Jump to content

Talk:Congressional baseball shooting/Archive 2

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

Requested move 15 June 2017

It is pretty clear that this isn't going to reach consensus. This isn't unusual right after an event. I have started a discussion close to the bottom of the page, and I'm offering some ideas to help you all find a proper title (which may or may not be the current title.} Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2017 Congressional baseball shooting → 2017 Alexandria shooting – It has been precedent to name articles by using the location of the shooting. By moving the article to 2017 Alexandria shooting, the title would be shorter and easier to find, given the location of the shooting. Examples: 2015 Chattanooga shootings, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 02:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose As far as I know the shooting at a baseball game fact is rare so just having the location sounds too broad to me. (WP:PRECISION) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Partial Support Support. There were other people who were shot than just Congressmen, and "Congressional baseball shooting" just sounds... odd, as though they were shot with baseballs. "2017 Alexandria shooting" sounds like a good enough differentiator, unless there is another (god forbid) shooting, in which case we could use disambiguators such as "(Congressional)" or "(baseball field)". I also would not be opposed to a title such as "2017 Alexandria baseball field shooting". --Elonka 02:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The title (punctuation needs to be fixed) refers to Congressional Baseball Game, which is why they were there (as opposed to some Congressmen playing baseball or at a baseball game). —МандичкаYO 😜 05:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I would still support a move to a different title. I concur with comments below that a permanent title should adapt to reliable sources, but in the interim, I still think it would be worth switching to a different title. --Elonka 12:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current name indicates what the article is about and that is better. The name change, however, is too broad in regards to what the article is discussing. (101.160.26.254 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC))
  • Not now. The situation is brand new, things are in flux. Within a few days the media will settle on a name for this, and it may not be "Congressional baseball shooting", and we can then talk about a move. The proposed title is reasonable, but I don't think we should move it without guidance from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Per Knowledgekid87 and IP. This title is unambiguous. There are multiple places around the world known as Alexandria, 15 alone in the United States (see Alexandria_(disambiguation)#Places). I don't think people are associating it with Alexandria as as much as Congressional Baseball. I think a lot of people outside of the area don't know much about it — I actually had to delete edits done by someone who confused Alexandria with Arlington, Virginia with links to Arlington County Police Department. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: And there are five Orlandos and three Chattanoogas. I think the odds of another shooting happening in another Alexandria this year are unlikely and if it were to happen, we can always go back and rename this article as June 2017 Alexandria shooting. There are nine different Wacos in the United States, but we named the 2015 Waco shootout as such. There are more than fifteen Lafayettes, but we named the 2015 Lafayette shooting as such. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
And there is also a Paris, Texas and Moscow, Idaho but these are not WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think the Alexandria in Virginia is the only people think of first. But anyway, the reason I support naming it Congressional Baseball shooting is because that's the common name. It is so strongly tied to baseball, with it actually occurring on a baseball field and not say, in downtown Alexandria. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yup. I know Alexandria really only bc my brother lives nearby, but my impression from talking about this excessively the last day 36 hours is that most people in the world not familiar with the DC area don't know anything about Alexandria. People keep confusing it with Arlington too! —МандичкаYO 😜 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand the rationale for this proposal, and it's generally a solid one, but in this case, the explicit purpose of the attack was to assassinate Republican congresspeople. That it happened in Alexandria, Virginia, just across the Potomac from D.C. is very incidental and of no import really. We don't refer to the attempted assassination of George Wallace as the "1972 Laurel shooting," because the primacy of the event was completely around who was being shot rather than the precise suburban location within a sprawling metroplex. While that comparison is arguably a little hyperbolic (yesterday's shooting does not seem to have targeted one specific person), I think it's apt. I believe it's the word "baseball" that's throwing people, as it seems odd in this context. Renaming the article to "...Alexandria...", however, is not the right solution, in my opinion. If it had happened one mile to the east as a bird flies (about six miles by car), would we call it the "June 2017 Washington, D.C. shooting"? Moncrief (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, for consistency with 2011 Tucson shooting, also a targeted shooting of a congressperson. bd2412 T 15:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
"Tuscon shooting" means nothing to me. I consider myself decently educated and I know about Gifford's shooting, but Tuscon shooting does not ID the incident at all for me. I think that name should be changed, though apparently its been discussed and dismissed as a judge was shot as well ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
You'd have my vote. As a rationale for such a change, see, for example, Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento. If that article were named "1975 Sacramento shooting", I think most people would find that absurd, and I'm very surprised at the naming of the Giffords-related article. Moncrief (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
We are not discussing the renaming of the Tuscon shooting—which is an appropriate title for that article BTW. Also, as I understand it, other people were indiscriminately shot there, too. epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a discussion on the name change of this article, and discussing the names of like articles is relevant, no need to be chippy. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Moncrief and El cid, el campeador: The reason why "Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento" is titled so is because Gerald Ford was the prime target and when the target is the President of the United States, there is a different standard when naming articles. In this shooting, it appears that Steve Scalise was one of several targets of the shooter. The reason why "2011 Tuscon shooting" is named as such is because six people (who were not Gabby Giffords) were killed. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 16:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but Tuscon was not the prime target here, it was congressmen. At a baseball practice. The baseball practice and the congressmen were targeted. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The problem with this move would be that this isn't the best-known or largest Alexandria. If there haven't been any other notable shootings in this Alexandria, a better title would be Alexandria, Virginia shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with above observations. First, there are other Alexandrias in the world (including Egypt, which is better known). Second, the shooting was targeted specifically at Republican congresspeople, not just a random terrorist/crazy person conducting a mass shooting (as in the examples given by the OP). epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I would, however, change the title to capitalize "Baseball." It is a proper noun here. (Congressional Baseball Game) epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm assuming there's been at least more than one shooting in Alexandria (Virginia, Egypt, or what have you) in 2017. South Nashua (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It seems awkward to define the shooting by the activities that were occurring at the time, rather than by location. Other articles covering shootings and attacks are almost overwhelmingly titled based on their location. One "exception" comes to mind (I'm sure there are many others): Boston Marathon bombing. But, this "exception" contains the location. AND, it fully gives the name of an event, not merely an activity, that was the scene of the attack. I think that most or all other exceptions have plausible explanations like this. Even though I have argued for the de-capitalization of "baseball" in the title, I've always felt that "baseball" looks like a modifier for "shooting," which does not convey what we intend. The alternatives that retain "baseball" are extremely clunky: "2017 Congressional Baseball Game practice shooting," "2017 congressional baseball practice shooting," etc. (Also, whatever we do, we should probably also make "congressional" lowercase.