Jump to content

Talk:2019 El Paso Walmart shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Suspects

Hello, earlier on, there were many reports of 3 suspects in custody but now, most references say just 1. Is this true? Willbb234 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, according to local police.Crook1 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Name of the shooter

I'm not active, regular editor so I don't feel qualified to make significant changes to main page. However, KTSM.com just posted this: "NBC News and KTSM have confirmed the identity of the suspect in police custody as 21-year-old Patrick Crusius from Allen, Texas."[1] (ps not sure how to insert my id ~ lezelmaz) mazal 22:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Multiple deaths and injuries reported in El Paso Walmart shooting". KTSM 9 News. 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2019-08-03.
It's four tildes grouped together, like this: "~~~~" . David O. Johnson (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
ok. got it! four stand-alone " ~~~~ " with no name attached, and a colon in front for indentation. thx! mazal 22:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious who the shooter is. Can we put the name down if we source to a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.89.118 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If you can source it with a valid reference, go ahead. puggo (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Just make sure that the source is certain the source you cite must be relaible and can NOT be speculative in nature. I would advise waiting for an official statement which will be cover by all major news outlets if and when the information is released. SSSB (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
mazal please feel free to make contributions. Anything you add in god faith is most welcome. Just bear in mind that these pages can become quite contentious, so just familiarise yourself with policies as you go. If you make a mistake and do something wrong, don't worry someone will fix it. If you do want to make a big change you can always ask here first.Mozzie (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

[Suspect's name (removed)] just confirmed by spokesman Robert Gomez

Why does it keep being removed as the shooter? --CoryGlee (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Likely because previous mentions with were unsourced or poorly sourced. It is not sourced to CNN so we shouldn’t be seeming any more removals.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the name of the suspected shooter from this heading sections as per WP:BLPCRIME. CoryGlee the WP:BLP policy is a legal requirement" ". With respect to relatively unknown people: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. It states that Wikipedia should avoid naming people who have not been convicted of crimes.. I'll start a new section on this as it is a recurring issue on pages relating to mass shootings.Mozzie (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem with mass shooters (beyond harming innocents) is they become relatively known people, next to the thousands accused of other shit each day. BLPCRIME virtually never prevents the accusation here. Only stops the presumption of guilt, generally. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

Roebaroeba (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

change at least 19 dead to at least 20 dead

 Done, per sources. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nationality of victims

Mexican authorities have confirmed at least 6 Mexicans were injured (info in Spanish)

Mistah B (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

Suspect

Early reports—including from El Paso mayor Dee Margo—suggested that there may have been more than one shooter. El Paso police have since said that they believe the shooter acted alone. He has been apprehended and is currently in custody.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, multiple people were taken into custody. Since then, police have identified the suspect as 21-year-old Patrick Crusius, who appears to have graduated from Plano High School in 2017, and who turned 21 last week. Because this is still early, it’s very likely that we’ll get more information about the shooter soon. We won’t link to it here, but by late afternoon on Saturday, a racist “manifesto” indicating a desire to kill immigrants and reportedly penned by the shooter began circulating on social media. 67.98.222.36 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

​ Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Express source

The Express source is being used to source the number of deaths. The source is rather vague, so I don’t think it should be used. Thoughts? Willbb234 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

probably should not use a uk source for a us incident... --24.56.54.84 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

At least 20 dead and 26 injured. 70.117.158.67 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. All numbers must be accompanied by reliable sources that verify them. El_C 00:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

The motive is wrong, and is obviously written by a bias liberal. How pathetic to make up stories this close to a tragedy. FrankHolliday23 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I was about to delete it when it suddenly vanished. Good stuff. The best that source did was make the reader suspect as much, doesn't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@FrankHolliday23: Is your complaint being that the suspected motive is "Anti-immigration", saying that's liberal bias...? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you, but reliable sources, police investigations and the suspected manifesto point towards that motive. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If this isn’t evidence of the far right using Wikipedia to force us agenda, I don’t know what is. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm clearly not Frank, and don't mean to steal the floor, but pointing us toward some idea isn't good enough, like it isn't for right-wing terrorism. Find a source explicitly stating what's suspected. For every alleged suspicion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It reappeared, so I deleted it after all. No claimed suspicion. Just persuasive writing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you need more sources added or..? Let's not edit war. The police chief called it a suspected hate crime and cited the anti-immigration manifesto as being part of that investigation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You claim a suspected motive is reported in the recurrent source, just show me the sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"Law enforcement officials are studying an anti-immigrant manifesto to determine whether it was written by the gunman, according to a local law enforcement official who has been briefed on the investigation. Given the manifesto’s racially extremist views, it could make the killings a federal hate crime or an act of domestic terrorism if officials determine that it is tied to the shootings." From second source cited. I'll also add this CBS news report titled "Investigators look for motive in El Paso mall shooting". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That's about possible evidence in hypothetical crimes, not suspected motive. You're filling in the blanks by reading between the lines. A decent source would say someone suspects he was motivated by anti-immigration. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That's why I added the video as a better source. It directly links the search for a motive to the online manifesto. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to watch TV news, but I'm wary of trusting your impression of it. Hold on, I'll be back... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Uploader has not made this video available in my country. Probably many countries. Do better! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you view this? Same video but hosted on CBS' website. (Also, I've noticed the suspected motive was once again removed...) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That works, but I regret to report you're hearing undertones or overtones, not enough to directly verify the claim. That's the nature of the beast, not your fault. I don't see why we keep looking for a motive straight away, anyway, never goes smoothly or truthfully. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
See below. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Category

