Most sources are saying that 11 people in all were shot, but yet we have this hanging civilian which would make the count 12 what should we do? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Media is widely using the term "Sniper" or "Sniper Fire". However, no authority figure has used this term in a cited source. Furthermore, the sources that are cited specifically reference weapons that do not meet Wikipedia's own definition of "Sniper" or "Sniper Rifle".
So wikepedia now is just a repeat of media hysteria? No authoritative person (Law Enforcement, Governor, Mayor, etc) is using that term (show me a cite).
I don't think that's "media hysteria". It's sort of common knowledge to call a person a "sniper" when they set up a position in an elevated area and shoot people from a distance, regardless of the official military connotation. Parsley Man (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Sources are authority enough. And really, what else would you call a person(s) who is stationed in an elevated position and shoots people from a distance? Parsley Man (talk) 05:58, 8 July 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.
Choppy news reports
Right now I am hearing things from civilians were also hit, to the officers being transit officers. A lot has to be sorted out but feel the event is notable given the ongoing coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's notable enough at this moment to attract editors; it can always be merged to Black Lives Matter or some other appropriate place later if necessary. Relatedly, are RT and the Atlantic doing any reporting of their own or just working off local sources? If the latter, we should just find and cite those instead. Mackensen(talk)03:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to work that cite into the article, so that there is a direct link to avoid the whole confusion that started me down this path? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.199.165.101 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, such information should be used in the "Aftermath" section (or other possible future sections). However that might take a while due to ongoing investigations and arrests. Adog104Talk to me06:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
To correct something written earlier, its possible for an individual to be acting as a sniper even if they are not using a weapon officially considered a sniper rifle. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Number of shooters/perpetrators
It's becoming increasingly widely reported that there were a total of 4 armed suspects involved in the shooting (as according to Dallas police). Perhaps it would be appropriate to update this in the infobox? Y phelan (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The weapons used should NOT be listed as "sniper rifles". As far as I know, there is no information yet about what weapons were used. A rifle with a scope can be used by a sniper, but is not necessarily a "sniper rifle". It would seem reasonable to say the weapons were semiautomatic rifles based on the available evidence but I could see objects to saying that. We don't really know anything about the weapons yet. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As of the early Friday 8, the morning after the shooting, neither Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton nor presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had issued statements.[1]
Not done - We don't usually add content about what didn't happen when there is so much available content about what did happen. Please seek consensus and find better sources if you really think this material belongs in the article.- MrX12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Good decision not to add this, but I agree the delay is significant and notable. If and when they do say anything, it would be good to state "X days after the incident, Y said Z". I'm sure the press will pick up on that anyway. 160.83.36.130 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Two editors, User:Jess5983 and User:Epicgenius have recently changed it to 6 officers killed, without providing a reference. Let's get this right. Do not change the death total without an inline reference to a reliable source. Is there a news source which says 6 officers dead? Is someone seeing "6 including the perpetrator" and conflating this to "6 officers?" Edison (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
All editors should use "preview" and "show changes" before hitting "save." Careless editing constitutes disruptive editing when basic facts are misstated. Edison (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd say use the coordinates for the location in the infobox: intersection of Main Street and S. Lamar Street, Dallas, Texas. A source should be found for that location, otherwise it should be removed from the current article. Thank you, --67.79.93.74 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The target was 'white people, especially white officers.'
This should be mentioned. One of the murderer's wider target was whites in general.
"The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter," said Brown, who is black. "He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." U.S. media identified the suspect as Micah X. Johnson, a 25-year-old resident of the Dallas area, citing unnamed law enforcement sources. http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-idUKKCN0ZN0MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.123.171 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's please not turn the article into a soapbox for political candidates who otherwise have nothing to do with this events. - MrX16:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
And let's please not make a "reactions to" article where we list everybody who expressed "thoughts and prayers". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The tweets are protected so I can't see anything beyond the photo and the username @XavierMicah. Still some confusion on this, needs reliable secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Mass shooting
Is this really a mass shooting? It seems more like an armed attack against parts of the US police then a mass shooting? So it seems more like attacks conducted by the IRA in Ireland against British troops or attacks against police and military forces in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan then mass shootings/terrorist-attacks?
Wikipedia's own definition of mass shooting is "an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence." Based on this, I recommend that we keep the mass shooting tag.
FrostRavenstorm (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
motive being said to be "recent police shootings"
I think that phrase is inconistent with what the source actually said and is misleading. The current source makes the claim in a headline but then references an interview where a dallas police official says "he was upset about Black Lives Matter". My objection is to the word "recent". Recent implies that he was motivated by the events of the last couple days and we don't know that in my opinion.