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyT (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not now, per MelanieN. I did yesterday redirect "2017 Alexandria shooting" and "2017 Alexandria, Virginia shooting" to this page. The only way I would see it fit to call it Alexandria is if the user, like me, lives in Virginia. Otherwise the current title is fine for now. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I definitely think the current title is misleading. It sounds like a baseball had bullets fired through it, or someone used baseballs as projectiles to shoot someone with a large gun made for that purpose. Until I heard of this case, I didn't know there was such a thing as Congressional baseball, and I think most people in the world don't know of it either. Crimes are usually only named after the (intended) victim when there was only one (intended) victim - which doesn't appear to be the case here. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I still think it is too early for a definitive title and we should stay with this one until a Common Name becomes evident. But I'd like to point out that this is the name currently being used by some Reliable Sources: [1] [2] And BTW I'm glad to see that we are discussing potential moves rather than simply moving it; sometimes it's necessary with this kind of event to move-protect the page because people keep moving it to their preferred title. Kudos to all of us for being good Wikipedians and discussing it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: - re "I'm glad to see that we are discussing potential " - Knock on wood. Somebody's liable to start getting silly at some point and will take matters into their own hands. It will probably be me..... NickCT (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The state postal abbreviation for Virginia is VA, not VI, which I say not to embarrass you but to further illustrate your point: Americans often assume the world has all this institutional knowledge of US abbreviations, names of suburbs, and the like, when that's not the case. Alexandria does not resonate as "close-in Virginia suburb of DC" for most of the world. Something like "2017 Virginia congressional shooting" might be a good name. Moncrief (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider the point furthered. Looking at it now though, I should have known it was VA. I'm not American nor have I ever been to the states, but, I have seen many of the state abbreviations and VA is one that I've seen a bunch. No idea why though. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support for name change, but not now. What @Moncrief: says also makes sense. Eventually, the title should include the intended target(s) (Congressmen, Republicans, whatever)), but not the baseball thing. I doubt that ten years from now people will remember or care that baseball practice was going on at the time. They will, however, remember that congressional Republicans were the targets of the attack. What are the sources calling it? That's our cue. If Alexandria is considered too vague, "Washington D.C. suburb" might work for the non-Americans. Either way "congress"; "congressional", "baseball" all would fall under the basic rules of grammar and absolutely should not be capitalized. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose looks like a generic name to me and not a good name.--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 00:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Alexandria means nothing to me. Is this Alexandria in the US? In another country? What does that title do to give any information about the event? Also, see the post by bd2412. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Per all the reasons listed above for opposing.104.169.34.62 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the current name gives a better idea of what happened than the proposed alternative. The shooting was specifically targeted at a Congressional baseball game, not at Alexandria in general. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to have been targeted at the people who were there because of who they are, not because they were playing baseball at the time. Baseball shouldn't be in the title. The shooter doesn't appear to have had a baseball-related grievance. 2011 Tucson shooting doesn't have supermarket parking lot in its title; 2012 Aurora shooting doesn't have movie theater in its title. Jim Michael (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course it was "targeted at the people who were there". But nobody thinks they were being targeted specifically because they were playing baseball, and the "Congressional baseball" part of the name helps by making clear it was an attack on members of Congress; a city-based name does not do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
      • But the current title goes against our usual titles of crime articles, which include the location. If these same people had been shot in a restaurant, there's no chance that 2017 restaurant shooting would be its title. Jim Michael (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
        • True and irrelevant. It's the Congressional part of "Congressional baseball shooting" that is truly pertinent for readers. The "baseball" part is justified by its connection with the "Congressional" part. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
          • but it wasn't at a baseball game, congressional or what not. It was just practice for that game. Baseball does not belong in the title. 07:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.49.195 (talk)
            • Remember that the article's current title is "2017 Congressional baseball shooting", not "2017 Congressional baseball game shooting". Whether it was a game or practice is not an important matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Maybe "2017 Congressional shooting" later. (I am thinking "2017 Alexandria shooting" doesn't seem like it will become the common name either...) Shearonink (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a move to something, as the current title is awkward. It took place on a baseball field, yes, but at present it makes it look like the shooting in some way involved the sport of baseball. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
For clarification- do you support taking baseball out, or do you support the proposed titled of "2017 Alexandria shooting"? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 12:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is obviously related to the Congress, they weren't randomly shooting Alexandrians. I am tempted to ask if this is trolling or pointy. SNOW CLOSE μηδείς (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't support the current title or the proposed title. Baseball is nowhere near relevant enough to be in the title. It was during practice, not an actual game and none of the people involved were professional baseball players. Alexandria, Virginia needs to be in the title because we usually include the location and this isn't the largest or best-known Alexandria. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mostly in connection to μηδείς - this discussion does seem ready to be closed. 2017 Alexandria attack is clearly not the consensus title. A DIFFERENT RfC about whether baseball should be in the title should perhaps be started next, but discussing it here just confuses the issues. But, please close this someone with that authority ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Observer note I'm seeing a lot of comments/votes that simply do not comply with WP:TITLE, specifically the phrase "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Titles for articles are not based on the whim of individual or groups of editors, but rather, they are chosen because this is what the reliable sources are uniformly calling it. A good argument in a name change discussion will have links to reliable sources using this exact title. Arguments based on what we have named before, or "gut feeling" aren't grounded in policy and will get discounted at close. I say this as this discussion is heading in an obvious direction, but for future discussions, you really want to see what the sources are using and argue based on that, since that is what policy says we should do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And I don't have an opinion on it, just saying it always takes a few days for the media to pick a name and stick with it. Renaming is sometimes loud and rowdy with these types of articles, but fortunately everyone here is acting very civil about it. Soon enough, the title will likely be obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 16 June 2017 (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.