I wonder why "Mass shootings in the United States" is missing from the article.89.132.194.169 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Weapon

The weapon was apparently an AK-47 style according to a video here--> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/el-paso-walmart-shooting-today-police-confirm-active-shooter-cielo-vista-mall-today-2019-08-03-live-updates/, but it keeps getting reverted. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not yet fully confirmed. https://time.com/5643110/el-paso-texas-mall-shooting/Lxxl (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
EDG 543, which video? The embedded video is live transmission. If you are identifying the gun from video of the shooter, that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Also if a Twitter user says it that is an unreliable source. Wait till a source says it clearly. Just wait and be cautious in general. Don't rush to add information. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It was an AK-47 based on images from the security video and his manifesto. Specifically a WASR-10 Romanian AK-47. Also reference from New York Mag and NY Post http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/everything-we-know-about-the-el-paso-walmart-shooting.html47.184.228.187 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)jeff

Twitter account / Newsone

@Nice4What: Hey, sorry, I missed the note [1] in your edit summary before reverting. I did check WP:RS/N for NewsOne, and while it doesn't come up as unreliable, I can't find anything else to support its reliability either. It doesn't even have a WP article (News One is something else). While it may or may not be reliable, that article doesn't inspire much confidence. It seems to be mostly "here's what people are saying on Twitter". Per WP:NOTGOSSIP, that doesn't have a place here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you, though it's worth mentioning the article does collect tweets from journalists verified on Twitter that connect the old account to the shooter. If more reliable sources come up, then we should readd the account. Until then, I suppose it makes more sense to not include this part. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing. I agree this is worth including if it can be better sourced. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting anti-gun violence comments

Why are all anti-gun violence comments being purged from this talk page? Is this conservapedia now? 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: The talk page is for discussing the contents of an article, not criticize Wikipedia as a whole. Where do you feel you're being censored? I saw that your earlier message was removed, so I readded it. If you want, I'd invite you to express your concerns on my talk page or yours as that's where the conversation better belongs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I've addressed the editor on their talkpage, pointing out WP:NOTFORUM. They're not listening, and are about to be blocked if they don't stick to specific discussions for article improvement. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I am mad that my posts are being deleted. Thank you for re-adding them. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
While I've been re-adding your comments (with some collapses), please don't keep using this talk page as you've been doing. Please read WP:FORUM. I understand your frustration with how Wikipedia reports on shootings, but I hope you understand we are bound by using reliable sources and can't use our own interpretations. Acroterion has already attempted to help you on your talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I have stated exactly that. Reliable sources are required. My problem is that despite the existence of reliable sources, the content is still be curated to promote a specific pro-gun ideology and consistently uses the language of the pro-gun movement. This is what I am complaining about. This article and others concerning other terrorist attacks are the same. And that is a shame. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@71.33.134.68: Please let me help you out. If you see any biased language in the article, please point it out as that would be against WP:NPOV. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The simple fact that this event is called “mass shooting” and not “terrorist attack” is evidence of bias. We must pick our words carefully and this is no exception. It’s no secret that there is a systemic hesitancy to label terror attacks committed by right wingers as terrorist attacks. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the terrorist was Muslim or black. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@71.33.134.68: I understand your frustration but please cite reliable sources that establish this event as a terrorist attack. Also, read MOS:TERRORIST first! I want to point out to you that an ongoing investigation surrounding domestic terrorism is included in the lede, so it's not like the article mentions nothing. And the event is without a doubt a mass shooting, something that people on either side agree with. I have to say if there is no biased language included, then I don't know what more I can tell you. Let me know if you need help with anything else but use my talk page instead to avoid more removed/collapsed comments. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Calling this “mass shooting” and not “terrorist attack” is evidence of bias. There would be no wait for reliable sources before calling it a terrorist attack if the shooter was a Muslim or was black. Pro-gun activists want it to be called “mass shooting”, even though it’s clearly and obviously a terrorist attack. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@71.33.134.68: I'm collapsing your comments again. You seem to be picking a fight with how the media reports the attack. Read the message I left on your talk page. Don't continue misusing this article's talk page please. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't explain my self-redaction without an edit conflict. But for now, in short, I wasn't bullied into silence. Just realized I was technically promoting regular violence as a prevention. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

status of mall

Like almost all mass shootings, this one also took place in a location where it was illegal for the victims to defend themselves.

This is relevant to this article, because the subject of gun control always comes up every time there is a mass shooting.

This shooting is another example of how gun-free zones are a magnet for mass shooters. Mass shooters almost always choose a location where their victims are not allowed to defend themselves.

This information should be included in the article.