The media is beginning to self-reflect the words "recent police shootings", but unless there is a reference in the media back to a primary source, I think the word "recent" should be removed.184.20.115.141 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
"The suspect, identified as Micah Johnson, 25, told officers he was upset about Black Lives Matter, the recent police shootings of black men, and white people." — Huffington Post
You would need some sources that explicitly say "racism was a motive". You cannot infer it from the shooter's statement. See WP:OR and WP:V.- MrX19:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Targeted killing he targeted police. not a Mass shooting
This was a targeted shooting. Mass shooting involves random people being shot he was targeting police officers only not random by standers like mass shooters do.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This was not part of an armed conflict, it was classified as mass shooting for a reason because it involves the illegal killing of people in a peacetime context. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That's wrong Mass shootings involve shooters who shoot random people. this was a targeted shooting of police officers. Targeted killing should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
So according to your defintion, attacks against police and military in Iraq and Afghanistan(after US had won the wars)wasn't targetet attacks but massshootings? And attacks against police and etc in various Central and South American coutries should also be considered massshootings? The actions by this group is more akin to military actions then a massshooting and Peacetime context is irrelevant as every country is in a peacetime-context until someone does things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:1:8:2178:3862:511D:91AC (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia itself is defining targeted killing as "the assassination (premeditated killing) of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield". Key phrase: by a state organization or institution. We currently don't know if the shooters are working for part of a larger organization, and we certainly shouldn't jump to conclusions just yet. Parsley Man (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no definition of anything you provides so far that only applies to random people. The Dallas shooting is a mass murder with firearms, hence, it's rightfully called "mass shooting" as it involves illegal killing of anyone in a peacetime context. This is not an armed conflict. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
So targeted shooting or targeted attack is appropriate and covers all victims? Not all of those targeted were actually killed, thank God! CarsonsDad (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This is in no sense a targeted killing. A targeted killing involves the assassination of specific individuals rather than a group of people with something in common (like being police officers). Targeted killing is typically applied to things like death squads who target individuals and kill them. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own definition of mass shooting is "an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence." Based on this, I recommend that we keep the mass shooting tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostRavenstorm (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
BRD
WP:BRD mentions an addition that was bold and then challenged requires consensus before re-adding it. Not edit warring to tickle the editors fancy who boldly added it!.Lihaas (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You're not reverting in response to a bold edit though. You're removing content that, relative to the page, has been there a while and then claiming BRD. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It makes it very difficult to properly craft an article when overly exuberant editors add misinformation: [1][2][3][4]. It's not a perfect system, but semi protection is best for the first 24-48 hours for these types of articles, in my opinion.- MrX12:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Totally wrong. It's well-known that these types of article act as a recruiting sargeant for new editors - except that they don't because invariably they are locked down for spurious reasons; reasons which actually go against policy. This article is yet another example of SP misuse. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in the text I found whether the shooter was white or black, even though the shooting was clearly racially motivated (the text even states that he wanted to kill white people). Why? Opisska (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
So looking at pictures is now considered original research? I was able to find out he is black in 10 seconds of Google search. The first few results on his name even explicitly show material pointing to his "black activism". I sense agenda here. Opisska (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Unless you can find a reliable source that clearly points to "black activism" as a motive for the shooting, such statements are otherwise WP:OR. Parsley Man (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking to include "black activism" as a sure motive, it's pretty early to say that. But why isn't the race mentioned at all, while at the same time, the race of the previous victims (whose deaths have motivated the rally) is stated in the same article? Is there any doubt that he was black? Opisska (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Opisska: Please clarify what exactly you are proposing and then offer sources to support your proposed wording. It's impossible to address vague, open-ended questions that appear to be driven by original research. Help us help you help the article.- MrX19:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Opisska's question/request was hardly vague or open-ended. He/she is asking: since the mass murderer is Black, why is there no mention of it? What is vague and open-ended about that? (Especially when the race of the other black victims is mentioned.) And how is that Original Research? I answered my own question: we need to be PC when the mass murderer is black. Opisska, didn't you know about that (unwritten) rule? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Opisska: To answer the question, it's called "PC". When the murderer -- excuse me, mass murderer -- is black, we can't mention that. Or, we have to dance very carefully around it. Again, PC. Just look at the discussion right here above, as instant proof. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not Personal Computer; it's show some sources that take note of the shooter's race and we will add it. It's not complicated.- MrX20:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Right. I am sure there are not 8 million sources out there. You just don't want it in here. And will create "obstacles" before finally conceding to put it in. Translation: agenda. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is a great source for 2 reasons. (1) It mentions that Johnson is black. And (2) It mentions that his sister defended her brother's actions. And that the cops deserved to be murdered. Classy family! Source: [5]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I recall using it once and that edit got undone, but I don't remember the circumstances anymore. Never mind. Parsley Man (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's considered an inferior source. If the shooter's race is important, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources that say so: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, and so on.- MrX20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The most up-to-date sources seem to say only this:
Johnson identified himself on his Facebook page as a militant black nationalist,[1] Investigators have found no ties between Johnson and the Black Lives Matter movement or to other political groups.[2]
Only the Daily Beast seems to be reporting on the social media stuff for now; if other folks want to hold off until other sources report it, that's fine with me. Neutralitytalk20:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you are really bending over backwards to make sure that a simple, unavoidable -- although, yes, admittedly inconvenient for your narrative and your agenda -- fact (that he was Black) does not make its way into the article. No agenda here, folks. No "PC" shenanigans. Nah. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of your sarcasm. Also, I did manage to put that citation of yours in a way that sounded as neutral as possible. I don't understand what you're going on about now. Parsley Man (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
What am I "going on about now"? I placed the statement, with a cite. It was deleted. I placed it in again. It was deleted again (a second time). Some editor made an edit summary like "We need consensus before we can say that he is Black". So, to answer your question: that situation is what I was "going on about". After all of that transpired, then you subsequently changed the wording and added the info, with my cited source. So, when you state "he is black" (using my source), and when I state "he is Black" (using my source) led to very different results, Mine was deleted twice. Yours -- as of now, at least -- was not deleted. Does my reply here make sense? Do you understand what I was "going on about"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You know, you've been here since, like, 2007. Shouldn't you already be aware that Wikipedia will reflect what the reliable sources will say? Parsley Man (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! Our posts are crossing each other. My last post to you -- a minute ago -- said this. What am I "going on about now"? I placed the statement, with a cite. It was deleted. I placed it in again. It was deleted again (a second time). Some editor made an edit summary like "We need consensus before we can say that he is Black". So, to answer your question: that situation is what I was "going on about". After all of that transpired, then you subsequently changed the wording and added the info, with my cited source. So, when you state "he is black" (using my source), and when I state "he is Black" (using my source) led to very different results, Mine was deleted twice. Yours -- as of now, at least -- was not deleted. Does my reply here make sense? Do you understand what I was "going on about"? Thanks. Did you see that post above? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You just said "Johnson is Black" in a single-sentence paragraph, without anything else. It was as if you were assuming he committed the shooting simply because he was black, hence why the edits were deleted. I put it as a new element in the sentence that mentions his frustration of Black Lives Matter, since you don't commonly hear black people themselves being frustrated with BLM. Thus probably the reason why my edit was kept. Parsley Man (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I made the factual statement "he is black". Period. It's a fact. You state: It was as if you were assuming he committed the shooting simply because he was black. Where exactly did you get that from? Perhaps you made that assumption. I simply said he's Black. Period. A simple fact. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
My statement was "Johnson is black." Your statement is "Johnson, who is Black". (You are adding the single word, "who".) You really see some big difference there? If your "assumption" (i.e., assuming he committed the shooting simply because he was black) could apply to my edit, it could just as easily apply to yours. No? What's the difference, when you add the word "who"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Joseph - it was literally just yesterday that myself and another administrator warned you about your talk-page conduct (on a page unrelated to this one). Your constant sarcastic and sometimes abusive behavior is not appreciated, nor is it in keeping with policy. Knock it off.
(Also, nobody that I see is arguing that the perp's race shouldn't be mentioned. It is in the article now, properly sourced, as it should be. What you appear to desire is that we go beyond what the sources actually say. And we're not going to do that). Neutralitytalk21:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I placed a statement of exactly three words: "Johnson is Black". That's it. Those exact three words. It was deleted. I placed it in again. Those exact three words. It was deleted a second time. So (1) what are you talking about exactly? (2) What do you mean when you say that What you appear to desire is that we go beyond what the sources actually say. What does that mean? And how is that relevant to me? When I wanted the three words "Johnson is Black". And (3) It is now in the article, when someone else put it in. If that's the case, why was it deleted not once -- but twice -- when I put it in? Especially when I put in exactly three words: "Johnson is Black". Looking forward to your reply to all of my questions! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a large paragraph in the body of the text about this being the first time domestic law enforcement has used a offensive bomb to kill a suspect. Lihaas, you keep removing it from the lead though. I see no problem with the statement per WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This is directly related and of considerable interest. The the information is taken from the Atlantic, a reliable source, in an article on the Dallas shooting incident. Sunray (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point. I think this is the first use of a bomb deployed by a robot to kill a suspect, similar to military use. But you're right it's not the first bomb. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In what is to me the most shocking thing to happen in the wake of this event is a comment by Newt Gingrich: "If you are a normal white American ... you don’t understand being black in America" (LATimes).