Strength of sourcing

Just a reminder to all: please, let's be careful about sourcing here. I caught this opinion blog post from the Daily Caller being cited here earlier. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable sources for statements of fact, the Daily Caller is not a reliable source in any case, the author of the post is apparently a college sophomore political activist at North Greenville University, and the citation is completely unnecessary because we already have good sources on this point, such as Reuters. Neutralitytalk 19:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ecarm's article is not an "opinion" piece; it is a list of firearm-misidentifications by the press. Otherwise, there is no policy that I am aware of proscribing use of Daily Caller as an RS. A bit of digging revealed this, in which the following comment is prescient:
"...We had an extensive discussion about this two months ago. Generally speaking, left-wing partisans want to treat left-wing sources such as HuffPo, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos and Media Matters as "reliable," and right-wing sources such as Newsmax, Newsbusters, World Net Daily and Daily Caller as "unreliable," while right-wing partisans want the reverse. I believe that the lot of them should be excluded in their entirety, with the sole exception of the limited purpose described by WhatamIdoing (HuffPo is a reliable source for the Wikipedia article Huffington Post, for example). Unfortunately, we weren't able to achieve consensus for anything...." --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The mainstream press is demonstrably no better these days, and arguably worse in the case of some (e.g., MSNBC on the left, and Fox on the right).--Froglich (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
No, Ecarm's blog post is a piece of media criticism, which is a type of opinion or commentary. The view of one user more than six years ago is not really meaningful and does not reflect current consensus. And yes, I would not cited Daily Kos or MoveOn, just as I would not cite the Daily Caller. And to equate "mainstream press" to something like WorldNetDaily (which propagates conspiracy theories, e.g., birtherism) is not reasonable. Neutralitytalk 23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The weapon