"Yet another shooting at a gun-free zone: El Paso shooting at Cielo Vista Mall is apparently in a place that banned permitted concealed handguns" https://crimeresearch.org/2019/08/yet-another-shooting-at-a-gun-free-zone-el-paso-shooting-at-cielo-vista-mall-is-apparently-in-a-place-that-banned-permitted-concealed-handguns/

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1ae8e7fd114

Banana5742 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
While things like this will certainly wind up in an article like this, especially "near" elections, I'd like to remind anyone reading this that [redacted]. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Reminder that this is not a forum for discussion about the shooting, but rather about the article itself. Please take your conversation elsewhere if you want to delve further. As for the OP making the request, his account appears to be new and is making an edit request? If so, his source (crimeresearch) does not appear to be reputable or credible. Others here will determine what to do with OP's request. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree Talk pages are for discussing article content and this is veering off that path.Mozzie (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Collapsed discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is wrong as far as I can tell. The store was not a gun free zone but allowed open carry. Reason writes: "Texas is an open-carry state and Walmart allows customers to open-carry inside their stores in such states..." [2] --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspected motive

Would it not be fair to add "Anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican (suspected)" to the infobox under motive? I see under the lede that the manifesto is believed with "reasonable confidence" by police to be written by the suspect and also that he told investigators that he "wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible." I think that that would at least indicate that this motive is suspected. I'm not saying this is the established motive as the investigation is ongoing, I'm saying this motive is suspected. Bringing this here because I don't want to continue an edit war and it feels odd that the article is missing this. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Need a source saying such sentiment is suspected of motivating him to shoot these people before it's even arguably fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The manifesto which explains a motive has been linked to the suspect [3]. Also read this, which states:

While investigations are ongoing into a motive, the attack “has a nexus to a hate crime,” El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said. Authorities think the gunman posted a manifesto online listing “the Hispanic invasion of Texas” as one of several motivations for the massacre.

This wouldn't even be WP:OR to include a suspected motive, but rather WP:COMMONSENSE at this point. The manifesto has been described as listing motivations for the attack and now the manifesto has been linked to the suspect. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Also to add "Anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, racism (suspected)" as a potential full proposal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You're getting closer with that "authorities think" line, but that's still them thinking he wrote the piece which mentioned a motive, not that he (as the alleged shooter, not the suspected author) acted upon the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"Authorities think" updates to "Authorities confirm that the gunman posted a manifesto online listing 'the Hispanic invasion of Texas' as one of several motivations for the massacre." Then what? Is that not enough? Again, want to point towards WP:COMMONSENSE here cause this feels a bit ridiculous. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Is it not also ridiculous to equate "Hispanic invasion" with "Mexican immigration"? What about American Latinos who cross from Oklahoma? Are they invading Texas? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to he told investigators that he "wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible." 🙄 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
So perhaps regardless of their migrant status or race? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't get what point you're trying to make. The manifesto has been described as anti-immigrant so the attack most certainly isn't regardless of their migrant status. Speculating is a bit off-topic too. Have you read the manifesto and its listed motives? Maybe then you could make more sense of this obvious suspected motive. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You're cobbling bits together to arrive at your own conclusion. In under a day. With the news as your only evidence. Police and prosecutors are trained and paid to establish motive, and they take months to build a case. Because it's complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If "the news" is reliable, we're allowed to use it. We have no policy saying we have to wait months. That's why I'm stressing that we put a suspected motive, not an established motive that might be later determined by police/prosecutors. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You're combining two pieces of news, the manifesto and the interview, to make one hybrid claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Manifesto → Anti-immigrant. Interview → Anti-Mexican. Except now I believe that the interview may not suffice (will strike until more reliable sources report on this). I would still believe the manifesto which lists motivations could be used to fill in a suspected motivation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright. Imagine whatever you want. But don't hold other people's hunches to higher standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Political affiliation fact check: Democrat. Prior to events of Patrick Crusius, shooter, was a registered Democrat, Online changes were made to his public profile after events occurred from Democrats to Republican https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/leftists-change-shooter-patrick-crusiuss-mylife-page-after-saturday-shooting-from-democrat-to-republican/ DavidGoliathMediaPRFirm (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. General Ization Talk 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If you're looking for information on the suspect's political affiliation, the article already covers his support for Trump on a Twitter account active until 2017. Also, the website that your article covers, MyLife, is user-edited. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 06:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
We simply cannot take anything on MyLife as fact. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of people in the Walmart

The LA times is reporting that there were about 3,000 shoppers and 300 employees inside the Walmart at the time of the shooting, and we're repeating it here. This seems ridiculously high. A typical Walmart Supercenter is 180,000 sq ft. In an otherwise empty space of this size, 3,300 people who are evenly spread out in a hexagonal packing arrangement would be a little less than 4 feet apart. Closer to 3 when you consider that people have width, and even less once you account for shelves, racks, counters, etc. It seems extremely unlikely that there were this many people inside the Walmart, even if it were twice the average size. I'm guessing this was the number in the entire mall complex (still quite busy but within reason), but who knows. I've tagged it as dubious, hopefully this can be clarified. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. Remove, for now, I say. Willbb234 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
USA Today attributes a guess of up to 3,100 (a hundred staff) to Sheriff Gomez, which is maximum capacity for that Walmart. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It seems high. Let's remove it for now. We can always add back an accurate number later on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Right wing terrorism