I don't think it's yet notable enough to be included in the reactions section, but it's been getting a lot of attention on social media. We should decide if we want to add this, or what future event might make it notable enough to add. IMHO, should this precipitate some other notable event (e.g., Trump VP selection stuff) it might be worth adding here, but would need to be minimal and done with an eye on avoiding COATRACK. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I just vomited a little in my own mouth. But seriously, even when he does become Trump's running mate, political talking points should go nowhere near this article in my opinion. I mean, Cory Booker surely would have something to say about all this too.- MrX21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
While I'm not a huge fan of victim lists, they always seem to end up the subject of an RfC... and then kept. If someone wants to start an rfc, they're welcome to. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:MEMORIAL does not in any way apply here. That guideline states that new articles should not be created for non-notable deceased individuals. It does not mean that victims of a notable event cannot be mentioned in an article. Names, ages, occupations, places of residence, and family status are basic details that are necessary to understand the impact of a notable event. Roches (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with briefly listing the victims and their occupation, and possibly their role relative to the event, but nothing more. It seems to be a fairly common practice to do so as I discovered at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.- MrX22:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Early suspect
The Dallas Police initially identified someone as a suspect who wasn't involved. They tweeted out a photo of him, he turned himself in, they questioned him, and they let him go.[6] Should this be mentioned? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I figured the name shouldn't be used, but I wondered if a mention of it should be made not giving his name, because of those policies. I'm only just catching up through my reading this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the whole thing should be left out and allowed to be forgotten. It doesn't add anything to the telling of the story and it has potential to do a great deal of harm to a person who has done nothing wrong (as far as I know). 184.20.115.141 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
My thought was that it does add something, as the cops put his face out there and apparently lied to him about having footage of him shooting when they did question him, but I defer to the consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The police suspected and targeted him for being a black man legally carrying a weapon. They put him in danger. I think this dovetails with how police treated Philando Castile - it's part of the same narrative, and notable for that reason. Yardenac (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
All of that is original research. You would have to find reliable sources building that same narrative before you could even think about putting it up. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
One of the notable aspects of this incident is that the first person identified as a potential suspect proved to be uninvolved – a warranted caution about jumping to conclusions early on. I’m not sure though if this should be added here and at this time, but the photo has become infamous and not everyone seeing it is aware that the man was found to be uninvolved. Since the individual is talking about the incident, I do not think that WP:BLPCRIME or WP:BLPNAME apply here. In any case, I’m parking this here for discussion about its potential inclusion. Askari Mark(Talk)23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
"About two hours after the shooting began, the Dallas Police Department released a photograph of a “person of interest” showing an armed man participating in the rally and requesting information from the public. The individual would subsequently be identified as Mark Hughes, an open-carry activist who would prove to be the brother of Corey Hughes, one of the organizers of the protest march. After the shootings began, he took his brother’s advice and gave his firearm to a nearby officer. Upon learning of the police’s interest in him, he voluntarily turned himself 35 minutes later in and was released around 1 a.m. the next morning."[1]
Analysts and "domestic terrorism"
Ampasound made a good faith edit which added info from an CNN analyst about their opinion that this was domestic terrorism. I reverted as BRD. I'm concerned about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE as this seems to be just one person's opinion. If I'm mistaken and a few other notable analysts have said the same, then that seems warranted. But just the one person does not imho. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 22:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, one person's not enough. I think a statement from the FBI confirming the terrorism angle will be the nail in the coffin. Parsley Man (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not just one person's opinion, A), and B) it's not an "opinion" really at all. The set definition and criteria of what "terrorism" is are already established. The point is this: if even some LIBERAL news organizations and experts and security analysts are (rightly) calling this "domestic terrorism", then why should you suppress that, and why should WP not simply say that that's what's being said by those sources? (And just because outfits may not want to call this "domestic terrorism" even though they would call a KKK sniper shooting black people in the street both domestic terrorism and a hate crime does not change the fact that CNN's expert on security called it that.) This is not saying that Wikipedia itself is calling it (necessarily) but simply saying (in the reactions section, contextually) that some in the field do deem it as such. Why hide that fact? You removed a valid and sourced statement. And it seems frankly for "I don't like" reasons more than anything else. What does this have to do with "not news"? This is NOT a "not news" situation. So I'm restoring edit, since the rationales for removing don't meet WP kosher standards. Regards. ―ampasound☎22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)←Blocked sockpuppet
Yes, opinions should remain out unless cited by multiple third-party sources, per WP:UNDUE. This particular edit puts undue emphasis on the theory that the shooting was an act of terrorism.- MrX23:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
MrX, this is not saying that Wikipedia itself is calling it (necessarily) but simply saying (in the reactions section, contextually) that some in the field do deem it as such. Why hide that fact? Reliably sourced, and not just "one opinion". But a few already. ―ampasound☎23:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)←Blocked sockpuppet