Early on witnesses called it an "assault rifle" (in the US that that term is loosely used for what is typically not an assault rifle but a semi-auto magazine fed weapon). Witnesses said they could hear the shooter exhausting magazines and reloading. Recently someone said it was an M1, which typically has an 8 round clip. There will be some reader interest in what the weapon actually was. Edison (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, Rand Paul did not see but heard the gun and said it sounded like an M1. Eye- and ear-witnesses describe based on closest point of reference to their personal experience then secondary sources drop qualifiers. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If we know which weapon it is we should write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed M1 from the article since we did not have a source. I think the suggestion may have stemmed from an offhand comment by Sen. Rand Paul, who did not see the incident but thought the gunfire "sounded" like an M-1. That's not a firm enough identification for the article. We'll know soon enough, and for now, "semi-automatic rifle" is what we do have from witnesses. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed 'ak-47' too, there was no citation I found beyond 'rifle' - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like they are saying its a SKS AK-47 and a 9mm pistol. [5]. PackMecEng (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see a single sourced claim that the firearm is other than an SKS. The large majority of SKS variants are legal in Canada and in every US state. They are not defined in the old assault rifle ban as assault rifles, and not included in Diane Feinstein's proposed new law as such either. Seeing as they are excluded under all commonly referenced legal definitions it is best to leave it out until we see if it had a grip under the action.Explainador (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Checking the source (CNN), the SKS (Simonov Model 1945) is a variant of the AK-47 (Kalashnikov Model 1947) and 9mm is a "size" of firearm. The news yesterday spent a lot of time yesterday demonizing the weapon as an M4 carbine "designed for mobility". When will we get a reliable source on this? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The source is wrong. An SKS is not an AK variant in any way. 16:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
SKS is in no way a variant of an AK-47, more often considered the poor man's deer rifle than 'assault rifle'. Was likely was modified to accept detachable magazines, however since china has been mentioned, it's worth noting there were a few productions that had detachable magazines, and a few that had a less common 20 round internal box magazine (compared to the usual 10 round internal box mag). 7.62 should be referred as 7.62×39mm to avoid confusion with 7.62×54mmR, 7.62×51mm, or any other .30 caliber round. All information considered, weapon used was likely an SKS, but needs verification. Information given cannot be used to actually identify the rifle. Could be an M1, which fires a 7.62 round (.30-06), could be an SVT-40 which uses the 7.62x54mmR, or yeah... most likely, an SKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.248.62 (talk • contribs)
To confirm, the SKS is absolutely not an AK47. They use the same size round, but the SKS is an old gun that was replaced by the AK. In every other respect, a completely different rifle. We just need to wait for a source, which will be coming since the police have the guns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Shooter used an SKS, which shoots the same cartridge as an AK (7.62×39mm), but is not an AK. I tried to add a reference citing the SKS (http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/media-shows-glaring-ignorance-on-guns-after-alexandria-shooting/), but some pajama boy keeps deleting it. Instead, the article only cites a reference to the imaginary "7.62-caliber rifle". Wikipedia lives in Orwell's 1984 hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IChuteBack (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"attempted to assassinate"?

Currently the article lede sentence says "James T. Hodgkinson of Illinois attempted to assassinate several Republican members of Congress and their staffers." It used to say "James T. Hodgkinson of Illinois opened fire on a group of Republican members of Congress and their staffers". Why was it changed to "attempted to assassinate" - a word which means deliberately targeting an individual for political reasons? Is there evidence or sources for the claim that he was deliberately targeting members of congress and their staffers? Yes, there is witness evidence that he ascertained that the people on the field were Republicans, so there is some WP:SYNTH implication that we could say he "attempted to assassinate" them. But IMO we should not use the word "assassinate" unless Reliable Sources are using it. Are they? --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you could get there with WP:OR. He was asking about who was on the field, by some reports. That said, I don't see it in any WP:RS and it should be removed until it is confirmed.Casprings (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
There was a lobbyist, too. They generally bribe both sides of the house. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
And his company is controversial in a few ways. Maybe James loved chickens or hated immigrants. Maybe he didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
What if he loved fried chicken as made by immigrants? Fried chicken is pretty tasty, especially at chicken joints that are not franchises (sans Los Pollos Hermanos). Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Then he might have supported President Brown of the National Chicken Council (and his strange bedfellows from the Virginia Poultry Federation), who once demanded Congress change its policies on how America lets immigrants make your breakfast, and may have harboured a grudge over the way that turned out. Though, admittedly, I have no idea how that turned out. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
That's it, I'm getting some chicken Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
"Attempted to assasinate", now honestly, what is that!? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? 63.224.191.9 (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Assassination "attempts" happen all the time. We have articles to that affect: List of assassination attempts; List of people who survived assassination attempts, etc. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone ever tried to kill someone by shooting them once in the hip or calf, though? Hard to call that trying, especially when the "assassin" has time and bullets left. Mika's the only one who appears to have been seriously targeted with multiple chest shots, and he's the only one not mentioned here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Anybody live in DC?