Why doesn’t the article point out that this is right wing terrorism? Are we just trying to be politically correct here? 71.33.134.68 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: Find a reliable source that says its a right-wing terrorist attack and add it to the article. It's really that simple, but you might need to build a consensus for its inclusion if someone disputes it. No need to complain about "political correctness". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Wikipedia editors always defend the conservative PC line everytime there is a right wing terrorist attack. The editors refused to point out that Christchurch terrorist was a terrorist even after the PM of New Zealand pointes it out. The editors here are too afraid to offend the right wing trump supporter editors and not concerned enough with the objective facts of an event, even if they’re widely reported in the media. I’m tired of pro gun violence activists using platforms like Wikipedia to force their agenda on everyone. It’s time to end gun violence forever. #RepealThe2ndAmendment. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@71.33.134.68: Another editor removed your entire reply, so I'm re-adding it along with a collapse template per WP:FORUM. At the end of the day, we can only edit in what reliable sources are reporting. We can't call this right-wing terrorism if nobody else is calling it that. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Lately, most mass shootings in the US carried out by white men are because of white supremacy. What's so supreme about white people? Imperialism? Racism? Nevertheless, we have to wait until the FBI declare this a domestic terror attack (we all know Trump would never do, and I'm a Republican.) Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
All we have to do is have reliable sources calling it terrorism. That’s all. This isn’t a place to push pro-right wing and pro-gun propaganda. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:TERRORISM: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Additionally, there's a WP:BLPCRIME issue: terrorism is a type of crime (it has a legal definition, depending on jurisdiction), and nobody has been convicted of terrorist crimes (yet). Similarly, we can't call a killing a "murder" prior to a trial (if there is a trial), because the perpetrator could be convicted of a lesser crime such as manslaughter. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we name the suspect in this article?

Before contributing to this section, it may be helpful to familiarise yourself with WP:BLPCRIME

Wikipedia must comply with US laws and must avoid defaming people. Therefore it is critically important that we consider whether to name the suspects. WP:BLPCRIME states as follows:

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

So naming the suspect is prohibited, but we should seriously consider not naming the suspect. So off to you fellow editors. Consider away. Thanks in advance for your contributions:

With mass shooting suspects, resistance is futile. Name away, but wait for the court to decide the truth of the charge before echoing it in Wikipedia's voice. Uncharged detainees should not be named. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
He's being named by multiple major news outlets. Any presumption of privacy, at least with regards to his name and age, is gone. I think the current wording ("CNN cites federal sources that the suspect is [name]") is fine. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. We should always interpret and enforce WP:BLPCRIME strictly. In this case, from what I can gather, the suspect has been detained but not charged with any crimes (yet), which makes the case not to name him even stronger. TompaDompa (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There was (and still is) a discussion about this at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. The TL;DR for me is that the person named in media reports in connection with the El Paso shooting has not been charged and appeared in court yet. If and when he does, he can be named in the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
In the case of the Christchurch shooting, New Zealand has laws against naming suspects. The US doesn't generally have such laws. If multiple sources are naming the suspect, I'm not sure why we shouldn't. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The susperp is named in media outlets around the world. The horse has bolted. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Even for vermin like this, we need to uphold correct standards. In this case it means that he's innocent until proven guilty. Newspapers may have different standards, but we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait for a guilty verdict. Given that this person up till now was a complete nobody, I don't see the encyclopedic value of giving his name. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

sources

some of the sources are dead links?

Which ones? It helps to specify--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:58CC:C983:EAB3:71FF (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Donald Trump in the lead?

I'm not super comfortable with that meeting WP:DUE. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it fails to meet WP:UNDUE? I'd like to comment that though the linked account was inactive for two years (which I would then question its inclusion), the manifesto does mention Trump. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, after looking at some of the coverage, I see this is getting a lot of play in the media and press. Under the circumstances I am OK with it for now. This can be revisited later if it looks like the degree of attention and coverage justifies it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto DOES mention Trump, but just insofar as the suspect anticipates media mentions of Trump and says that his attitudes pre-date Trump's election such that a connection to Trump is a reach that isn't supported by his circumstance.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

White Nationalism Motive

Shouldn't white nationalism as a motive be backed up by a reliable source? Lokii192 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of "hold the front page" editing, and although it may turn out that the shooter was some sort of race-obsessed wack job, it is early days to say this for sure.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I think editors should more often simply admit that we don't know; it's better than spreading conjecture. Lokii192 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Sam hyde meme picture, please remove 71.204.179.216 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What it is exactly you are referring to? The picture of the alleged shooter? 331dot (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it is meant to be satire. The Sam Hyde meme is a running joke about a lone white gunman.[4] Presumably 71 wants a photo removed, but there isn't one of Patrick Crusius at the moment (and there shouldn't be either).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Referring to this diff. Willbb234 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove any political references

lets report facts...not opinion...the word 'reported' should be stricken and anything after. if the information is CONFIRMED post it HERE

if you want a BLOG for political rhetoric and speculation call it that...not HERE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.108.68 (talk)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you have specific concerns, please bring them up here, but this event is heavily intertwined with politics and independent sources report it as such. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Politics exist everywhere. Venting your frustration at the shooter's political beliefs being listed in this article (as reported by reliable sources) is a poor reflection on yourself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The thing about reliable American sources for the next while, though, is they're more hellbent than ever on making voters believe things about certain potential future presidents (and associates). Some true, some "true" and some false. If we read something new, we should let it sink in for a day or two before running with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The politicized narrative based on info adjusted after the shooting.