Because it does not (as far as I can tell) represent a widespread viewpoint. Also there was previous discussion here where they was no consensus for characterizing the shooting as terrorism.- MrX23:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It should be remembered that there is no reason to rush conclusions into articles covering current events. If it considered terrorism, one would expect multiple secondary sources and governmental organizations describing it as such. We can certainly wait for the consensus to appear. All that talk about "liberals" and KKK shooters doesn't help the case for including this stuff at all. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Title change to "2016 shooting of Dallas police officers" or something similar
I moved it. There doesn't seem to be consistency or consensus on naming articles like this, but this name is much more clear. If you disagree, we can discuss it here. KSFTC04:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a police department in DART founded in 1989 for mainly transit purposes, located in Dallas. It is not the same as the Dallas Police Department. I believe the title is fine the way it is regarding the "Dallas police officers" part since it addresses police officers located in Dallas, whether the officers be from DART or the Dallas Police Department. What I'm concerned with is the "shooting" part. I'm not quite certain whether there were multiple shootings (i.e. the initial shots at 8:58 PM versus the shootout at ~1 AM) or if it can be classified as one shooting. — SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree about the singular versus plural ("shooting" versus "shootings"). Also, weren't there some civilians (i.e., not Dallas police officers) who were also shot? How does that play into the title? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As someone who lives in the area, I can affirm that the DART officers are indeed considered to be "Dallas police officers". Their jurisdiction is mostly focused on public safety of the transit system, but have broader police powers. Dallas County also has a separate police force and some of its officers were also involved. Askari Mark(Talk)22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the lead: Johnson is later quoted saying he wanted to shoot white people, but I don't actually see anything saying he specifically targeted white officers. Unless I'm missing something in the coverage, this seems unsupported. What about:
"Johnson was an African-American former Army Reserve veteran who reportedly told police that he 'wanted to kill white people, especially white officers'". Nblundtalk00:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Being in a single picture posted to facebook with him does not show or prove a relationship. There would have to be a more substantial link between them proved before anything should be said. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The references to Griff should be carefully considered. There should be some sign of a connection beyond a single photograph. His repudiation of a story with no facts behind it should not be the basis for putting something in the article. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The changing story
Early reports quoting police said several trained shooters were firing from rooftops. Now the story is one shooter at ground level, who somehow entered a parking garage while in a gunbattle. A section would be useful addressing the changing story. Edison (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Example:TheWeek "Dallas Police Chief David Brown said authorities believe the four people "triangulated" the protest's procession route and were "working together with rifles ... at elevated positions at different points of the downtown area." Edison (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This tends to happen with every mass shooting/terrorist attack/any recent mass-casualty event. News sources fall over each other's toes to get as much info as they can in a short span of time. But then it always calms down progressively as the officials give out what they know. Parsley Man (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there was a lot of confusion early on. One theory I heard was that there were echoes that made it seem like there were multiple shooters.- MrX20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Sections that describe changing stories about events are almost never a good idea. They inevitably end up being trojan horses for conspiracy theories. The article should focus on the reported reliable facts about the incident. The article is about the incident, not about the media coverage of the incident. Once the door is opened to putting information proved wrong into the article, the article tends to become unreadable. 23:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.115.141 (talk)
To the contrary, it is a good idea to cover this. In this case especially, we're not just talking about some people reading bad news - we're talking about misperceptions that changed the police tactics. I don't know if that unfortunate cop who was broadcast live getting shot by the guy hiding behind the pillar was misled by the story of snipers up high, you can see in general the tactical relevance. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Also part of the confusion was the techniques used by the shooter. Fire in one location, run to another location and fire off a couple of shots, run back. Add in the echoes and it will seem like there are multiple shooters. This was discussed during the 5pm local Dallas news when they were talking about just being one shooter. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The was no "six-mile high speed chase"
Reading official reports suggests that police followed the two additional suspects for six miles, and then pulled them over. There was no "high speed chase". So, can this misleading sentence in teh article be reworded: "They were both stopped and detained after a six-mile high-speed chase" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.24.10 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Source says the suspects drove off at high speed, but no indication the whole chase was high speed. Removed that descriptor. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
See also sections often have similar attacks in similar locations, even if by different groups/motivations. -- Callinus (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I thought the same thing when I read up on that incident. The only thing relating it to this event is that the Dallas police was targeted by gunmen. No law enforced were killed or wounded according to the wiki article and it wasn't even an ethnical or racially motivated attack. I think it is a bit far fetched to link these events and it is also misleading to the readers of this article. RhinoMind (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This was clearly domestic terrorism, and a hate crime, against white police officers. Will the media (and Wikipedia) rightly call it that?