...and... need to get out of the house? It'd be super to have a picture of the actual park, or even better, of whatever chaos is going on there presently. TimothyJosephWood 21:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The 'image requested' tag has been added to the top of this talk page. Hopefully someone can upload one soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I added an image from VOA News, but I see it's been removed. FallingGravity 03:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Article title

Doing some rough searches on Google, here is what I find. Gnews hits isn't the best source, but it is one tool we can use for determining what sources are calling an event. The searches were not in quote, just simple Boolean. This is not an exhaustive search, it is merely the starting point. It isn't scientific, it is anecdotal. I'm not pushing any title, I'm just providing objective info as I don't expect to participate as an editor in this, instead I will be mopping up from the sidelines. Here are the searches and results, hatted so they don't flood the page. I may add a couple more as I go.

search results
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Steve Scalise event Alexandria = 568k hits
  • Steve Scalise event baseball = 2000k hits
  • Steve Scalise event congressional = 1800k hits
  • Steve Scalise shooting Alexandria = 756k hits
  • Steve Scalise shooting baseball = 2560k hits
  • Steve Scalise shooting congressional = 456k hits
  • Steve Scalise shooting republican = 419k hits
  • Steve Scalise congressional baseball shooting = 234k hits (note, this is a lot of words, so no shocker the hits are lower)
  • Steve Scalise congressional baseball attack = 212k hits (similar to above)
  • Steve Scalise attack republican = 336k hits
  • Steve Scalise attack Alexandria = 219k hits
  • Steve Scalise attack congressional = 709k hits
  • congressional baseball attack = 1090k hits
  • congressional baseball shooting = 677k hits
  • congressional baseball shooting alexandria = 299k hits
  • GOP baseball shooting = 1950k hits
  • Republican baseball shooting = 513k hits

It does seem that most of the sources are using Steve Scalise's name, which is understandable since he received the most damage and was the highest ranking Congressman, and was the most injured (other than the gunman). That doesn't dictate he should be in the title, I'm just making observations. I think before a new RFC is started, the community should first discuss, provide sources and try to hash out one or two options (assuming to include the current title) and then agree on the titles to include, and only THEN, start the RFC for the title. We've had a half dozen of these already, lets just do it once and do it right ;) As a last reminder, WP:TITLE says we should use the common name, the name that most sources are using, so ANY suggestion should be backed with some kind of source or proof that it is a common name. We don't choose what we like, we choose what is most readily identifiable according to the sources/media. My opinion is that we shouldn't start another name changing RFC until closer to next weekend, and use this week to discuss it first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

That list doesn't include Virginia, which we'll need in the title if it's to include Alexandria.Jim Michael (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I didn't use virginia because that would have artificially lowered the hits. Adding "Virginia" to the title, if it went that way, would be as a disambiguation issue, not a source issue. Others are free to do their own searches and see the hits, and KEEP IN MIND that gnews hits is only a single metric. I used it only to get the discussion started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. But a Boolean search doesn't tell us what people are actually CALLING this event. We need to be looking for the PHRASE (in quotes), not just for articles that include the words. We need to find out how sources are actually referring to this event. I took a look to find out who is using the likely phrases and how, focusing just on Reliable Sources. This turns up very different results from a Google search for the disconnected words.

  • I find that "Congressional baseball attack" [7] is used twice by CNN - once in an editorial and once in a news headline (it turns up as multiple hits but all were additions or modification to their general article What GOP lawmakers saw at congressional baseball attack). The SF Chronicle used the phrase, and several localTV stations used it. That's about it based on the first three pages of hits.
  • "Congressional baseball shooter"[8] is used by USA Today, CNN, ABC News, Huffington Post, Newsweek, Washington Post, Politico, CBS News… That's just in the first three pages of hits but you get the idea.
  • And as for Google hit counts for the phrases in quotes: 205,000 for "Congressional baseball shooter," 15,700 for "Congressional baseball attack". --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
There is currently no way of knowing what Google estimates actually mean. I get an allegedly approximate 170,000 for "congressional baseball shooter", but it only actually offers 112. That's not anywhere near close enough, it's 0.06%. Without knowing whether the other 169,888 are real or not, we can't trust these numbers, only phrases we see with our eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"Had Hodgkinson been convicted, he would have been unable to legally purchase firearms."