Before the shooting the gunman had an online MyLife page that said he was a Democrat. It wasn't until a little after 4 PM, after the shootings, that the shooter's online presence was changed to Republican, Christian, NRA, and Q supporter. [5]

The name of Trump being spelled out with guns is also being attributed to the gunman although a reverse look up of the image shows it has been around for a long time.

This Wikipedia article is attempting to lay out a political narrative using this shooting as a tool of deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c42:7a80:c901:3878:34ec:da0c:4d3b (talk) 2019-08-04T17:16:44 (UTC)

There is a Snopes article about the alleged shooter's Twitter account (since deleted) which confirms that he did not create the image with the word Trump spelled out with guns.[6] However, Snopes says that the alleged shooter's account did post a "like" of the image in February 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
Further above you'll see discussion about MyLife: suffice it to say, nothing from that site can be used here, as it is not reliable and is used edited (much like IMDB). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is just a little embarrassing... MyLife is user-edited and thus unreliable (this was already discussed above). Also, though the picture of the guns spelling out "Trump" wasn't taken by the gunman, it was liked by a Twitter account associated with him. That Twitter account also had other pro-Trump content if I'm not mistaken. There's no "politicized narrative" being pushed here, it just seems you might be upset with the true views (as supported by reliable sources) held by the gunman. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
(it just seems you might be upset with the true views) The same fake news that said the Garlic festival shooter was a white supremacist that turned out to be an Iranian pro-Islamist that Instagrammed anti-white posts? So this white supremacist used his real name on 4chan/8chan, a place where everyone's name is "anonymous" with a number. And it is conveniently gone and only thew gatekeeper fake news got to see it. I think it is a sad state of affairs when wikipedia plays along with the political propaganda to use shootings a tools and weapons of deception. 2600:6C42:7A80:C901:3878:34EC:DA0C:4D3B (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)me
@2600:6C42:7A80:C901:3878:34EC:DA0C:4D3B:If you have a problem with "fake news", bring it up to the RS noticeboard. Also, the article for Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting goes in-depth about the doubts that it was a white supremacist attack. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not "playing along with the political propaganda" but there is a need to be careful about using screenshots of Facebook accounts etc as a reliable source. Some MSM sources may do this, but there is a possibility of it turning out to be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The Twitter account that the alleged shooter liked is John doe @juhhhjgghk here. However, I couldn't find the specific tweet from February 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd ignore the IP. At least until they can show mainstream claims that the Garlic festival shooter, whose profile said he was Italian and Iranian, was an Iranian pro-Islamist. --Doug Weller talk 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: These sorts of reports about Gilroy seem to all stem from this SF Chronicle article, which reads "Investigators who searched the Nevada home of the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter found [...] reading material on white supremacy and radical Islam, federal law enforcement sources said Tuesday." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement- Change it to 'white-nationalist conspiracy theory'

In the official article, it says that it is a white nationalist theory. So then, why are we using 'white supremacist' instead of what the designated page describes it as?

I only see the term white nationalist being used on the article at this moment. No mention of white supremacy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nice4What: It's been changed now, sorry. Before it was called a white supremacist conspiracy theory.
Remember to sign your posts with '~~~~' Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I see now that it's been changed from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist", but I'd like to note that the article cited reads:

In that attack, the suspect published a manifesto online promoting a white supremacist theory called "the great replacement."

It's probably best to use that description. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement, Manifesto

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. — [7]. Thoughts?

In the The Great Replacement article, it says that it is a white nationalist right-wing conspiracy theory.

User:QuestFour obviously disagrees. — [8]]. QuestFour's edit summary: ce, redundant.-- Tobby72 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Shooter?

Why is the perpetrator referred to as a "shooter" in this article? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, the article is not going to say "X did it" until a court says so. From past experience I know that not everyone likes this approach, but that is how things are done on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be addressing a different point to the one I'm making. I'm arguing against a specific word - 'shooter' - simply because it's the vernacular, verging on slang, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. 'Gunman' or 'assassin' would be better here. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please offer any reliable sources you have that use that terminology to reference the alleged shooter. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Washington Post: "EL PASO — Officials continued searching Sunday for answers after a gunman killed 20 people and wounded dozens more at a shopping …". So you're saying that in Wikipedia articles we must slavishly follow every single word in references and there is no latitude for using alternative words meaning the same thing? Anyway, the vast majority of sources in this type of article will be newspapers, and newspapers typically use different styles and words to those used in an encyclopedia. They adopt the vernacular quite readily; and this is not normally suitable for an encyclopedia, except when providing a direct quote. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying, but we need more than just one user's opinion on word choice. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Hopefully others will contribute here. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A "shooter" is one who shoots (in this case, people) or more specifically, engages in a shooting (what he did). "Gunman" is a passive term; anyone carrying a gun may be a gunman, whether or not they use it. At this stage, we cannot use any term that implies a judicial finding (murderer, etc.), so "shooter", as the active party in this event and the cause of it, makes perfect sense to me. General Ization Talk 21:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair point, perhaps. However, if you look up the Google definitions of 'shooter' and 'gunman' they don't seem to support this view. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster supports the General's comment about "gunman".[9] I don't know what a Google definition is; does Google have a dictionary now? American law enforcement prefers "shooter" – see Active shooter – which may explain why many American Wikipedia editors use it; whether that's a good reason is certainly open to debate. I would go with what a majority of reliable sources use, if that can be shown somewhat clearly, setting aside all other reasoning. And I don't care enough to research that myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd also point out that given some recent excesses by advocates of GNL (which I support, don't get me wrong, but we recently had a debate about whether we should say at Apollo program that Kennedy challenged Congress to send a "man to the moon" or historically revise it to a "person to the moon"!), "gunman" is likely to provoke them. (Only half kidding.) General Ization Talk 22:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I like it. Yes, the PC zealots and the GNL dumbos would quite happily have us use 'gunperson'. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mention of 2019 Dayton shooting