we'll see... But it fits all the logical and factual criteria of both "hate crime" and "domestic terrorism". If the Orlando homosexual club shooting and massacre was (rightly) called "terrorism" and "hate crime"....then there's LITERALLY ZERO reason for this not to be called that also. It fits the definition, on various obvious and objective levels. We'll see what sources choose to call it. And what WP contributors soon will be doing. ―ampasound☎20:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, even for experts. So it's Original Research to apply our own intuition about a concept to describing an entry, even if it seems really logical. If multiple reliable sources describe this as "terrorism" or if someone is charged with a hate crime, that would be an appropriate time to describe the incident that way. If the media "gets it wrong" Wikipedia will get it wrong as well, and there's really nothing we can do about it. Nblundtalk20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
hello Nblundtalk. I understand about "reliable sources" which is why I made the point about the "media" and "sources" in my comment...but it's not correct to say "if someone is charged with a hate crime". It's not really necessary for anyone to be arrested and/or charged with a "hate crime" for there to be a hate crime, because (one example) Mateen, the Orlando club shooter, was referred to as committing a "hate crime" though never charged (obviously) with that. But this argument of "original research" only goes so far, because there is objective criteria (from reliable sources, that are not just news sources, but FBI and law-enforcement and government reliable sources, etc) of A) what an act of terrorism is and B) what a hate crime is. It's fairly clear-cut from reliable sources. The definitions and requirements to qualify for those two things are given already, from RS. And this arguably fits both. It was a TARGETED shooting and murdering of a SPECIFIC color or ethnicity (hate crime), and also the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political or societal aims (terrorism). ―ampasound☎20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There's sure to be plenty of commentary on this issue - just look for it as it comes out and cite what they say. There's no sense arguing philosophy here since it'll only be rejected anyway. Wnt (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: how is this attack not meeting our definition of terrorism? "A common definition of terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence in order to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change." (from Terrorism in the United States). --bender235 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bender235: I can see how it meets the definition of terrorism. But we don't call the 2014 killings of NYPD officers "terrorism" either, even though it was meant to intimidate officers. There are also no sources that explicitly state that this is a terrorist attack, and all the sources sat that this is merely targeted police killings. Kylo Ren (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Being upset at both white people and Black Lives Matter doesn't really help in deducing a motive for the shooter, though. This could just be the acts of some deranged person looking for fifteen minutes of fame. Parsley Man (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Using the word terrorism and its normal definition suggests (wrongly) that his motive was "political, religious, or ideological change." Or that he was trying to intimidate a population or government. That isn't really correct. As best his motives have been explained, they were a form of revenge. His actions were not intended to change anything. He just wanted to kill people. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, news flash, there are dozens of WP:RS calling this incident terrorism, see Google News. For instance: "[...] fired with deadly precision at the officers watching over the crowd near Dallas' city hall Thursday night in an act that can only be described as domestic terrorism." (Baltimore Sun). --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Both of the aforementioned examples were inspired by terrorist organizations. This shooting was committed by a man who personally asserted that he was acting alone and not a part of any group, and that he just wanted to kill police officers. There's a big difference. Parsley Man (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The Orlando attacker was not part of any group either. He may have been ideologically inspired by ISIS, but that alone is by no means a distinction between terrorism and "non-terrorism". --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You didn't understand my post. I outright said that the Orlando attacker was inspired by a terrorist organization, not a part of it. Parsley Man (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the effect the word "terrorism" can have on people, I oppose adding that word to this article unless it is specifically identified as such by law enforcement (not news stations, law enforcement). -- Gestrid (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think terrorism is an apt description. Sadly we are bound by reliable sources. Western media is loathe to identify any sort of behaviour against white skinned people as racially motivated. When the perpetrator openly states that he wants to kill white police officers it seems obvious to me that it was intended to victimize people who were not present at the scene. (ie. police;white police) If someone finds a neutral reliable source describing this incident as terrorism this page should be updated to reflect that. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Its not just a matter of finding a source that says it. What he did does not fit the definition of terrorism. You can say what he did was racially motivated. He clearly did want to kill police officers. But that still doesn't make it terrorism. There is a lack of any political goal. There is his statement that he was acting alone as an individual. When people call everything terrorism, the term begins to no longer mean anything. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Please, see section regarding political organisations with which shooter affiliated, self-identified. The only WP:NOR original research that I read here is from those claiming that the shooter was not representative of a very real pervasive element of the BLM movement, a large portion which subscribes to Afrocentrism, others with sociology combined, a portion of which is blatantly bigoted, hateful, divisive, a portion of which is in it simply to ridicule those in power for the sake of such. No, that is not the majority of BLM, and BLM as a whole is not a hate group, though these pervasive elements, undesirable fringe & negative elements, are what corrupted the message of those with good intentions and are with which the shooter himself affiliated, self-identified. Etymonline Online Etymology Dictionary definition of "terrorism"Etymonline Online Etymology Dictionary definition of "terrorist"Oxford English Dictionary definition of terrorism In addition to news media sources stating the same, I wonder as to where this resistance is from with regard to "terrorism". Please respond with a source which would be appropriate from your perspective, and we can sort this out officially. W124l29 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
AADL and Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere
Earlier today, the Daily Beast broke the story that Micah Xavier Johnson was one of a small number of people who subscribed to the Facebook page of the African-American Defense League, a Black radical group with ties to the New Black Panther Party. The reason that's interesting is because the AADL called for the murder of police officers just hours before Johnson perpetrated his attack.
