religion is the same as the mosque where the video was made. The second is geographic, because both this mosque and the shooter are in the same region, i.e., east central Florida. - JGabbard (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Even if this wasn't grossly generalizing, it's original research. You need a RS to make this link before we could consider including it. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Number of deaths
The text "39 people were found dead inside the club, with another two people found dead outside" doesn't match the total given elsewhere. Can it be updated, clarified, or removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We're told that the perp "swore allegiance" or "pledged allegiance" to someone or to ISIL more generally. Just a suggestion we keep an eye on this phrase. Maybe there will be a tape of the 911 call or the police will find a neutral way of reporting what was said. I'm just a tad suspicious of the phrasing, which sounds like someone's trying to make a point. I hope the authorities will provide a quote soon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Some UK sources are seriously doubting any real involvement/backing from any known organisation, because they don't follow standard format, though UK sources support his 'allegiance' call. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This is another perennial subject of debate. Is it glorifying the killer and giving him the fame that he wanted? WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. In the past, images have been removed because they were non-free and failed WP:NFCC, but the driver's license photo is public domain.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. He didn't suddenly become a decent actress. Same backwards deal here. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:16, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
President Obama's comments were "We know enough to say this was an act of terror and an act of hate," he said. "The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror. We will go wherever the facts lead us ... What is clear is he was a person filled with hatred."[19] No problem with mentioning this as Obama's response, but the investigation will continue.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This should be a clear-cut case. No idea why some editors are hell-bent on playing down the terrorist nature of this incident (as stated by government and reliable sources) AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Adding 'Muslim' would be editorialising, and would pose the danger of Wikipedia inadvertently becoming responsible for an incease in sentiment against Muslims who are not violent, and against Sikhs who to some people appear 'Muslim', too. The motives of the perpetrator are not yet clear, because sources currently offer conflicting arguments. See discussion in the similar section above. -Mardus /talk06:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Definitely no, as it uses the old chestnut of "Muslim = terrorist". Like previous mass shooters, Mateen may have wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, and believed that aligning himself with Islamic extremists would allow him to do this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Which part of what I wrote you're agreeing or disagreeing with? I was specific about not adding 'Muslim' to the title or the lede, because it would be like "Muslim = terrorist". It was not a Muslim attack, because the word Muslim is too wide, and would implicate the whole religion. Rather, I think it was a hate crime apparently motivated by Mateen's homophobia, racism (as reported by father and ex-coworker), and the perpetrator's very misguided beliefs. -Mardus /talk15:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"Terrorism" as defined by Wikipedia could include attacks on gays with the intention of terrorizing gays into ceasing their behavior. Burressd (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Attack section preceed the Shooter section?
The last sentence of the summary section is a run-on sentence. Please correct this:
Mateen pledged allegiance to the organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during the attack, though investigators have not yet found evidence linking Mateen to the group, and cautioned that the attack may have been ISIL-inspired without being ISIL-directed.
To this:
Mateen pledged allegiance to the organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during the attack. Though investigators have not yet found evidence linking Mateen to the group, they cautioned that the attack may have been ISIL-inspired without being ISIL-directed.
Done. Already done just before your request was made. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Not done, because it implies clear knowledge of the motive, which is still unclear. Mateen may well have had some hatred of gays, or possibly some dispute with someone at the club. This needs time to settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Removed ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
🖖ATS / Talk 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Done and cited. If something changes, we can fix it. ATS / Talk 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
🖖ATS / Talk 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e6/20160612160126!1912_S_Orange_Ave_2.png){kind=link}