A shooting in Dayton Ohio took place less than 24 hours after the shooting in El Paso. Cincinnati resident (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I wondered whether the article should mention this, but there is no obvious link between the two shootings. It has set off the routine debate about gun ownership in the US. At the moment, it is only in the "See also" section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The article for the Dayton shooting mentions the El Paso shooting in the lead. At the very least, I’d suggest mentioning the Dayton shooting in the “Aftermath” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not in the "aftermath"; that was not an aftermath to this incident. Personally I don't think it belongs in the "See also" section either. Right now we have the 2019 Daytona shooting, as well the Poway synagogue shooting for some reason, under “See also”. I oppose including those links. (I deleted once, but somebody restored.) IMO 1) they are not all that similar to this incident and 2) there are dozens of such shootings; are we going to “See also” link them all? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, the Poway synagogue shooting has been removed. That leaves us deciding whether to mention the Dayton shooting or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's close enough, timewise. Just See also, though. Not aftermath. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The media are viewing them as inextricably linked, not only by temporal proximity but also because of the outcry from a variety of commentators, professional and political, who are mentioning both events in the same breath. I don't see it as constructive to try to ignore or discourage the inevitable linkage on the part of the average reader. General Ization Talk 22:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Given how close together they were, the Dayton shooting should at least be mentioned in the "See also" section (though I'd advocate mentioning it in the "Aftermath" b/c of how close together they were). The media's certainly linking them together, as is Wikipedia's main page. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Millions of unrelated things happened sooner after; aftermath needs some causation aspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Already pipelinked in the Pope's reaction, does that make See also redundant? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed it from See Also, because I just wrote it out at the Pope's reaction. starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Manifesto

Hello, The 4 page summary/justification was on the article as a reference. Why was it removed? Willbb234 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you give a link to the reference in question? puggo (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Bug2266 "The Inconvenient Truth" (PDF). 8chan. Retrieved 3 August 2019.. Just realised its a primary source, so don't worry. Willbb234 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234 No deal, there's no sources mentioning this so we can't even use it as an external document to look at. puggo (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Recommend hasty removal of manifesto since it advocates violence. Also, it is unconfirmed. JimsMaher (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DISC? If that was the motivation of the shooter, then it should be included. Willbb234 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"If that was the motivation of the shooter" You answered that question yourself. We're not the ones to determine whether this is indeed the motivation. We'll put this up when the suspect and motives are confirmed by the police. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed in any way? JimsMaher (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

According to CNN, an online posting is being investigated by law enforcement but they have not confirmed that it was written by the suspect. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Until that key detail's established, nothing about this belongs in the article, for any reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It definitely should not be reported as fact right now, but why should the article not mention that it is being investigated? Alex of Canada (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Most news sources, including NYT [10], WaPo[11], etc, are reporting that a manifesto is being investigated in relation to the shooting. This info should certainly be mentioned in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You tell a lot of people some detail or another is under investigation, a good chunk leave convinced there must be something to it. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. In general, a huge amount of policework is chasing leads to nowhere, rather than somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's an exact rerun of what happened with the alleged Christchurch shooter's manifesto. As discussed there, it may well have been written by the attacker, but various problems occur with reliable sourcing and legal issues by saying this. 8chan was also the main original source of the Christchurch material. History repeating itself here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Did the manifesto praise Trump?

Our article writs The document additionally praises Donald Trump. Source is [12] The New Daily, an online Australian newspaper. I read the manifesto, it doesn't appear to do that. It says: My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. Are there other sources reporting that the manifesto praised Trump? This [13] WaPo source does not mention it (if it were really there, surely WaPo would have picked up on such a big issue). starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto does not explicitly support Trump. I believe this should be speedily removed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Damn you, Australian disinformation bots! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Da. I mean, G'day comrade! -- MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Paul Joseph Watson and Stephen Crowder specifically

The account also followed and liked several notable right-wing Twitter users, including Paul Joseph Watson and Steven Crowder.[28] Unless someone can point to a RS which shows a direct link between the attack and following these users, I suggest removing their names and just sticking with notable or high-profile. If there is no relation between following these users and the attack, I see no reason to name them specifically over any other Twitter users he may or may not have followed, as it may imply they are somehow related to or influenced the shooting in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44f:9adb:1:cdfd:859:bd7e:c425 (talk • contribs)