This line strongly implies a position; Please watch out for someone using it as a backdrop (it's borderline weasel words). AJR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

Shouldn’t Phil Montag’s comments be included in the last paragraph of this section as an example of the more radical reactiosn of some political players?

I believe his “This motherf***er – I’m glad he got shot. […] I wish he was f***ing dead.” rant made national headlines: it also had immediate consequences, with Nebraska Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kleeb removing him from his position as Co-Chair of the state party’s Technology Committee and the Stillwater Insurance Company terminating his employment with them.

Kleeb has also asked Nebraska Democratic Party Black Caucus Chair Chelsey Gentry-Tipton to step down from her volunteer position for her Facebook post on the issue (“Watching the congressman crying on live tv abt the trauma they experienced. Y is this so funny tho?”).

So inclusion of these incidents would, on the one hand, illustrate an extreme kind of reaction and, on the other hand, show that the Democrats, as a whole, neither endorse nor condone either the actions of the shooter or the reactions of those few who actually expressed glee over the shooting. Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

None of these people have Wikipedia articles or a connection to the event, and the consequences don't matter beyond a small portion of the Nebraskan political sphere. On the national level, all five of the state's Congresspeople and its Governor are Republican, so it's hard to imagine either side of this kerfuffle representing the Democrats as a whole. Every headline's a national (and global) headline on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23. Marchjuly (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

Please note that this article falls under discretionary sanctioins, via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Final_decision. Fortunately, everyone here as been exceptionally well behaved and worked together in a professional manner, so I doubt it will be a problem, but I did want everyone to know. I've added the header at the top of the page. This gives admin the ability unilaterally apply unique sanctions, like forcing a 1RR rule or topic banning editors without a formal discussion. At this time, I don't see any reason to put limits on the article, and I'm confident things will continue to progress smoothly here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

James Thomas?

What does including the shooter's middle name "Thomas" add to the article? I know it doesn't help a reader understand the article more. The middle initial "T" MAY be a bit more commonplace in the media, but not markedly so. His full name with "Thomas" only has 4,540 hits on google, compared to hundreds of thousands for the two other styles. So, accordingly I took "Thomas" out. This is not a biography or obituary for him, and a middle name or DOB is not necessary. Does anyone think the middle initial is helpful? I surely don't, as the victims don't have their middle initials included. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see some benefit to giving his full name once, to avoid confusion with anyone else who happens to be named James Hodgkinson. DOB should certainly be included; if known that is routine information for any person. --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have restored it to the "police identified the shooter as" sentence. Once is enough. That sentence also lists his age, 66, which is close enough to a DOB. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png relisted at FFD

The File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png is relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 7#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png. Please join in the re-discussion. --George Ho (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of the image is reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 26. --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't James T. Hodgkinson have his own WP article

Looking for a consensus from WP editors as to if Hodgkinson should have his own article. Cllgbksr (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

He already does, right here. He made this story happen. Since he didn't do anything else notable, there's nothing beyond this and things about this to note. See WP:1E. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
What InedibleHulk said. More broadly, mass shooters typically don't get their own articles. Adam Lanza doesn't have his own article, nor does Micah Xavier Johnson. Neutralitytalk 06:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

John Hinckley Jr. shot Ronald Reagan and James Brady... they both lived... both were GOP... Hinckley got a WP article... why can't Hodgkinson?Cllgbksr (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hinckley survived the attack and went on to be in the news many times over the years during his legal proceedings, hospitalization, and release. The shooter here died in the attack, so there will be no trial or other events to write about. See WP:1E. Neutralitytalk 06:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
He still stands a slim chance of becoming a notable posthumous artist. Hinckley's Devo poem reminded me of Rachel Scott, who released a well-selling book that had nothing to do with Columbine after she became famous for dying at Columbine. Realistically, though, his letters to the editor, while not exactly crap by paper standards, are essentially worthless in the Internet Age. Unless there's a remarkable sculpture in his basement or something, I think he's stuck here forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
a) No one is going to look his name up or want to know more about him; b) there is not enough notable information to include (his favorite soda was Pepsi?); and c) why do you want him to have an article? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 18:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you've pung the wrong guy, unless you're thinking of something I'm not. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, InedibleHulk, I never realized that the past participle of "ping" is "pung". I ping, I pang, I have pung? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea if that's the way it really is, but if it sounds right to you, you're welcome. If you feel like paying a small favour back, could you realize that "upgraded to serious" is a Scalise-specific transformation of the way it really is? You changed a "changed" a while ago, I changed it back. Not a big enough problem for its own section, just something to consider while we're already here. "Cooperation through pair-work", as they say in Pingu's English. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
User:InedibleHulk: There, I just pang you! But - me? I have been searching and I can't find myself doing that. At one point Daniel339 [9] changed from "downgraded" to "upgraded". And later I see you battling with Knowledgekid87 over "upgraded" (Reliable Sources unreliable in this case?) vs. "changed". But I don't remember taking a position one way or the other. Willing to be proven wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Right here. I don't know if I'd call the sources unreliable, news just sometimes uses slanted rhetoric. "Up" has a certain uplifting feel to it, especially when dealing with a upper-class fellow on the up-and-up. Using the proper phrase might suggest this upstanding citizen was knocked down, and then knocked down again, contrary to the rallying spirit of tubthumping. Wikipedia isn't about rooting; we must use facts from reliable sources, but we needn't copy their style. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And if somebody wants to look him up, James T. Hodgkinson redirects here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