At first only the DB was reporting this but now the New York Times is also reporting on Johnson's social media ties to the AADL. In fact, the NYT went as far as interviewing a representative from the ADL's (Anti-Defamation League, not to be confused with the aforementioned African-American Defense League or AADL) Center on Extremism about the AADL's history as a hate group, the role of the group's founder Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere, and the ADL representative even speculates on a potential direct connection between Johnson's attack and the group. The AADL and Dr. Millere come up again in this other New York Times article that is even more recent.
I feel like this group should be mentioned now that it is being highlighted by the global/national media and the ADL, a respected authority on hate groups and extremists, has also focused in on the perpetrator's connection to this group.
Also, he was accused of sexual harassment by a fellow soldier while stationed in Afghanistan. I have yet to see that mentioned in his bio here. PinacclesKid (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Added what I could from your suggestion, but let it be noted that speculation (such as that from the ADL representative) is not welcome on here unless it is confirmed and/or receiving heavy news coverage. Parsley Man (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@PinacclesKid: One part of your comment is wrong. The text was not posted hours before the attack, though it was still up. Here's a complaint about this specific text being permitted by Facebook's Terms of Use while a cartoon about Tashfeen Malik was ruled against, dating from December 2015: [7] (there's also a video which is kind of cute) I'm not hopeful it will pass muster around here for sourcing, but maybe something else will turn up. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Police deaths statistics
This USA Today article says this: "[The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund] fund said the Dallas attack was the 11th ambush-style attack on police officers nationally so far this year, already outpacing a total of eight of these attacks for all of 2015."[2] Are these statistics notable enough for a mention? Or just trivial? Parsley Man (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not really "encyclopedic" in the sense that it is a very temporary and small-scale comparison. What I almost included from NLEOMF was that there were 41 cops killed in 2015, which gives a sense of the seriousness. Wnt (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Minor quibbles
The article says police are looking for a man with an "semi-automatic rifle with a shoulder strap". Straps on rifles are named slings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(firearms)), so that could be improved. (And I don't see a reference to sources using the term strap, or do they?)
Also, the police talks about triangulated fire, but the link to triangulation only talks of geometry, and doesn't explain what the point is. The point of course being to set up a crossfire situation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire). So that could perhaps be inserted as an explanation even though the sources doesn't mention the term?
Those were the two I caught off hand. I'm sure there are others. I'm specifically refraining from correcting "point blank range" as the media has usurped that term to mean any close range shot. (In actual fact, all shots fired were most probably point blank range, as ranges were generally).
(please sign post here)
Hi good points there. But please sign your post, even if you do not have a WP account. It is important for several reasons, one of them being the dating and time of writing of your post. This way people can see if is a newer post or not. RhinoMind (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add some sort of context comparing to say Mark Essex 1972 events which are similarly targeted and justified(from perpetrator side side that is, not making a judgement)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinBAcC (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's worth it. Essex also sniped officers and civilians during his second attack, another similarity with Johnson. Parsley Man (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I think this is perhaps best solved by adding a Category instead. See alsos can clutter up pretty fast, and intriducing meta-stuff like this is usually best solved by Categorizing. RhinoMind (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I instantly thought like Blaylockjam10 when I was going through the article yesterday, but then reminded myself that WP is not a newschannel jumping to hurried conclusions. Other media are much better at that. We simply gather and present trusted information from media published elsewhere first. And on top of that, we filter out bias, speculation and hypothetical links, or clearly describe stuff in these terms if it needs to be included for some reason. RhinoMind (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Attorney general: Hate crime charge unlikely if Dallas shooter acted alone
Thank you. I've noticed that some editors have been inserting hate crime throughout the article without sources.- MrX13:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Former Member of the New Black Panther Party
Can an editor with access please add to the article that the perpetrator, Micah Johnson, was a former member of the New Black Panther Party? This was stated by Quanell X, a recognized leader of the NBPP, as per KPRC (NBC News affiliate) and WFAA (ABC News afffiliate). Note that while he was a passive follower of a number of organizations on social media (Black Riders, AADL and others), according to Quanell he was a formal, active member of the Houston branch of the NBPP for 6 months and he is described as having refused to obey the Party's chain-of-command, which resulted in his separation from the Party. I don't think Breitbart is allowed as a source here but they are running a photo that shows someone who looks like Micah Johnson carrying a firearm at a protest in Houston organized by the NBPP in the aftermath of the killing of Sandra Bland. We should keep an eye to see if anything about the photo or protests is published by other sources later today or in the future. PinacclesKid (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
While I cannot evaluate whether this information is correct or not, it is certainly in the cetagory of event-analysis and about explaining and understanding the motives behind it. It is not about the event itself, which is what this page is about. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add later on when the event and especially the follow up, analysis and court stuff develops and unfolds. Or if/when a page on said person is made and notable enough. We can take a look at it then. It is not howwever a first priority at all for this page specifically. RhinoMind (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Perpetrator's social media ties to Black nationalist/separatist militant groups
I can't edit the article because my account is new. Can someone please expand the section under "Perpetrator" describing the perpetrator's social media ties to Black nationalist/separatist groups? As of now we only have a link to an NBC News article that simply says he liked the pages of Black nationalist groups, without naming any of the groups. However, a number of news articles from prominent news organizations (Reuters, BBC News, LA Times) have come out since then naming the groups and providing more detail on the perpetrator's social media presence. A number of the organizations that he was tied to are prominent enough to have their own Wiki pages and many have been explicitly named as national hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This article should link to those Wiki pages (listed below).