You're reading too much into it. We do not claim Watson and Crowder are related to the attacks. By the way, these guys are notable - on Wikipedia that is. That's why they have articles here. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
My point was not to say the writer claimed any link, but that by including these two people specifically over any other people the shooter may have followed, a link can be implied. If there is indeed no relation between Watson, Crowder and the attack, then I see no reason to point them out specifically, that is all. I wasn't disputing the fact that they are high-profile either, which is why my suggestion would be just to change the sentence to "The account also followed and liked several notable right-wing Twitter users" and leave the source up for anyone who wants to read more about it, but I wouldn't do that personally without checking in here first. Including Watson and Crowder specifically over anyone else he may have followed adds nothing to this page other than singling them out for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44f:9adb:1:cdfd:859:bd7e:c425 (talk • contribs)
I agree. There is no reason to slander people like that, indicating they are responsible for this, unless you have evidence they did specifically encourage such a thing. Dream Focus 12:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree there's no reason to have these names mentioned specifically over others the shooter followed. RopeTricks (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and I see their names have been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

List of victim names

When the names are released, and even though they will have been, we must respect the WP:BLPPRIVACY of the victims and their families. This is also not a memorial. There is no need to list the victim's names and ages here. What we can do is describe them as a group ("The victims' ages ranged from xx to xx ...") and link to the articles that contain this information, so it is available to a reader who wants it. General Ization Talk 18:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoth WP:BLPPRIVACY: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". Traditionally, articles such as this do name the dead victims. It's rarer for living victims to be named, however. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope it won't come to the formula I had to apply to the Virginia Beach shooting (the same one that was brought to ARCA and was ruled in my favour) — but it looks like it might be the case here, too. El_C 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It just wouldn't be Wikipedia without an argument over whether to include a list of the victims' names. Not all articles do, there was a clear consensus not to do this at 2017 Las Vegas shooting where it would have been a long contextless list. Wikipedia articles are not news articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@El C: What are you even talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about applying the same DS here as I did there. El_C 18:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I've yet to see anyone even include the victim names yet, so I fail to see the need to preemptively apply them. And you're ignoring precedent here, that 90% of articles include such lists and have for years... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Then, again, modify WP:VL accordingly and turn it into policy, if it is indeed that one-sided. I haven't applied the DS yet — that was the other article, where edit warring (in which you were involved) had to be stopped. El_C 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
To stop edit warring over this, we're going to go with the status quo ante for the duration of the discussion. That means that Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting is now in effect. El_C 20:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

See discussion and !vote, below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I assure you that @El C has followed and will see the discussion and the vote. As the uninvolved admin who imposed the DS mentioned above, El C must remain uninvolved. General Ization Talk 17:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Is nobody going to check these incredible digits?"

I'm sorry as much as I agree 8chan is a hotspot for the mass murderers, this is an internal meme/joke on 4chan/8chan about the id number on the post and has nothing to do with death toll. References: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1080239-4chan https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3i4k6f/can_someone_explain_all_these_4chan_terms_to_me/ --BerserkerBen (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to assume that, but that is your WP:OR. Our cited source acknowledges that possibility, but identifies another. Speculation by a cited, expert source ("Robert Evans has worked as a conflict journalist in Iraq and Ukraine and reported extensively on far-right extremist groups in the United States. He's particularly interested in the ways terrorist groups recruit, radicalize and communicate through the Internet.") has precedence over speculation by Wikipedia editors. General Ization Talk 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed that rather meaningless (or at least obscure) sentence, as well as some of the other comments attributed to anonymous 8Chan users. Robert Evans may or may not have some kind of expertise in the area, but that doesn't require us to report everything he says. And Bellingcat does not look like a reliable source; we require editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, but Bellingcat looks like it publishes the "findings of both professional and citizen journalist investigations" without such controls. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I still disagree with the removal, but accept it based on your concerns about Bellingcat, rather than based on another editor's assumptions about the intent of the comments which were in turn based on original research. General Ization Talk 16:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure fine its not my fault if journalist don't know enough abut chan culture and make conclusions of their own, their the journalist and its not my job to correct them, they should do that themselves.BerserkerBen (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wording Change Regarding "Deadliest Mass Shooting"

The article says it *was* the deadliest mass shooting in the US in 2019; we're only a little over halfway through the year, I think it's premature to say this is as bad as it's going to get. Can someone rephrase to say something like "to date" or "as of the shooting" or some otherwise appropriate language?

--SkittishSloth (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Walmart press releases

@Blumpf: Hi! I read this edit. Typically in plane crash articles I link the press releases by the airline company, which experienced the accident, as typically they are of interest to the public to a different level than a news article. In plane crash articles I link to the airline, the investigating authorities, and possibly the national press releases. Essentially primary source materials from the key players.

I linked to the Walmart press release for a similar reason, as they have the same role that an airline has (especially when the airline is not at fault). It is true that the tweet with the exact wording is linked from the article, but I feel the company response should also be a default external link for this kind of subject matter. While the link is there in the references section, it lacks prominence (it is one of many links), while in an EL section it's front and center. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: It's now the first reaction listed under "United States". And someone else tagged the tweet with "better source" so I replaced it with the walmart.com link.[14] Blumpf (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice! I'll add the tweet to the same citation as it is Walmart's official account WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Mugshot

Is the shooter's FBI mugshot in the public domain? See [15] it is in this news article. This reference is already present in the article, currently cited as <ref name=Mugshot/> starship.paint (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the FBI is a federal agency, I'd believe that the mugshot is in the public domain. Per this article: "All works made by federal agencies are automatically in the public domain, so if the mugshot was made by a federal agency like the FBI, it is certainly in the public domain." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The mugshot clearly appears to be a different person than Patrick Crusius:

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/article/2019/aug/05/did-media-change-identity-el-paso-shooter-nope/ 71.82.73.37 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Shooters Race Mentioned

So again the wiki editors cult made sure they identified the race of the shooter...but will remove any mention of race when it is NOT a White person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.62.50 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. The shooter's race is mentioned here, as it is relevant and widely-reported. If you have an issue with another article where it is also relevant and widely-reported but omitted, bring it up at that article's Talk page. This is not a forum for you to air your grievances about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors. General Ization Talk 16:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be said that the shooting was committed by a white supremacist, and it was directed specifically at Mexicans. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
That information is already in the article. "He told police he wanted to kill as many Mexicans as possible." He was sadly very successful at that. :-( As for calling him a white supremacist, we may ultimately wind up describing his motive as more anti-immigrant than racial. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Instead of giving it a name perhaps it would be better to just paraphrase or even quote his manifesto, regardless what you want to name the intential killing of hispanics because he fears they will vote democrat, his stated intent is more clear then any name. --BerserkerBen (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a white person is, because it is far from easy to define. The shooter may have had all sorts of wacky ideas about race, but short of carrying out a DNA test and looking at his ancestry, it is hard to say what a white person actually is.-♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Assault weapon"

Re this edit: Due to 1RR I can't revert this, but I really dislike "assault weapon". As I said in this edit summary, it is a yukky vague term. It doesn't even specify what the weapon is. It was pretty obviously a semi-automatic firearm, so we might as well call a spade a spade. This has nothing to do with political debates, I just hate vague terminology.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump in the lede?

Want to bring this up. No comment on the matter as of now, but worried about a potential issue with WP:UNDUE. We include that the gunman has a Twitter account that followed/liked pro-Trump and alt-right content in the lede. However, that account was inactive since 2017. The manifesto does mention Trump (as I've mentioned before), but doesn't show any support or criticism in either way. The sentence in question is "Crusius was reported to be a follower of alt-right and pro-Donald Trump content on social media." Thoughts on its inclusion? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's important. Also a bit misleading and an outrage magnet. Just in the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
When you say "that account was inactive since 2017", do you mean that it hasn't been used to issue tweets since then? If so, we cannot infer from that whether Crusius did or did not continue to use the account to read the alt-right and pro-Trump content issued by the accounts he was seen to have followed, perhaps long after 2017. It just means he didn't have anything much to say. General Ization Talk 02:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if he stopped tweeting or stopped liking tweets, but reliable sources indicate the account was inactive since 2017 (as read in the Bellingcat article, "His Twitter profile, left fallow since April 2017...") Even if he just read that sort of content, we have no way of knowing and maybe it best belongs in the body and not the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC); Edited 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use a phrasing different than "reported to be a follower", which (as commonly used) implies an affiliation beyond following a Twitterfeed. General Ization Talk 02:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, maybe different phrasing would be more accurate, but what I'm trying to discuss here is whether it's worth mentioning this defunct Twitter account in the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Changed the sentence in the lede to "Crusius was reported to own a social media account that followed alt-right and pro-Donald Trump content; the account was inactive since April 2017." for now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
He used it, Twitter owns it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's lede worthy. There's not enough connection (so he stopped posting in 2017, he didn't continue pro-Trump comments until the day of the shooting), his manifesto mentions but does not explicitly endorse Trump. starship.paint (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if he did endorse or like Trump, so did millions of people. Killing for or because of him would be noteworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove it from the lede for now. Maybe it makes more sense to build a consensus about inclusion first rather than leave it. I believe the information about his Twitter account should stay in the body though. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. I absolutely don't think we should mention in the lead that he is (or was) a Trump fan. That's almost a BLP violation - as if saying "Look, he did this because Trump inspired him!" - while that account has been dead for more than two years. We can keep the information in the article because it is sourced and there is room in the article for context. But it should be removed from the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The fact he supported Trump, as 62,979,879 voters did when he got elected president, has nothing to do with him shooting up the place. No reason to drag that in here for some bias political reason. Dream Focus 12:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the fact he supported Trump should be in the lede. It's entirely relevant to his actions as a number of sourced citations can prove. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

He himself said the opposite: he said something along the lines of "I suppose people will blame Trump, but I had these beliefs before Trump came along." It's easy to assume there's a connection between Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric and this guy's actions, but that's original research unless supported by sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Want to link the "number of sources citations" that prove this connection? Interested to note that this IP editor called for the removal of the Dayton shooter's political leanings (which is only in the body of that article) but wants Trump up front on this article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you calling me a hypocrite or somethng? What's your point? Obviously someone supporting Trump is going to be an encouragement to commit violent acts, and there are plenty of places that can be cited following Wiki guidelines. The other shooting shouldn't include irrelevant political viewpoints (aka being a Democrat) that have no bearing on why someone commits violence. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with MelanieN that the purported manifesto states explicitly that the shooter does not rely on Trump as a chief influence. While we can argue back and forth as to what the analysts in reliable sources say about the truth of that statement, I can't find a reference to the shooter's statement itself about Trump in the article. I would be comfortable with the statement being added, and then reliable source discussion appending it. RandomGnome (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_El_Paso_Walmart_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1251434269"