...and yet Jared Lee Loughner has his own article. I found the differences between how Wikipedia handled the 2011 Tucson shooting compared to this article to be rather interesting.

This article has

"Reactions to the shooting among political activists were split. Some progressives decried U.S. gun control laws, while some conservatives blamed liberal anti-Trump rhetoric."

six sections down, while the Tucson shooting article has

"Following the shooting, American and international politicians expressed grief and condemnations. Gun control advocates pushed for increased restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition, specifically high-capacity ammunition magazines. Some commentators criticized the use of harsh political rhetoric in the United States, with a number blaming the political right wing for the shooting; in particular..."

in the lead.

Could it be that -- consciously of unconsciously -- we are giving different weight to very similar reactions based upon who is doing the reacting? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That probably is the case, honestly. Frankly: a) I don't think either shooter should get an article; and b) it's clear this was politically motivated, and it should be stated in a way everyone agrees with. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Loughner probably shouldn't have an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am getting really tired of people posting links to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without actually reading that page. It clearly says "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid" and what I wrote above was valid. When two nearly identical incidents are treated differently, it is fair to ask whether this is because one criminal was a republican and the other a democrat.
As others here have correctly pointed out, even if the two pages treat similar incidents differently, and even if we decide that they should not do that, this says nothing about which page to modify. It might be better to modify the 2011 Tucson shooting page to be more like this one than the other way around. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more fair to assume that the difference is time. We're a bit more reticent to give perps the attention/recognition now than we were six years ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The major reason Loughner has an article and Hodginson doesn't is that Hodkinson is dead. There won't be any more to his story; as was pointed out above, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. In contrast, Loughner lived to stand trial and thus had ongoing coverage over a period of years. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the major reason that the Tucson article references hateful GOP rhetoric and this article doesn't reference the violent left wing extremism and calls for violence towards the GOP and Trump supporters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism?

This article says FBI doesn't consider a politically motivated attack terrorism. [10] It's an interesting distinction. Without political leadership calling for violence, it's not terrorism. And this is directed towards leaders, not the general public. Certainly this is in the same category as 2011 Tucson shooting, an assassination-attempt. Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting also could be an assassination attempt. Anyway, it seems there should be a section including basic definitions, more than just a few words in the stat table. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

“At this point in the investigation, the FBI does not believe there is a nexus to terrorism,” the bureau said in a statement.
The FBI’s use of the word “terrorism” doesn’t align with the dictionary definition, which says terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” When the FBI calls something terrorism, it’s usually referring to a specific connection to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Because Hodgkinson was not acting in support of any such group ― the Islamic State militant group, for example ― the FBI doesn’t see his action as an act of terror.
If reliable sources do not characterize the event as terrorism, then that is what the article should follow. What a person thinks it could, world or should be called is not the point. ValarianB (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The Oklahoma City bombing article includes "Domestic terrorism" under "type of attack" (along with "Mass murder" and "Truck bombing"), and we frequently hear discussions of "lone wolf" terrorist attacks. The definition of terms like "terrorism" aren't that standardized, and the use of qualifications help clarify things.
BTW, that this was also an assassination attempt was clear even before the Daily Caller broke the news of Hodgkinson's "Assassination list" [11] of 6 Republican Congressmen, later confirmed by the FBI, contradicting reports from other more establishment (but less reliable here) media outlets. Assassinations can target a group of prominent people (in this case Republican Congressmen) and aren't necessarily committed only against one individual. It's absurd to call it merely a "mass shooting", by itself baselessly implying randomness, and resist adding the labels "terrorism" (in any variation) or "assassination" merely because liberal media outlets are avoiding those terms for petty ideological reasons. If the type of attack is unclear then perhaps we should also delete "mass shooting" for now, until the FBI has more to officially report. But since several (liberal) news/opinion sites are calling it a "mass shooting", I won't push the issue at this point. If more outlets and/or the government does label this some kind of terrorism and/or attempted assassination though, as they eventually should if they're honest, then the box description will definitely have to be updated. VictorD7 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