Also, a number of national/global news sources are commenting on the perpetrator's photo with Professor Griff and Griff's repudiation of any real link to him. That should probably go in the article too. PinacclesKid (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
From my personal screenshots of the shooter's facebook profile: he liked Black Lives Matter, Black Israelites (fringe Afrocentrism, black nationalism, supremacism, separatism), and those other groups which are listed above. Perhaps there is a more official source available? Does it need to be a news media source to apply? We can use my knowledge as a starting point to search for sources, regardless. W124l29 (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide more information on the Black Israelism? Did he "Like" any particular organizations or individuals? PinacclesKid (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually the sources are mainly using the term 'black power', not 'nationalist' 'seperatist' etc , though they do go into more detail on some of the organisations he 'liked' on facebook, which does seem to be the limit of his involvement with any of these groups ... in the sources cited above at least. The article currently uses the term 'nationalist', which I could not see in most of the sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say one "civilian" was shot. All the victims were civilians. "Non-police" would do. Wikipedia should not promote misuse of a term with legal significance like this. XiaoLangGo (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
First, your entire post is wrong. Second, using "non-police" would be one-sided from a police point of view, as it would have to include firefighters and military personnel who are also defined as non-civilians. Third, Wikipedia is supposed to be from a neutral point of view, applying to all sides in a certain event and situation generally. Fourth and finally, as SomeoneNamedDerek provides, police and firefighters are not civilians for various good reasons, end of story. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Its correct that under formal definitions and under the law, police are civilians. But the problem is that popular usage has diverged from the formal definitions for bad reasons. Making police not civilians has been part of a general trend toward viewing the police in military terms rather than as a civil force. But as with fighting over the media's use of "assault rifle" when they actually mean "assault weapon", its a difficult thing to change. 184.20.115.141 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Then it is the place of Wikipedia to correct popular misuse and combat the malign influence of those who would like to modify the language for their own purposes. Peace officers do a fine job and that is not in question, but they are subject to civil law, not military law. And that is the purpose of the term "civilian". LEOs are not belligerent combatants like military, insurgents, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.237.200.123 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Donottroll has made at least four wholesale reverts claiming OR. I'm opening this section so they can explain exactly about the content reverted is original research.- MrX21:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I find it concerning that the user is claiming BLM is the "motive" despite multiple news orgs saying otherwise. The claim that stating the motive is the recent shootings is OR is simply incorrect. Taken together, I'm concerned that the user is trying to push a narrative that BLM is the cause or source of the motive... which is not supported by RS. The NPR source ([14]) says quotes Brown as saying he was upset with BLM and later says that his "manifesto" criticized the movement. It would be a complete misrepresentation to say that BLM was the motive. Possible his frustration with BLM was part of it. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do we need to spell out this last part in the header? This entire article is about the shooting. We could add "of the shooting" or "to the shooting" to any of the other headers, too, but it's implied and pointlessly wordy. Same for the motive. InedibleHulk(talk)21:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think "for the shootings" adds useful information, since that's what the entire article is about.- MrX21:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the Manual of Style, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." InedibleHulk(talk)21:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
An action of a foreign government relating to an incident is completely DUE. I agree it should be added in the article. 59.89.41.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree it's notable. Will work on putting a line or two in the reactions section for it. Though... arguably it's more in response to Alton Sterling and Castile's deaths... pinging MrX to get quick response to that issue. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a little more relevant to the Sterling and Castile shootings, but the sources that I checked also mentioned the Dallas shooting, so I think a very brief mention in this article would make sense.- MrX22:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Every time something terrible happens, there's always somebody who goes overboard with their zeal on Twitter. Joe Walsh is no longer a Congressman, and has no ties at all to Texas. It would be far more notable if a serving congressman from Texas were saying these things. This looks like something which would be possibly appropriate for the article on Walsh, maybe less so on this article. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it should just be in the Walsh article. Also, I believe the reaction of the Dallas mayor was notable enough, but someone reverted the edit. - SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I did, on the basis that it was previously removed by someone else when I added it, with the edit summary of "non-notable statement" too. Parsley Man (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Not done - We don't usually add content about what didn't happen when there is so much available content about what did happen. Please seek consensus and find better sources if you really think this material belongs in the article.- MrX 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Done - MrX 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Muffled Pocketed 12:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)