When reliable sources call it a terrorist attack that is what the WP should also call it. According to the detailed report from the Commonwealth’s Attorney, Bryan Porter, the shooter was “fueled by rage against Republican legislators, ” and “decided to commit an act of terrorism.” https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/commattorney/info/17-001%20-%20Simpson%20Field%20Shooting%20-%20FINAL%2010.06.17.pdf

The above is covered by numerous RS. Including here: http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/10/06/va-atty-report-calls-alexandria-baseball-shooting-act-of-terrorism/

BTW the difficulty in locating this article due to the weasel worded title is POV pushing, shameful and embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism is generally considered acts of indiscriminate violence against random innocents to create fear among the general population toward a political end. I don’t see how an act specifically aimed at government leaders fits. Assassinating attempts are not terrorism. I also don’t see any problem with the article title. It succinctly and uniquely states the subject of the article. I can’t even imagine what POV it’s pushing. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Depends on the definition of terrorism. Oxford dictionary defines it as "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." So with that the victims were civilians and there is little doubt it was political in nature, my personal OR on the shooting would be domestic terrorism. That said, I am not advocating for a title change. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Virginia Attorney General concluded it was “fueled by rage against Republican legislators, ” and “an act of terrorism.” RS encyclopedic material fact and yet it is still not included in the article. It must not be included because this guy doesn't know what terrorism means? Or because the elephant is in the room so let's focus on the BTW weasel worded title afterthought? I can't even imagine what kind of POV pushing it is for the state attorney general's investigation to conclude politically motivated terrorist attack and those words not appearing in the article anywhere.

I have all six feet of the OED at home.:) Like all words, terrorism has multiple meanings. We’ve generally been using the US definition in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f, which this incident does not fit. Some states have their own definitions, See Definitions of terrorism. O3000 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Reactions. Trump award

In the article, it is stated that two officers were injured. Then later, President Trump awarded medals to five of the injured officers. Masonmilan (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Move to Congressional baseball shooting

"2017" seems unnecessary now, Congressional baseball shooting should be quite sufficient.--Pharos (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to move to Congressional baseball shooting

There's only been one Congressional baseball shooting. It's not like it's a regularly scheduled event, and we don't put dates in titles just on the off chance that the same thing might happen again. (Cf. Boston Marathon bombing, not 2014 Boston Marathon bombing, among many other examples.) As such, the "2017" in this title seems inconsistent with WP:PRECISION.

I see that Pharos (talk · contribs) suggested this in 2018, but that no one responded. I'm tempted to just move this BOLDly, but hesitate because this title did survive two RMs in 2017 (albeit regarding a different alternate title, namely 2017 Alexandria shooting and 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting). So I'm raising the matter again to see whether this is something that I should start an RM over or if I can BOLDly do it on my own. If no one objects in a week, I'll go ahead and move it; otherwise I'll start an RM. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-insertion of poor and duplicative sources

I have removed a second, duplicative cite to the New York Post and Washington Examiner:

  1. These are unacceptably poor sources (the Examiner piece implies that the FBI was "hiding" something about the motive of the shooter, which is utter nonsense).
  2. These sources are not needed because we already have a decent source to support the content.
  3. These sources must not be re-inserted given the challenge. The burden to establish reliability, due-weight, etc. is on the proponent of new material, including a source, and cannot be strong-armed in without consensus. It's disruptive and sanctionable.

--Neutralitytalk 00:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The other editor is edit-warring over the insertion of a bare ref from a source which is not deprecated (the Washington Examiner), and has three (1, 2, 3) times reverted the insertion of an undeprecated bare ref. That other editor believes is above the general consensus with regard to undeprecated sources: that editor ascribes to self that it knows what sources are "good" and what are "not" despite community consensus. WP:OVERCITE reads: "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources". That's policy. Yet the editor prefers to promote link rot. The editor has continued this uncollegial approach despite being warned that policy recommends more than one source. That is the apex of arbitrary and tendentious editing. XavierItzm (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality has been given notice of the discretionary sanctions which apply.XavierItzm (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the edit-warred three-times deleted ref from the perfectly valid source Washington Examiner is FBI quietly admits 2017 GOP baseball shooting was domestic terrorism after all.[1] XavierItzm (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
(1) The fact that a source is not formally deprecated does not make it usable. You have been on Wikipedia long enough for that to be clear to you. (2) "WP:OVERCITE" is an essay, not policy. (3) And nothing is more "uncollegial" that continuing to re-insert content that has been challenged.
In any event, the bottom line is this: don't re-insert these cites to "bottom barrel" sources, on this article or others. Neutralitytalk 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-admits-gop-baseball-shooting-domestic-terrorism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congressional_baseball_shooting/Archive_2&oldid=1149962467"